Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Paul S wrote:

In the "thumbnail review" Marc actually says the ML3 has "greater drive" than the ML2.1, and that it has more/better "ability to propel the music's pace forward".  I don't know about the ML2.1, but was not aware that the ML2 needed "improving" on this score…

The Sound of ML2.0 did need improving in a number of areas. However, what is very important is to undusted that the “journalist” Marc Mickelson never managed to “mention” (or I believe understand it and it is VERY loaded statement) the ML2.0 shortcomings before he heard the ML3 (with 2 ways Wilson monitor :-). Also, Marc Mickelson never managed to “mention” that ML2.1 that he insistently recommended as a replacement of ML2 was a major step back and was faulty, almost fraudulently faulty, amplifier.  So, what happens now? Do you think Marc Mickelson has any thoughts or any real ideas what he is saying now? Not a chance! A manufacture made a product and Marc Mickelson immediately plugged himself into the process of glorification of the product and creation of incentives to make consumers to express interest about the product. It is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT for Mickelsons, Framers, Valins and rest of the reviewing whores what product is and what it does. Vladimir Lamm could put 20 pounds of bowl movement into metal chaises, show it to a review and say “fetch”. Upon seeing it any reviewer will spread adjectives about the “new product” and about the glory of the New Sound. It is what they do for living and IT IS WHAT THEIR IDENTITY IS. Have you seen any reviewer send a unit back to manufacture refusing cheerleading the product because the product was not worthy? I could tell publicly a lot of interesting stories how it works infernally but I think I have made my case.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site