Originally Posted by roker
I don't think you TRULY get it
everyone here feels deceived and misled by Stanley aka ********* Beresford and no amount of auditioning or first hand accounts are going to change that!
that being said, I actually listened to it and thought it was a nice DAC (not mind blowing, but nice), but I'd rather donate my money to a "company" or "person" who's more honest with the product he/she or they sells.
Roker, I think TLY does get it. He/she's simply making a distinction that some of us fail to make. That is, the TC75XX and Beresford are actually not
one and the same. One is a DAC/amp, and the other is a person. They are not only different, but they are also not equal. Beresford, the man, may be guilty of unfair business practices, but the DAC is, to belabor the obvious, not human and incapable of deception. In short, the DAC is what it is, irrespective of the man.
We can and should judge the DAC separately from the man, on its own merits. This is TLY's point. I think you'd agree, too, that this is fair.
I have a TC7510, too, which I proudly display in my signature. Apart from the fact that I bought it from Beresford, it's a terrific little DAC that has never disappointed me for the uses I put it to. I had no idea of the man's unethical behavior on Head-fi, and I applaud the moderators for the work they're doing to deal with this and similar transgressions.
But the DAC isn't less a performer because of one of its retailers.
Logically, this is guilt by association. The danger is that we condemn the innocent simply because they happen to be associated in some way with the guilty. This would be tantamount to destroying the criminal's $100 million yacht in the belief that it, too, is bad because it belongs to him. Or to condemn the criminal's 5-year-old daughter and her golden retriever because they're from his family.
My apologies if I'm beating this one to death. I'm sure you get the point.