Is the Berning ZH270 revalatory?

I have nothing negative - nothing at all, in fact - to say about the Berning amp, being as I haven't heard it. I'm just posting, as is my custom when circumstances dictate, to note for the record that our thread-head Mew has no other threads or responses on Audiogon's forum: this thread is his/her sole contribution. From the way it's written, and the fact that it pretends to ask a question but is obviously really a troll, I am forced to suspect that it's merely a shill - no matter how 'revalatory' the product may be (although the possibility is distinct that what's actually being pimped here is the dealer). It would be reassuring, and would reduce the risk of our conscious membership's taking offense at attempted manipulation, if the dealer and manufacturer in question would come onto this thread and expressly disavow being "Mew", or putting Mew up to posting this. I like to think the membership of this forum is too intelligent and aware for that kind of tactic not to backfire should there prove to be any direct but concealed involvement in this sort of hi-jinx on the part of any of the principles.

Patrick, as I said, my post is not intended to comment one way or the other on the Berning product. It's just that as a regular member of the discussion forum, I resent it when our Audiogon gets infiltrated with the kind of postings this one appears could be on its face.

So: When are you getting your Bernings? :-) Y'know, I happen to live within 20 minutes' drive of Mr. Berning's location...If I was any kind of audiophile at all, I'd probably go over and give them a listen - they certainly seem interesting enough - but I'm really not constituted that way (most of the time - never say never)...

84Audio: Thanks for your thoughtful words. I want to reiterate that was never, and am not, in any way skeptical about the quality or performance of the Berning amps. I have absolutely no reason to be, and plenty of Audiogon commentary from members whose judgements I respect indicates exactly the opposite. (And I would agree that the Berning company probably has no need of subterfuge to promote its wares.) What I was skeptical about was only the post itself, but I was ready to accept at face value any reassurances offered by those who might stand to benefit from this thread's influence, or from its author, who I would still glady hear from again.

Allanbhagan: Thanks for coming on this thread to respond. If you are stating that there is no intentional or directed shilling going on here - which is the question I invited your input about - then that's good enough for me. I was being 100% sincere in soliciting a denial of any undue involvement on the part of yourself or Mr. Berning, because I truly did not expect that there was any. Please consider that my way of affording you the opportunity to clear the air of any possible suspicions which may have been raised in readers' minds based solely on the post's *appearance*.

I disagree that there are "hundreds of threads like this" on Audiogon. This one may simply have been worded in such a way that it caused my eyebrows to rise, without any devious intent on the part of the original poster, and I recognized that possibility, but posts worded like this are actually quite rare here in my experience. It *reads* as if it might be disingenuous, and that combined with the fact that I had never seen this poster's username before is what prompted me check his forum history. Like I said, although it's relatively rare, this is not the first time I have noticed a post having this sort of tone being offered by someone with no previous forum contributions, and it's not the first time I've questioned one that does. The possibility of abuse in an anonymous web environment is not a fictional concern. If no wrong has been done, then please accept that no insult was intended. I have no agenda beyond the integrity of this forum.

Carry on with the Berning love-fest...

Mew: I am glad to read your response to my concerns, and to be assured that they were groundless. Just to be clear, I'm in complete agreement with Allanbhagan and 84audio that no forum protocol is broken by putting in a good word for a dealer if such applies, though you may often find that in particularly lauditory posts, members will state for the record that they have no affiliation with the manufacturers or dealers in question. You may also find that threads specifically promulgating the virtues of particular pieces of gear typically reside in the "Reviews" section and are framed as comprehensive statements of personal experience, rather than in the topical catagories, framed as 'leading' questions (at least as such distinctions apply to thread-starters, as opposed to responses). But as I've said, I was intrigued enough to post my cautionary remarks not due just to the wording of your thread (i.e., coming across as possibly being a 'troll') in isolation, but only in conjunction with your being a new forum contributor as well. On ocassion threads resembling this one have popped up appearing to promote a certain product, and then the new 'member' who originally posted is seemingly never heard from again. If I needn't have worried in your case, then I look foward to reading your future forum participation (and considering the weight of consensus in this thread, maybe even breaking down and going to have a listen to the Berning amplifier for myself...)

Tubegroover: I likewise respect your thoughts on this and other matters, and appreciate that you make the distinction between accusing without evidence, and raising a concerned question for clarification. IMO, an unbiased reading (meaning by those of us who don't own the company in question's products) of the original post (with its perhaps somewhat unintended tone of, This is the best thing I've ever heard! Could I be dreaming, or is this for real?), combined with the circumstances under which it was posted (by a contributor with no previous history), would almost have to lead one to wonder whether there *could be* an unstated agenda at work. In a couple of similar cases where I've posted more gingerly in the past, the thread-head never returned to respond, so now I just lay out my case in order that others may know what there is to be discovered - and maybe inferred - and draw their own conclusions. If the original poster does return and satisfactorily clarify, as is the case here, then there should be no further cause for suspicion. It's a bit like the idea behind campaign finance reform efforts: Even the mere *appearance* of simply the *possibility* for corruption to exist deriving from the undue influence of money - as opposed to hard evidence of *actual* corruption or a quid pro quo - can be equally harmful to the pursuit of a true democracy. But just as in that example, nothing can really be 'proven' one way or the other, so you have to take some things on faith and your good judgement, while remaining ever-vigilant.

[Just as a related aside on a personal note, I have now delayed for weeks posting a review of a product I fully intended to write an article about on this forum. A large part of the reason why is that I received a manufacturer's discount on the product - not to review the product positively per se (neither was it a formal 'accomodation price' - traditionally offered *after* a product has been positively reviewed - and of course I am not a formal 'pro' reviewer), but because I was making other purchases in conjunction with this one, and the product was so brand-new that I was the very first customer, in effect a beta-tester. But there *was* an understanding that I intended post a review, although that review - it was equally well-understood - could be positive, negative, or inconclusive: whatever I found to be the case. But now that I'm really down to it, and have a positive opinion of the product, I find I am too uncomfortable with the situation to post the review at all. Of course I could state in the review that I received XYZ discount, but that wouldn't really do anything to alleviate suspicion, and would probably create trouble for the manufacturer. As I see it at this point, all I can do is either withhold the review, or make up the difference to full retail price before posting. It is entirely possible that this dilemma of mine may make me extra-sensitive right now to any whiff of potentially unsavory boosterism that might cross my path.]

Allanbhagan: I regret it if I made you feel personally attacked; I myself don't think I did attack you, although it was my intent to encourage a response from you on this thread. I note for the record that Mew says he did not construe my words as an attack, and I accept that statement at face value, as I hope you would mine.

I must agree with Lmack's assessment of your claims regarding abridgement of freedom of speech and unconstitutionallity. Even so, I'll also take his advice and say I'm sorry if my words caused anyone hurt. While I believe a careful rereading of what I wrote won't reveal any 'accusations' or alleging of facts not in evidence, Tubegroover's point about first trying to get in touch directly with the original poster regarding my initial concerns is not without merit.

The way I see the situation now, the original post, while strongly resembling a particular sort of classic 'troll', probably appeared that way simply out of inexperience on the part of the thread-head. But my reaction to it makes clear that I am every bit as jaded and skeptical as Mew seems to be naive and well-intentioned. Is that a good or a bad thing for one to be on the web? I'm not sure I know, but I do know I'm not proud of having become that.

Noble110: I have actually never thought there were "many" shills around here, just a few possibles/probables (not talking about this thread now, for come-lately's - see above), but who knows, you may have a clearer assessment than I seem to.