I recently emailed John Atkinson of Stereophile

I mentioned to someone in another thread, that Sterephile is selling ad space. They have to come up with latest and greatest each month. Reviews are generally a waste of time from most of these people. They are no better than you at judging equipment. Personally, I find most of their reviews offensively stupid. They don't get cause and effect issues such as component matching, basic set up techniques. They know someone who knows someone, and that is how they got their job. I used to go to stores all over the country to help dealers set up systems correctly, and have helped manufacturers set up CES displays correctly. I spoke to John Atkinson about reviewing for them and he basically blew me off. How would someone with my experience and "golden ears" by reputation, and the ability to express the written word not be an excellent candidate. Take advice from the friends here on the Audiogon site, they have little agenda other than some egoic issues, loving what they bought. At least they aren't pandering to advertisers with the biggest budgets.
As to your question, you would have a hard time coming up with a better preamp than the cj at that price. While some are good, the Parasound won't be nearly as musical or dynamic. If you want to email me privately, I will give you free, unbiased advice based on thousands of listening sessions with most all the manufactured products worth owning.
Larry

Corona, you make a great philosophical point, sadly, advertisements do make a difference in customer buying habits. The smaller companies have to work much harder to get the attention of the buyers (and reviewers) as the larger companies, which have enormous ad budgets. If we think that the reviewers, for all of their protestations, are not pandering to the larger ad dollars, we are being naive. If only it were as simple, or easy as spending the lion share of the earned profits on r&d we would all have better products in our homes. Good point!!!

Wolves, please pull back from Corona's throat. I don't think he meant that statement, in a completely. 'all or nothing' manner. His basic point as I interpret is that, while advertising is important, and marketing is at that core; please do R&D which justifies your marketing claims.
To say that the magazines are not influenced by advertisers is naive. That comes from having an inside the industry perspective. It is just that they (the mags) claim absolute autonomy and that their advertising has no bearing on who gets reviewed and who doesn't. Of course what do we expect them to say. "Hey these guys pay the bills, here is yet another review on their latest greatest." Advertising takes many shapes but has a common thread. "Coke is it" How simple, but look at what that did for Coca Cola (one of many hiundreds of catch phrases, and promos). Of course thay had the funds to repeat it 50 gazillion times, one key to this kind of advertising. The reason perhaps is that they are selling future urine, and a completely disposable piece of goods. But it is, as is most advertising, about imagery. I think giving Corona the benefit of the doubt is fair. Sometimes when the (industry) insiders let the respondants know their real names, everything they say is misconstrued as being self promotional. Albert Von Schweikert responded and was quickly lampooned by a couple of people who seem to thrive on controversy. I for one think as most good business thinkers do, that the delicate balance of Marketing and R&D are the real formula for busines success. Corona was only making this basic point. Of course this is IMHO.
Thanks, and good listening.
Larry R. Staples