In Reply to: That was Salvatore's point, about the Recommended Components.(nt) posted by DAP on May 8, 2015 at 10:06:40:
All Arthur Salvatore revealed in his criticism of Stereophile's "Recommended
Components" is that he doesn't understand statistics. He assumes that the
products chosen for review followed a Gaussian distribution (bell curve)
centered on a mean level of performance.
As I have repeatedly explained in both the magazine and on this forum,
this is not correct: our selection process strongly favors better-sounding
components, much like New York City's rating of restaurant public health
safety is dominated by A-rated establishments. (See the graph in the linked
story below.)
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: That was Salvatore's point, about the Recommended Components.(nt) - John Atkinson 08:06:31 05/10/15 (9)
- Here's the Reality (Let the Readers Decide) - Arthur Salvatore 09:34:21 05/10/15 (8)
- the odds of 60 consecutive components being "excellent" - DAP 23:05:52 05/10/15 (7)
- RE: the odds of 60 consecutive components being "excellent" - John Atkinson 13:21:56 05/11/15 (0)
- RE: the odds of 60 consecutive components being "excellent" - Arthur Salvatore 11:42:58 05/11/15 (1)
- As DAP wrote, the RCL should be considered a "loose ranking" - Beetlemania 14:29:48 05/11/15 (0)
- "The Stereophile Recommended Component List is a Total Fraud."??? - soulfood 09:05:26 05/11/15 (3)
- Just so - DAP 16:17:08 05/11/15 (2)
- Outlining... - soulfood 04:27:04 05/12/15 (1)
- Not sure what your point is, but - DAP 17:37:21 05/12/15 (0)