 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
205.188.116.66
Deleting components because they haven't been reviewed in a long time.I notice, while some components get a "quicky" second review that keeps them on the list, others just disappear. This seems arbitrary and fishy.
It strikes me that only "better" components should be able to replace existing components, not just newer ones.
One case in point (there are many others). The former "Class A" Marantz SA-8260, which has been dropped from the April 2006 recommended list.
In the October 2005 "Class A" list,the Marantz costs $1099, the lowest priced player in a group, that ranges up to $14,995 for the Burmester.
Now I have no idea what the Marantz sounds like. But to remove what appears to be real bargain player, just because it hasn't been auditioned in 2 years, SUCKS.
Follow Ups:
No industrial process is stable over a period of years.You could buy a bunch of transistors, capacitors, resistors, etc. and build your beloved whiz-bang product. It might capture the souls of audiophiles and become a classic.
When you go back into the market for more of the same parts to build the next batch, you find that the transistor company has been sold a couple of times and has all new engineering staff in the factory, the capacitor company is just out of business, and the resistor company has taken up a ferromagnetic end-cap supplier. The new whiz-bang no longer has the same soul-stirring magic, even though you did the best you could to match the original components, and it still meets all the original specs.
IMO, Stereophile is being generous in their policy.
I doubt if anyone is foolish enough to pay any attention to them.
I own is on there anymore
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
I couldn't be happier. I just got my first issue with 500 recommended components. I own ZERO! I love every piece of my system. For the money, the sound is as gorgeous as it comes. I regret nothing.And I love Stereophile. Great pictures and stories. The reviews generally keep me in stiches. Too bad Evelyn Waugh wasn't alive to write a book about high ens audio. It's a great magazine, right up there with the Sporting News (Do they still print that one?) and The Economist.
Great job to JA. Bravo Zulu.
Jonathan Valin set his murder mystery "The Music Lovers" in teh realm of high-end fanatics.JM
Thanks.
As if the reviewers assessments expire after 5 years. If JA can't make room in the print version, he should post on online version of a more complete RC.
The goal of an advertising supported magazine is to make manufacturers comfortable that any advertising purchased (or advertising considered for future issues) will be effective and will rarely be contradicted by negative (or even average) reviews.The Recommended Components list is already beyond a ridiculous size, relative to the number of reviews in one year, at 500 items.
A method to prune the list that minimizes the potential negative effect on advertising sales is a smart business decision.
The purpose of Stereophile, and most other advertising-supported magazines, is to sell the products advertised and make money for the owners.
A secondary purpose is to provide a forum for audio writers to blather on and on about how much they love reviewing new components and being viewed as audio "experts".
Apparently getting a new component to review makes these writers so happy that they rarely say anything negative about them -- are any new components described as below average, or even average, in these Happy-Face Reviews?
When Julian Hirsch at Stereo Review wrote his Happy-Face Reviews, the high-end audiophiles who preferred reading Stereophile and Absolute Sound dismissed him as a fool.
Yet they accept similar Happy Face Reviews, and 500 Recommended Components, in their high-end magazines without much complaint.
I guess you don't admit of the possiblity that standards, and equipment, will evolve over time. That is, a recommended "Class A" component from 5 years ago would not measure up to a recommended "Class A" component today. I don't see any conspiracy; I just see that as a legit reason to take something off the list after a while. And I also think it's legit to take something off the list that is no longer available as a new product.I think that's the point, and I think most people agree, at least when it comes to digital, we're still on the steep part of the learning curve. With respect to amplfication, I think the case for "progress" is harder to make, at least without expanding the time window to 10 years. The case for progess in loudspeakers probably can be made, but it's less clear.
One of the useful things about Stereophile's recent practice of occasionally reviewing a vintage "classic" from, say, the 1960s or 1970s is to see how things have evolved. IIRC those oldies but goodies have a pleasant sound but do not compare with with the more modern stuff.
I do think it would be useful -- and not giving away much -- to post RC lists on the web, beginning 5 years ago and working back. That might help purchasers of used equipment . . . and maybe there could be a link to the review, either available for free of for a modest purchase fee.
I quite agree if something is listed as class A or class B in the stereophile list. The "expiration date" is more problematic for budget components. It's not surprising that most budget components don't last, since they are not part of reviewers reference systems. Since budget components on't get sent around again for review (and I would guess it would be pretty hard to get a reviewer to re-review a budget component that had not changed) such products will necesarily get dropped.
Perhaps an additional section containing budget components of merit?
I dunno, John. I think Stereophile is a little "thin" on the budget components reviews. They seem to come in bursts. While the conceit was sometimes off-putting, HP's "upstairs, downstairs, the landing" groupings of components did have the effect of having the magazine review things in different price ranges all of the time.AFAIC, some of the best "budget" components are used components, which generally sell at around 50% of the new price. or less. Think about it: pretty routinely, you'll find a pair of B&W Matrix 801s for about $2k on audiogon. Assuming you have room for them and can deal with their somewhat chunky visual appearance, I think you'd have a tough time equalling that sound quality, overall, in a new speaker at the same price.
I was thinking back to my earlier days gedtting into audiophiledom. My first decent (really quie fine) pre-amp was a Sonata 10-MC (price about $500 in the early nineties), which has a quite good phono stage. It got good reviews in Stereophile, and lasted or the minimum stretch, and then was dropped. I think it was sold for several years after it ws "delisted" Now days, I have no problem buying used or cosmetically imperfect (which describes my speakers), but when I first got into audiphile stuff, I would never have gone for used. The fact that Stereophile is a bit weak on reviewing budget components is fine, just let people have a sense of the less expensive stuff out there, and encourage some companies to see budget audiophile as a lucrative niche,
If something was "recommended" 6 or 7 years, I don't believe that standards of excellence have migrated enough to warrant banishment. Except, perhaps, as you point out, for digital.Why not just post the whole shebang on their website? That would be interesting and instructive for a variety of reasons.
I have always found that to be very strange also since they almost never do side-by-side comparisons so that they always go on memory at any rate. What they seem to be saying is that their memory is good enough to keep a component on the list for as long as they want it there, but not good enough to keep it there indefinitely. Maybe they fear that the nasty manufacturers start watering down the product as soon as people are not looking!What floors me is that the list is presented as being a comparative rating of components when the tests are conducted by different individuals, in different rooms, with different associated components using different recordings and it seems that they don't really meet to thrash all these things out.
So, bottom line, the list provides some useful information, but anybody who selects components solely based on it is mistaken.
I have always felt that reading any kind of component review influenced the reader no matter what.
The Audio Research PH 5 was well liked by Stereophile and killed by an online reviewer. You read one and think all is fine, you read the other and run in the other direction. Subjective reviews are funny that way…
"What they seem to be saying is that their memory is good enough to keep a component on the list for as long as they want it there, but not good enough to keep it there indefinitely."Wrong. Components are kept on the list only while they are being actively used, if intermittantly, by a reviewer. That is, the assessment remains current and does not rely on memory. When enough time passes after any use and memory becomes the issue, the component is 'aged' off the list.
Kal
You mean that every component reviewed and recommended is retained by the reviewer as a reference? Don't you guys ever send anything back (except the duds)?:-)
Nope. That's why components 'age' off the list. Of course, some of us renew our assessments by listening to other folks' systems.Kal
"but anybody who selects components solely based on it is mistaken."Has John or anyone at Stereophile ever suggested anyone should do this? I think not. It's a reference. Take what is of value to you and leave the rest.
"but anybody who selects components solely based on it is mistaken.""Has John or anyone at Stereophile ever suggested anyone should do this? I think not. It's a reference. Take what is of value to you and leave the rest."
The reality is that Stereophile has a lot of clout in this matter because many have bought based on recommended components and reviews. Those of us here at AA who opine and click do as well. Case in point: How many times have you read someone on these very pages asking which amplifier they should drop 10 Gs on? Ah, to be able to decide wheter or not to biamp with DartZeels.
Did I ever suggest anybody at Stereophile said that? Do you suggest that the list is not considered by many as a reference and that it does not weigh heavily on a person's choice?Maybe I was trying to be too polite by saying "solely"? Maybe I should have left that word out?
"Do you suggest that the list is not considered by many as a reference and that it does not weigh heavily on a person's choice?"I don't know and, I suspect, neither do you.
Looked at the April 2005 issue and there is a type of disclaimer at the beginning of the explanation of the rankings. So, right up front, there is an admission that the list is not a very useful tool in choosing components. So, in effect, what we are left with is a synopsis of a bunch of reviews by various people, in various rooms, using various other components and listening to various recordings with what cannot in any way ever be considered a comparative ranking. Great! No wonder they have a disclaimer!
If they kept the old stuff and wedged in the new gear, the recommended components section would be the size of a metropolitan phone book!And if it's that important to have info on the old gear, why not just keep your older recommended component issues for reference?
It's mostly a bogus rating system anyway, IMHO. I've owned some so called Stereopile "Class A" rated gear only to be very disappointed that some other less costly unrated gear was much better. I've had this "experience" at least a half dozen times. Some examples would be expensive new tuners compared to inexpensive new tuners, integrated amps, so called Class A rated preamps, etc. Go figure.
.
I looked at your pictures and oh my god you have all of my favorites. Does your wife ever freak out on you? Women hate audio. I hate to stereotype but that's been my experience. A nice collection. That's a lot of snow too, what state are you in? If you're near me I want to come over!
No, I'm just talking about a component that is still a current production model and is dropped and not even gear that would have been reassessed and found wanting and dropped. Nothing has changed, just dropped by mere passage of time.
It would be interesting to know which Class A Stereophile products were inferior to cheaper equipment. I am not doubting Mr. Collins'
experience, but I hope he agrees with what is implied by some of the other postings: that audio reviewing is hardly an exact science and that John Atkinson et.al. repeatedly stress that the listings are an introductory guide, and a stimulus to go out and listen for yourself.(Actually I do wonder why some components stay on the list longer than others, e.g. the CAT ultimate preamplifier. Ain't complaining--I owned the CAT for several happy years, only replacing it with the CJ Act II for the sake of the remote control.)
> I do wonder why some components stay on the list longer than others,
> e.g. the CAT ultimate preamplifier.
The CAT stays on the list because it is Robert Deutsch's long-term
reference (he owns a sample), thus can stay familiar with its
sound quality.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Ah hah! So that explains why the CAT preamp stays on the recommended list. And thanks to John Atkinson for his, as always, useful information. Amazing with his schedule how he finds time to respond to postings on the Asylum, some of them fairly outrageous, and always with good sense and good humor.
So there is nothing collegial about the list, it's merely a bunch of pages on which you list whatever floats the boat of any individual writer.
or is it unobtainium? my bargain sony ns500v became that metal quickly which in no way reduces its value to me. it got a nice short review in tas (THANKYEW tas!) but no rating as such in ANY list. i dont really have the need to see my components on lists although they sometimes make it.it was out of production in short order, too bad for consumers. many times items drop of lists because they are no longer available or the model has changed.
...regards...tr
.
.
By bringing into play allusions of fishyness (sic?) it seems to me that you considerably weaken your case.It seem the art of the effective complaint has been lost.
Too bad, an effective solicitation for a revisit of attention for what appears to be a true bargain (Class A does mean something after all) might have had a happy outcome ... who knows?
Does it really matter which thing they give a class a or b rating? Chances are you don;t have the same system they have -- so the fact that they like a given amp in their system as a class A rating may be wonderful but put it in mine and it could sound like a horrendous donkey ball sucking mind numbing piece of abysmal crap. Conversely their class C rated item or something that they have not put in their recommended componant listing could be truly amazing.The magazines should be read for a passing amusement but remember that Class A does not really mean anything -- if it's about SUPREME Accuracy then all the speakers in their Class A rated zone would all be COMPLETELY indistinguishable to the human ear. Some of their class A stuff sounds almost nothing alike -- and so what exactly constitues class A? The answer -- Preference. The Maker eitehr Sucks up enough to them or looks great or measures ok or it simply is what they like to listen to more.
Hell they don't even agree amongst themselves. I came to this conclusion not long ago -- and it has actually helped me enjoy the magazines, especially Stereophile, a little more than I used to - pretty much the same way I like to read my horoscope!
letter grades for any products are for the benefit of advertisers/manufacturers and their dealer networks. i would guess that most class A products on the list are now owned by someone on the staff who received fairly recent accommodation. Older products which may indeed be better, fall of the list because 'accommodation' happened a while back, and no longer counts for much. As has been stated by many, Stereophile is entertaining. like any magazine which 'promotes' a leisure-time hobby, its purpose isn't to tell you that you're paying too much or that you should be prepared to hear very little difference. exageration is commonly used in anything 'opinion' based whose lifeblood is the industry of selling new things.....golf/guns/cars/trucks/bicycles,etc.....anyone who really believes (because sf says so)that a dartzeel amp(sorry...just an example) is somehow vastly superior to other products that have 'disappeared from' the list or that were 'never there to begin with' is pissing money away upgrading.
i really meant no offense to you or your review, or question your honesty in reviewing a product. the 'system' for submitting products(which may include having a ham sandwich with a manufacturer)is a given.....am i stupid and lazy?...yep.....we are however in an industry where the consumer's average age is 'in a heated race' with 'buick' to get to 'sunny acres' first. i'm sure you love your dartzeel, but the class A ratings in SF became more about 'marketing juice' for manufacturers than a list of products that define timeless value a long time ago. 'afganistandartzeelbananastan'
I am not really knowledgeable on Stereophile and how they choose between what is class a and b because some of the stuff in there is pretty darn horrible to these ears -- but that's another issue.I read a review in one of the Brit rags that had one of those "amplifier super test shootout" things and they had several similarly priced integrateds from Roksan, Arcam, Sugden, Creek etc. Anyway they choose the Roksan Kandy as the super test winner noting the high power and ability to drive more speakers, a superior remote control etc -- Winner 5 stars = Roksan.
Interestingly though they gave the Sugden 4 stars and harped on no remote, pedestrian looks, the fact that it runs hot, low power blah blah blah...but also said that it sounded better than all the other amps in the test. (which is funny since the amp has been selling since 68 and this version from 1989 - so on sound the brand new competitors all get smoked -- but sure you get some features)
At first that really really irritated me because it seemed that wait a minute isn't this about SOUND quality - if you want features get a receiver! Indeed, another Brit magazine reviewed my Audio Note OTO and also docked it a star for it's lack of power. Basically blaming the amplifiers for incompetant speaker designers who SHOULD BE and are not making easy to drive speakers. (that too is another matter).
I think I understand the ratings -- it's not an attack on the amplifiers but the reality of the industry -- The Magazine can't give these kinds of amps the top marks because customers will buy them and be seriously dissapointed when trying to drive this week's Paradigm and B&W loudspeaker.
I also believe this is true with speakers -- I have heard the Audio Note AN E and it sounds quite a lot less good when driven with SS amps like MF or Bryston -- and is better suited to their own amps. Some of the Brits mags seem to rate based on flexibility and ability to be at home with the largest number of set-ups over sound quality -- and so long as readers know this (which I doubt) then I have no problem with the Roksan rating.
Stereophile gave my Arcam Delta 290 a class B rating -- the Sugden was vastly superior in every regard sound wise not even in the same ballpark. But I can;t complain about the Arcam rating since it was a good budget amp that doesn't irritate. I guess I just wished Sugden had a bigger voice in the US because these smaller makes get bypassed -- and when Stereophile finally listens to one -- well they kinda recommended a bunch of far inferior amps for 12 years in its place. Not their fault you can't review everything but I just wish darn it all they'd LISTEN TO ME LOL
I've read a few issues and I like Art and John and a few others. I think I was way too hard on that magazine over the years. They're kinda damned no matter what they do.
Kali Hart Vineyard 2003.But it was, as Wellington said, a near-run thing.
You wrote:
"I guess I just wished Sugden had a bigger voice in the US because these smaller makes get bypassed -- and when Stereophile finally listens to one... ."
Wrong-ola.
Some years back (use the search function on Stereophile's website), I wrote a very enthusiastic endorsement of Sugden's A21a integrated in my Stereophile column "The Fifth Element." In due course, with allowance for its limited power and hot operation, it was given a Recommended Components ranking, I forget which, but it was certainly a good one.
My reward for this pioneering work was a manufacturer's comment lamenting that it had been John Marks rather than Sam Tellig who did the writeup. That's OK. I think you are special, too.
His Samness then condescended to write up other Sugden products, and the cheering mobs laid palm fronds in his path.
Most recently, Sam wrote up in well-nigh-apocalyptic terms the immanence and transcendence and the near-eschaton-triggering many-splendoured virtues of Sugden's "SE" integrated.
Sugden?
Team JA is all over it, like white on rice.
Game over, thanks for playing, try again?
JM
Yes I noted the review of the Sugden A21a but it was not a full review that the magazine normally does and it came rather late -- I believe you guys reviewed the A21a in what 2003 or 2004? This is the exact same amp that came out in 1989.I know whoever reviewed it You?? liked it but I guess my point was that this is now a 17 year old amplifier.
This example also proves that new is most certainly not better - and it makes one wonder about SS technological advancements.
I'm not being critical -- I commend you for going out on forums and trying to hear what people were raving about -- like I said you can't hear EVERYTHING and like I say you're damned no matter what you do.
the oto is a classic piece.....
You guess wrong. And using the word 'guess' to attempt to let yourself off the hook in advance for defaming people is in my opinion weaseling.The issue of professional-courtesy sales has been done to death. If you don't like the prevailing standards, find another hobby. When a reviewer, or, as happens all the time, a full-time industry employee, buys a unit from the manufacturer, as a general rule he pays the same price as the manufacturer would receive from one of his dealers. It is revenue-neutral from the manufacturer's standpoint. A sale is a sale. As the dealer and the rep did no work on the sale, they don't see any revenue. What is the possible problem with that?
There is no linkage between professional-courtesy sales and editorial content, period. I think that it is a valuable indicator of something to the readers when a writer buys this unit rather than that unit. JA bought the Benchmark; had I been in the market, I would have bought the Grace. He heard the Grace and could have bought it and did not. Chalk one up for the Benchmark, for whatever one educated, experienced musician/engineer/record producer's opinion is worth... . He and I cordially agree to disagree, and I think anyone shopping in that category should hear both.
Also, you assert that magazine(s) have said things that they simply have not. I was the first US major audio-magazine writer to comment upon the darTZeel amp. I certainly don't recall ever writing that it was "vastly superior" to anything else. I commended its sweetness and transparency, and noted that it would not be suited for all speakers. HiFi+ just gave that amp an award. They came down just about exactly where I did.
Nobody I know of has ever said that it is vastly superior, there are many fine amps out there. But if you had to confine your criticisms to what careful, conscientious, honest writers actually write, instead of discussing the projections of your contentious imagination, you wouldn't have much to talk about.
About the SA-8260. I have no reason to argue with JA's decision, but my reasons for not arguing are different than his stated grounds (if the quotations here are accurate, I have not looked at the RCL that closely). First of all, I regret that I was not explicit about something that I thought was implicit and in any case should have gone without saying, but I was wrong: my opinion of the SA-8260 as far as Class A sound goes went to its SACD performance; put in a good SACD, and I think that the SA-8260 gets over the threshold into Class A. I thhink that its POCD performance is Class B. I think that the Marantz SA-14 handily beats the SA-8260 on POCD. I think I recall writing that. And, for a lot more money the Esoteric separates handily beat the SA-14 on POCD. I think I recall writing that too.
The other reason I don't mind seeing the sun set on that RCL entry, and this is TOTALLY MY OWN FEELING AND I SPEAK ONLY FOR MYSELF HERE, is that not only have I seen innumerable postings about SA-8260 reliability problems, a friend of mine who bought two on my say-so had both units fail. That's a bit embarrassing! I do not know whether there is a formal policy on what to do about anecdotal reports of field failures, but in this case, I think that common sense has prevailed, intentionally or not.
If there is a unit out there that has had more bulletin-board chatter about field failures, I'd like it pointed out to me! For example, if there had ever been a field failure of a Benchmark DAC, I am sure that I would have heard about it. The only field failure of a darTZeel I have heard about was 100% pure owner abuse, doing something he had been told not to. So, as nice as the SA-8260 has been for owners who have not experienced trouble, and I think it is a great piece at the price--after all, I told a friend to buy two--after her experience, I am not upset to see it off the list.
For the record, whenever consumers have emailed me about the Class A listing for the SA-8260, I have replied that it was based on its SACD performance. In response to one such email, a reader asked that if that ever were to be the case for another unit, the RCL blurb should say so. I cc'ed JA on the exchange, and he replied that it was a good point and that we shall strive to be guided accordingly.
John Marks
I enjoyed that response, mostly I admit because the (one time) presence of a CD/SACD player priced at just over 1k in the Class A section intrigued me.As to providing another followup to the cheap innuendo from jdouglas51, please don't bother, no need to be explicit, we've all seem the prototypical response time and time again. I for one only regret the presense of naked crudity that creates the need for such responses in the first place.
Hi-The SA-8260 was a tough call but I am at peace with the call I made back then. It seemed to me to be a true cut above the least-expensive universal or SACD/CD players. Perhaps I was swayed by its construction quality or family resemblence to cost-less of an-object players in the same line, but, on SACD it seemed to get a toehold on what I call Class A sound, which in my book is, "how much better does it, or can it, get?"
I had some people here yesterday afternoon from the neural psych and acoustical/neurological sciences programs at Brown, including a NUSC alumna who had had a security clearance for the largest anechoic chamber on this continent, and, it was __fascinating__ how people at the top of their game could politely disagree about what they were hearing in different digital playback solutions and even power cords.
At the end of the day it boils down to aesthetic decisions made by humans: Manet or Monet? Answer quickly!
Cheerio,
JM
john....don't be so touchy. i could have used any one of many examples. the idea of a yearly letter grade has little or nothing to do with music as 'a hobby'. it does however have everything to do with the 'business' of hi end audio. is there ever a year when the crop of 'A list' components don't measure up to those in years prior? that would be information helpful to the hobby, the state-of-the-art, and (as always)accomodating to the industry.
I have previously given chapter and verse on the sum total of units I have bought on industry accommodation, it works out to one unit every six years or so. I have never had anything on "permaloan." Several companies whose products I have "made," (among others, Benchmark, Grace, Sugden) have never bought me even a ham sandwich. (I have admitted to eating the cold cuts and drinking the jug wine Richard Shahinian used to lay out for all comers at his CES rooms.) I have had a few nice meals in the company of lots of other audio writers when companies want to get a bunch together to give them the new poop. Whoopee. The same is true for any industry that wants coverage.I HAVE NEVER EVER EVER DISCUSSED AD BUYS WITH A MANUFACTURER. IF ANYONE RAISES THE ISSUE, I TELL THEM TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, IT IS NOT MY JOB.
I regard advising people who work for a living on how to spend scarce funds on bringing music more deeply into their lives as a sacred calling.
Replying to stupid lazy attacks on my character is not being touchy, it is having self-respect.
John Marks
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
