I recently emailed John Atkinson of Stereophile


I was concerned lately by the lack of Class "D" preamps in latest Stereophile Recommended Components listings and e-mailed John Atkinson the editor, who implied that because many newer preamps exceed the Class D limitations and newer preamps simply outperform their older bretheren, this class was currently empty. Which got me thinking: one can purchase a used Conrad Johnson PV10a or a Conrad Johnson PF-2 on this site for around six hundred dollars. Does this mean that Newer preamps in the same basic price range, like the new Parasound Halo which goes for $799 at Audio Advisor "sound better" than vintage gear? Any thoughts?
triumph

Showing 4 responses by zaikesman

Atkinson's reply is indicative of the corner they've painted themselves into with this 'ranking' business. It could well be true that, for instance, preamps sound better today on average than they did 10 years ago. But if you read Stereophile's grade definitions, you will understand that even if that were the case, since the preamps (and everything else) are supposed to be ranked in accordance to what is currently available in the marketplace, there are still plenty of moderately-priced models that should be very recommendable at the lower rankings (even if you want to accept that there are no higher-priced models being made anymore that deserve to wind up there).

If that scenario is credible, then "Class A"-ranked products of today should sound better than gear ranked "A" from 10 years ago, and the same thing should hold true for "B"-class gear and so on. Yet even if that description were fact, it should still not change the relative distributions of gear throughout the rankings - unless the magazine has now stopped reviewing entry-level gear, and reviews much more reference-level gear instead.

So: Either they are guilty of promulgating grade-creep, in which "A" or "D" rankings mean something different today than they meant a decade ago (and also than their listed definitions stipulate), or they are guilty of neglecting to review the full range of gear available, at all price levels. IMO, the problem comes from both directions, but either way, the results have rendered the rankings increasingly meaningless and joke-worthy. Doesn't JA ever sit down with his own mag and realize they are now saying (and twice a year no less, which is once too many!) that in many catagories, a majority of the gear that comes across their threshold qualifies to be described as "Best attainable sound for a component of its kind"?! Maybe once they've finished with this progression and everything is rated "Class A", they can consider their jobs done and cease publication, since we'll no longer need audio criticism anymore.
Macrojack, I know nothing about Timbre Technology. Maybe you could explain how Stereophile 'favored' Sonic Frontiers (who are no longer in business themselves, I might add), and how their doing so could have put any other company (especially one particular company) out of business. What did they do, run a review comparing an SF product to a TT product and proclaim the SF stomped it? From the tone of your post, I would guess that the TT product wasn't even reviewed at all, but enlighten me.

More to the point, maybe you could get specific on the question of an alleged advertising-for-reviews quid pro quo.
Actually, the pictures are woefully inadequate - just look at some of the Brit mags. A long promised effort to upgrade the graphic and especially the photo content of the mag fizzled before it got very far off the ground - I assume they just couldn't afford to really go for it. Think how much more interesting the magazine could be to look at if they had the same photographic standards as the car mags. Audio porn is not being done justice! Yeah, I subscribe. Probably the third time or so, but this time I don't think I'll get so disgusted that I'll let it lapse. They've effectively lowered my standards - and their price - to the point where I just don't care that much anymore. It comes, I read it in a day or two, and the basic update info it contains makes it worth the $12 a year it costs me. Occasionally I get infuriated with the lameness of the formula, but why get all worked up? The damage has already been done - the industry mold is set as it relates to the audio press. If I cared more about the high end, I might not subscribe as a protest, but I'm really just a voyeur who takes this hobby very lightly compared to many. Just the sort Stereophile depends on to subscribe ;^)