Why aren't these on the "recommended list?"


I see a lot of people singing the praises of Jeff Rowland and Avalon products but don't see them on "the list" Any speculations?
streetdaddy

Showing 1 response by doug28450

When the issue of the magazine in question showed up in my mailbox recently I conducted the following numbers analysis:

1. I counted the number of all items that are "ranked". This should be such items as amps, processors, etc. All of the items that use the A+, A, B,......ranking. It does not include cables, stands,...... because they are not ranked.

2. The number that I came up with is 355 items.

3. That particular issue has six equipment reviews in it. This does not include follow-ups or items included in in columns written by "The Audio Cheapskate" or "Analog Corner".

4. If 355 is divided by 6 we find the total number of issues the recommended components list covers. That number is 59 issues. With 12 issues per year; 59/12=4.9 years.

What does this mean?

It means that every piece of equipment that has been reviewed for the past 5 years appears as a recommended component.

In item 4, I indicate that 6 pieces of equipment are reviewed in this issue. That number is probably a little low for the 12 issue average. The bulk of this issue is taken up by "Recommended Components". So let's say 8 is the average number of equipment reviews per issue. The math: 355/8/12=3.7 years. Every piece of equipment reviewed for the last 3.7 years is a "Recommended Component".

I admit that this is a rather crude analysis and someone else can take it to much greater detail to either prove or disprove my thoughts. Consider this though, it seems to me that this is less a list of "Recommended Components" and more an attempt to rank all of the components that have been reviewed. Perhaps the name should be changed to "Ranked Components".

Doug