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
Rooky, there are lots of people who read the reviews in TAS and Stereophile to scout for the next product that will trinkle down to their price level so they can buy it used next time the company offer the latest "flagship."

It's just plain stupid to criticize them for reviewing expensive audio gear. No company put their latest technology into the middle of the line products. When they build to a price point there are tons of compromises made. Are you content to live with all of those compromises or do you want something better. It's the top-of-the-line stuff that pushes the envelope so people like you will continue to have mid-fi gear to buy rather than buying the good stuff.

I began reading Stereophile about 17 years ago when I could bearly afford a used receiver. I learned enough reading it to know what I wanted when I could afford to move up to seperates. I quit subscribing a few years ago because they kept reviewing mid-fi crap that wasn't any better than what I already had. Who wants to read that???

Stereophile should have a solid section of class d gear, but I don't want to read about it, I want to see the cutting edge stuff. Show me things I can't afford and I'll be happy!!!!
I was 12 years old when I first heard a "hi-fi" system. It was in the home of my uncle Jack. Jack had a profound love of opera and he was rather a good researcher, dedicated, systematic and disciplined...just like we more recent audiophiles are.

I feel in love with the sound and power that music had over me while listening to his system...all I remember, as far as his equipment is concerned, is Wharfdale speakers in a sand filled cabinet and a tube reciever. What bliss and magic I experienced I can never fully express.

All I could think of was the world that listening to music opened up for me...a new dimension really.

I began to haunt audio stores...at that time...we are speaking about 1955...the speakers were "naked" in cut out holes on the wall. I would take home brochures, and pour over the images of tubed gear, comparing this one with another...I tried to listen critically, but to my 12 year old ears everything sounded incredible.

When I turned 13 years old, my father surprised me with an audio system of my own...I would have preferred if he had let me "pick it out" myself, but instead he turned to my uncle Jack for advice and I wound up with a system almost identical to his...

Less than 10 years ago, I once again became interested in purchasing an audio system and I became curious about what was available "out there." You know, what we often call "state of the art." I naturally turned to the magizines that were available, including Stereophile.

I still read Stereophile and TAS, preferring TAS because the reviewers seem to allow a more human sense of their presence to flow along the linear portraits of the audio gear under their scrutiny. But every once and a while, Stereophile allows an article into print that is interesting and informative.

But it is here, in this forum ,and to some degree in AA (I wish AA was not so poorly designed, we have it good here at Audiogon, with a very easy to read organization of material...Bravo! to the designers) that I have found friends that have helped shape my critical direction for audio gear...for the most part, I am now into rather inexpensive solutions, made by individuals that hand build there gear one at a time.

Who would have dreamed, that we would someday have the internet, as an active daily forum and conduit, that we could speak to one another "through"!!!!

The magazines have taught us a great deal, however. At their best they show us a disciplined, rigorous, careful, sensitive and human approach to accessing the "value" of a piece of audio gear and help to wet our appetite for it...we do like to be stimulated in that direction, after all. At their worst, they are boring, repetitive, predictable, and act out of self-interest.

What is interesting here, I believe, is that many of us, because of this forum, have raised our own level of critical thinking to at least the level of the best magazines...and that, I think, is partly a direct consequence of writing in this very forum over time, and sharing ideas and realizing where we get "stuck" and where we get "rigid" and getting past it...in other words...all of us are "practicing" reviewers.

No wonder we are so critical of the so-called "professional" reviewers.

Still, I am continually amazed at the passion and interest we seem to generate as a "community."

Keep up the good work...give the magazines hell, if that is what you think they deserve...in this way we act as a "corrective," a balance, if you will, to the magazines commercial interests.

Richard
Real audio companies do not waste money running ads in magazines; they use it for research and development.
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!!!
Corona, may I venture a guess that you are one of the "real" audio companies who doesn't advertise. If so, why hide behind an anonymous moniker taking pot shots at those who have become successful enough to afford these ads.

If you don't have a dog in the hunt then I apologize. If you do, the ethical thing to do is identify yourself.