Thread: 2014 Recommended components fall edition from Stereophile

2014 Recommended Components Fall Edition | Stereophile.com

I definitely have a love/hate thing going on with Stereophile's list

LOL

I actually think John and Stereophile do a great job considering the difficulties involved in putting such a list together eg. compiling from lots of different reviewers. Nothing is perfect.

Plus I will guarantee you it's the best selling issue of the year.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

I actually think John and Stereophile do a great job considering the difficulties involved in putting such a list together eg. compiling from lots of different reviewers. Nothing is perfect.

Plus I will guarantee you it's the best selling issue of the year.

Agreed, but I still love it and hate it!

Way too many conspicuous absences of quality gear to be taken seriously. Stereophile's advertisers get what they pay for. Others get ignored.

Originally Posted by MtnHam

Way too many conspicuous absences of quality gear to be taken seriously. Stereophile's advertisers get what they pay for. Others get ignored.

This subject will never be settled but John has produced voluminous statistics that clearly show no link between advertising and reviews. Are you suggesting that Stereophile doesn't accept advertising?

And what reviewed equipment has been omitted? Stereophile can obviously only recommend components that were reviewed.

Why other components aren't reviewed happens for a variety of reasons. I know quite a few Stereophile reviewers and not one of them is told what to review. They are free to chose whatever gear interests them. Not to mention, the magazine only has so many reviewers and so many pages to dedicate to reviews. So where's the conspiracy?

I can't argue with his "It is the best-sounding amplifier I have ever used" selection.

Whether you love it, hate it, or both, the list deserves respect.

Agree with Myles, the mag can only review equipment that has been submitted for review by the manufacturer. They don't send it, it's not going to get any press.

But, I'm pretty bored with some of these components which repeat year after year. I know some will say that nothing has surpassed them and that's true as far as what's been tested, again if a manufacturer doesn't send it we will get some repeats of equipment year after year after year.

Regarding ad's in the mag, take a few minutes and count how many pages contain an article about audio equipment verses pages with advertisements. Ad space out weighs content space and each year it slants a little more towards ad's. Is that a good thing for those that pay for this mag, I personally wish for more content vs filling up a mag with 1/4, 1/2 or full page ad's

But it does make for good reading while on the throne of power.

Originally Posted by RLL1

I can't argue with his "It is the best-sounding amplifier I have ever used" selection.

Me either! I hope JA reviews the .8 or XS sometime soon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

+1

Originally Posted by mep

I hope you guys realize that it's impossible for anyone to put out a list of recommended components that everyone would agree with.

+1

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

This subject will never be settled but John has produced voluminous statistics that clearly show no link between advertising and reviews. Are you suggesting that Stereophile doesn't accept advertising?

And what reviewed equipment has been omitted? Stereophile can obviously only recommend components that were reviewed.

Why other components aren't reviewed happens for a variety of reasons. I know quite a few Stereophile reviewers and not one of them is told what to review. They are free to chose whatever gear interests them. Not to mention, the magazine only has so many reviewers and so many pages to dedicate to reviews. So where's the conspiracy?

McIntosh doesn't seem to feature much in Stereophile.

There are many ads I actually like, I bet the mag would not have as nice a look or be as interesting without them. Yes some are anoying but you have to take the good with the bad.

Originally Posted by mep

Define "much." Should it be reviewed in every issue, every other issue, or just quarterly?

Much=$$

McIntosh products (excluding sources) typically have lonnnnng life cycles & market gestation so it is understandable that reviews on the brand are seldom. Eg. Stereophile reviewed the C1000 in 2006. 8 years on, still the brand's reference. But when it comes to say, the complete product line & also comparatively speaking there is more to it than just a lack of editor's interest, it would seem...

Did I miss Stereophile's review on the McIntosh MC2301s? When was a SS amp last reviewed in Stereophile? 2004? 2009?

McIntosh rarely features in Stereophile. Perhaps those issues never hit our newsagent's stand. Please prove me wrong & correct me if I am mistaken.

Originally Posted by Mark Jones

I actually like many ads, I bet the mag would not have as nice a look or be as interesting without them. Yes some are anoying but you have to take the good with the bad.

Perhaps I have just a little different perspective on the magazine business having started and been the publisher of two high-end audio magazines as well as a long time contributor to many others.

First, ads are a necessary evil to publish any print magazine since subscriptions do not even come close to covering the cost of publishing the magazine. Even on a web press. Back in 2001, it cost me printing 20,000 copies $2.30 per magazine. The cost goes down with number but certainly the cost of printing, paper, MAILING, etc. has risen over the years. There's only so much one can do to save costs such as reducing paper weight, quality of paper, etc.

Next, there's the cost of paying the writers, rent, graphics, mailing, direct mailings, etc. In fact, a recent magazine survey showed that it actually cost magazines on average $75/subscription. Of course, the greater the circulation base, the more a magazine can charge for its advertising. Larger magazines, however, also provide a circ guarantee. That means if sell through falls below a certain level, advertisers get a certain percentage refund.

Then there's the issue of what gets reviewed. Magazines often receive criticism for not reviewing certain gear. Certainly in the case of Stereophile, a manufacturer must meet the five dealers minimum. If you think that's unfair, is it more unfair for someone to buy a product from a new company only to have this company go belly up and all the consumer is left with is a boat anchor? I also don't think everyone appreciates also that a good review for a new company can be as harmful as helpful. Does that new company have the ability to meet demand? Does that company have the necessary capital to expand production? Does the company in the process of ramping up production kill itself because they're responding to a bubble?

Then there's the issue of what equipment is reviewed. There's no sinister plots afoot. Is anyone surprised that established companies seem to get reviewed? (Do you know how hard it is for a new company to get their foot in the door of a dealer?) Readers--at least a majority--want to read about the newest piece of gear from Audio Research, Wilson, Krell, etc. No single magazine can make everyone happy and that's why they're --just like speakers--a few publications out there (that said, I don't think we'll ever see a new audio print publication).

When it comes to equipment reviews, there's basically two routes by which gear is procured: 1) Gear submitted for review to the magazine; 2) Gear acquired by reviewers (probably the largest route nowadays). Now in some cases, equipment isn't reviewed because a manufacturer, for instance say Quicksilver or Audible Illusions, doesn't want a review. The only way a review will appear is if the reviewer like Sam Tellig has done on occasion, purchases the equipment.

More importantly, however, the whole reviewing system has changed in the last two decades. Companies are running tighter ships and no longer have a couple of hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment floating around. In most cases, a company sets aside one component for review and that piece gets passed around from one magazine to another. The end result, and it's too bad, is that doing surveys (like HP's amplifier or cartridge surveys in the Golden Age of TAS) or having more than one reviewer comment upon (again as in the ld days say of TAS, are long gone.

Originally Posted by Steve

Much=$$

McIntosh products (excluding sources) typically have lonnnnng life cycles & market gestation so it is understandable that reviews on the brand are seldom. Eg. Stereophile reviewed the C1000 in 2006. 8 years on, still the brand's reference. But when it comes to say, the complete product line & also comparatively speaking there is more to it than just a lack of editor's interest, it would seem...

Did I miss Stereophile's review on the McIntosh MC2301s? When was a SS amp last reviewed in Stereophile? 2004? 2009?

McIntosh rarely features in Stereophile. Perhaps those issues never hit our newsagent's stand. Please prove me wrong & correct me if I am mistaken.

Steve, my experience is that Mac rarely if ever, sends equipment out for review. They don't feel they need reviews and the risk of a review outweighs the good.

No list will ever include all of the equipment available nor will it ever be perfect. I use it as another point of view. Ultimately, I use my ears and my wallet to make audio purchase decisions.

My 2 cents...

Originally Posted by Ritmo

No list will ever include all of the equipment available nor will it ever be perfect. I use it as another point of view. Ultimately, I use my ears and my wallet to make audio purchase decisions.

My 2 cents...

+1

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

+1

+3

Originally Posted by puroagave

too funny. Art took a left turn somewhere after he quit Listener magazine and joined ST. it started with his girard TT project and went (downhill?) from there. actually i like nostalgia, my system includes lots of 20-30 yr old gear. what's irksome is some of his reviewed equipment bypasses the testing regimen and goes directly to the recommended component list, Tellig's reviewed gear often does the same.

In all fairness, John was getting a lot of letters from readers asking for someone to cover the "vintage" arena.

To Art's credit, he does listen to digital. And he's a very good writer He also has a nice pair of rebuilt Quad 57s sitting in his living room!

Originally Posted by mep

I have found that Art D. pretty much doesn't like any gear unless it's old enough to qualify for Social Security or it's built with parts that are old enough to qualify for Social Security.

Art is the sole reason I'm a subscriber. He reviews gear I'm interested in and has a way with words unlike any other. Some of his vintage gear, dare I say most of his vintage gear, would knock the socks off most of the new gear out there today.

Sent from my HTC One.

Originally Posted by puroagave

you're probably right. it looks like he just acquired a garrard a few years ago Listening #98 | Stereophile.com
but he did dump his linn LP12 for a vintage thorens td 124.

Art still has his Linn,

It's a decent list. However, it is kind of all over the place with the recommendations. Anyway, it is what it is. No big deal to me, really.