2014 Recommended components fall edition from 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.
 
mep said:
Define "much." Should it be reviewed in every issue, every other issue, or just quarterly?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Myles B. Astor said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a cynic about advertising links and such, but in this case your statement is correct. At the end of each section, they clearly stated the items they did not put on the list because they were not reviewed and therefore did not feel right about including them amongst the picks. So that shows some integrity I would think.

I appreciate the issue even if I can't afford 99.9% of the stuff or only have a couple of items from it, but that's not my question about it. Unless your one of those folks who only go with what a reviewer or salesman tells you, at the end of the day any one of us who is interested in a particular piece is going to try one ourselves and be the final judge. Articles such as this I view as just a point of interest and perhaps a catch for some piece to consider for oneself.
I only question some of the comments about the pieces I've tried or what have you. It may be only a matter of a different experience and I have to remember to take into account a difference of other equipment used in the chain. At the end of the day though each of us are going to go with our own experiences as the most reliable, as it should be because this is all subjective.
 
Mark Jones said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Steve said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Steve said:
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.
Click to expand...

McIntosh Laboratory MC275 50th Anniversary Limited Edition power amplifier | Stereophile.com
McIntosh Laboratories MC275 power amplifier | Stereophile.com
McIntosh MC275 power amplifier | Stereophile.com
McIntosh MC 275 Commemorative power amplifier | Stereophile.com
McIntosh MC2102 power amplifier | Stereophile.com
McIntosh Labs MC2000 power amplifier | Stereophile.com
Music in the Round #36 | Stereophile.com
McIntosh MC501 monoblock power amplifier | Stereophile.com
McIntosh MC1201 monoblock power amplifier | Stereophile.com
McIntosh C1000 preamplifier system | Stereophile.com
McIntosh C200 preamplifier | Stereophile.com

Yep, SP has hardly reviewed any McIntosh gear over the years.
 
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... :)
 
Ritmo said:
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... :)
Click to expand...

+1
 
Ritmo said:
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... :)
Click to expand...

+5
Just as I said earlier "at the end of the day any one of us who is interested in a particular piece is going to try one ourselves and be the final judge. Articles such as this I view as just a point of interest and perhaps a catch for some piece to consider for oneself".
 
I find that Stereophile does an excellent job with their reviews given the constraints they're under (multiple reviewers with different preferences, readers in all price ranges, cost constraints). I like that there's some objective testing of gear, which when combined with subjective listening, can provide some interesting input from a hobbyist's point of view as to cause-and-effect of certain design decisions.

Frequently, review equipment is chosen by specific reviewers based on expected personal preference, which in reality is how we consumers typically choose to audition equipment too. Art Dudley for example reviews a lot of stuff that is not part of the usual AR/B&W/Wilson/Ayre type line. And given that his reviews have a certain consistency to them, I can get a lot of info out of reading his remarks on a piece of gear.

As to the recommended component list - it provides additional input on gear to seek out if you're shopping in a certain price range, as well as a reference to check out some reviews from past issues you may be newly interested in. For example, if you're auditioning a $4K integrated amp that you quite like - you can cross-reference the recommended components list against local dealers in order to figure out some other choices you should consider in your purchasing decision. It's a very useful tool if used properly. If you expect to take the list, go to a dealer, and buy a "class A" system, then you're going about it the wrong way - but don't blame the magazine for that!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
mep said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
puroagave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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! :)
 
mep said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Myles B. Astor said:
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! :)
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of his writing, i loved listener magazine even though its was kinda Brit-centric and focused on less than SOTA in terms of the equipment reviews it did feel more like the old TAS than anything at the time. The music reviews were spot on.
 
I didn't know about all that Art guy and vintage stuff. Not a darn thing wrong with vintage gear and a lot of it is built well. If it wasn't it would not be working 30 years later. I have a vintage system in the bedroom and enjoy it and it's at least 40 years old except for the CD player and Squeezebox.
One merit about the vintage gear revolves around vinyl playback. With my higher-end system I had to get a high-end phono preamp just to get to listen to vinyl. The old vintage receivers and amps were built around vinyl playback and noting extra is needed for vinyl playback. Just plug the turntable into the receiver/amp and go. I found that using a phono preamp with my vintage receivers actually does not improve anything. At best, it's the same and other times I felt there was something missing as going straight through sounded better to my ears.
 
puroagave said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think he ever had a Garrard...but I could be wrong. Maybe you're thinking of the Jeff Day Garrard project on 6 moons. He uses a Thorens 124. Regular readers will probably note that he reviews plenty of new gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top