Stereophile Recommended Components

One thing I'd really enjoy, though, would be some kind of historical comparison of similarly rated gear through the years. Now the CD5 is rated as a class A cd player along with the CDX. Obviously if they auditioned the CDS2 they'd have to redraw the goal lines and re-rank all the equipment. But what about all the equipment that used to be in their listings? I'd enjoy reading a comparison of a variety of older equipment as compared to what is produced now.

You have to go back a few years, but they did review the original Nat-01 (class A)probably by Don Scott or Larry Greenhill, The CDS1 (class A, but a poor review)by Robert Harley, and a NAC 62/140 combo (class B- I think)can't remember by who. The Prefix was in here somewhere too(probably by Mikey).

The Linn Kremlin also got a Class A(Don Scott too I believe). The Klimax made it as well.

Remember, it's pretty rare when anything, Naim, Sanyo, or Recoton, gets a poor review in Sterophile. I think it's helpful when you read someone else opinion, but everyone's taste is different. Class A means it should sound OK, but listen and decide for yourself if it's great.

When I read a review by Art Dudley, Rob Doorack, Martin Colloms, Paul Messenger or even Michael Fremer on Naim kit I already know in advance that they'll probably like it. The hard part is reading between the lines to see what they don't like.

Generally the best place to find the deficiencies with any kit is to read other reviews later on by the same reviewer. This is when they say how the new X is better than Y that they reviewed last year.

I think it took Michael Fremer a good year before he said anything bad about his favored Sonus Fabers.

If you want to see more good reviews on Naim kit then subscribe to Listener. It's obvious to anyone that Naim is way over represented with reviews here. Great mag though.

Arthur Bye

quote:

---

If you want to see more good reviews on Naim kit then subscribe to Listener. It's obvious to anyone that Naim is way over represented with reviews here. Great mag though.

---

I couldn't agree more - Listener is terrific.

The primary reason that I posted the Stereophile recommendations was from a curiosity perspective. I don't hold Stereophile in particularly high esteem (thought I am a subscriber); I do find it interesting however to get their mainstream US take on what's happening in this weird little world of hi-fi.

Erik

Subtracting components that according to Stereophile edotorial policy no longer appeared in the reccomended components lists because it had been discontinued or superceded, I found that fully 98% of ALL components reviewed were "reccomended". This is to say that with the exception of 3 or 4 items out of 300, all reviewed components were recommended in either class A, B, C, or D.

Lest one thinks that class C and D are not "recommended", I refer you to the following passage from Stereophiles most recent edition,

"Bear in mind that appearance in Class D still means that we recommend this product. . ."

In any event, it struck me at incongruous that, virtually without exception, Stereophile "recommends" every single component that it reviews. To wit, I wrote a letter to Stereophile in 1997 (or was it later?) wherein I pointed this out, and asked "how come".

The editorial response was that Stereophile equipment reviewers and editors only review pieces that they are excited about in the first place (or that showed promise during a 10 second demo at CES). The unstated conclusion was that almost without exception, the component bore out the expectations of the reveiwer, thus ensuring its place on the list.

As far as the CDX and cd5 being in the same category. . . eh.

Judd

The prefix (and armageddon) were Wes Philips, no longer with the mag.

On cd players, they slotted the CD3.5 in Class A and components basically stay where they are slotted when the new version comes out (though MF claimed to like the CD5 better in some ways than CDX--but I think that's due to system changes). But basically Class A means very little these days. They've even added A+ in some categories.

--Eric

quote:

---

(and I must say from personal experience that being excited about something initially doesn't mean long-term satisfaction necessarily),

---

I couldn't agree more.

Steve B

• Linn Sondek LP12 with Lingo - Class B

OK, maybe with Armageddon it would be Class A...

But why are NBLs Class B??

- jun

CD5 is class A, when did they test it?

Emmanuel

quote:

---

NBL was class A last year. Don't know why the derating.

---

quote:

---

CD5 is class A, when did they test it?

---

Erik

http://www.high-endaudio.com/index_ac.html

--Eric

quote:

---

This will be good for a laff. Arthur Salvatore is a bitter man, but a lot of what he
says is true or has some truth to it

---

Thanks for this interesting link. I did have a laugh; although mostly with Salvatore, not at him.

"Reviewing the Reviewers" is especially funny and worth checking out. A bit of a relief, actually.

A few years ago, an idiot writer described building a stereo system following Stereophile (though IIRC he started with a Rotel amp). First, he was in the industry, so he had access to equipment in ways that most of us do not, and he really didn't acccount for that. Worse, he stated that he just wanted to listen to the Stereophile-recommended speakers.

Ten years ago that's how I started, and it led to several very boring and fruitless afternoons. I listened to every Class B and C speaker available in Dallas in my price range. Everything was OK; nothing made me hear music. With all the Thiel, Vandersteen, Magnaplanar, etc. that I listened to, the best I heard was a set of Keilidhs!

I can see some point in printing reviews only of recommended stuff. I can see no point at all in limiting one'slistening only to Stereophile-approved stuff.

So read the reviews and lists for fun - but buy what your body likes.

BTW, I've spent 18 years getting great enjoyment and musical insight from speakers that were absolutely trashed by S'phile - Heybrook HB1s and Near 50s. Of course, maybe i have tin ears - or maybe fronting them with Linn and Naim has something to do with the enjoyment.

Phil

It seems strange that the CD5 is also given a Class A rating while no Naim amps are listed, I would have thought that the Nait 5 would have at least got an honorable mention.

I am new to the U.S. but does this mean that here, in the Colonies, one does not take too much notice of the Stereophile ratings

Regards

Andy

[This message was edited by AndyK on THURSDAY 28 March 2002 at 04:25.]

quote:

---

I am new to the U.S. but does this mean that here, in the Colonies, one does not take too much notice of the Stereophile ratings?

---

Andy,

Unfortunately, many people in the US do (e.g., my decidedly round earth little brother). In any conversation that I have with him on the topic of hi-fi, he continually injects "that is a Stereophile Class <whatever> piece of equipment, thus, it must be [godlike or crap]..."

It is a lot easier to base all of your opinions on a list prepared by others than to have to, god forbid, think for yourself.

<sigh>

Erik

quote:

---

It seems strange that the CD5 is also given a Class A rating while no Naim amps are listed, I would have thought that the Nait 5 would have at least got an honorable mention.

---

Andy:

I think the problem here is that most reviewers have a reference system that they use for comparative purposes. They have to be able to introduce a component into that system to understand what the changes are and to what they are attributed. Naim amps and pre's and ps's don't easily fit into this scheme as the amps usually go with the pre's and the power supplies.

Since it's all so confusing they simply don't review the product. Products like Naim integrated amps, tuners and CD players do get reviewed as they can easily be introduced (with Din to RCA cables) into a reference system.

It would be nice if there were some reviews of 1 brand kit to get some understanding of where each manufacturer wants to go. Naim, Linn, Sony, Rega, even Krell could offer this. I'm sure there are a few others I'm missing. This would be a pretty intresting read and I'm kind of suprised that it's never done.

Then there's the problem of which interconnects to use.

Arthur Bye

Then there's the problem of which interconnects to use.

Arthur,

You've pointed out a major weakness in the Naim approach here, as did Robert Harley - then Stereophile, now The Absolute Sound.

RH informed his readers in his 62/hi/140 review 10 years ago that Naim is, in the end, a failure because it does not let its users experiment with cables.

The powers that were and be in Salisbury either did not read or did not respond to that cogent criticism.

Or perhaps, happily, they responded by giving it all the respect it deserved.... :-)

Phil

quote:

---

Or perhaps, happily, they responded by giving it all the respect it deserved.... :-)

---

Phil, you're probably right here.

On the other hand, I have heard differences between cables. What I refuse to accept is the stupid prices for interconnects that don't necessarily make the sound better, just different. NACA5 works fine for me.

Arthur Bye

Whether one's tastes run to Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, Listener, or some of the other hi-fi press from around the world, the big question is not what they review, what they like, what works well in their systems, who bought them dinner, how much advertising revenues mean to a magazine, etc. All of which are topics worthy of attention. The big issue is how can a consumer take input form these sources and process it in any meaningul way. As writers and editors don't, as a rule, have anything to gain by a customer's purchase decision(s), the aura is that they are more objective than a salesman. That this is true is self evident. That it is a desireable state of affairs to have someone who has no knowledge of the consumer prior to making a recommendation is not self evident.

A good dealer can do so many things to help a customer learn about what is possible, and help that customer find out which of the inumerable alternatives are most to their liking. In the end, a good dealer that aims for long term relationships with their customers is actually better suited than any magazine or website to getting to know the client and his or her tastes. In an ideal relationship approach, the dealer only sells customers products that will be enjoyable for the customer, and hence each transaction is examined in light of a far higher standard, the mutually rewarding relationship.

The magazines really have been given an impossible job. There is never enough time and editorial space to cover everything in a season, which means that many good products, and certainly whole systems, go unheralded. Most shoppers don't want to read the magazines for years to make a buying decision, they would prefer, I would guess, to jump in briefly, hold their breath while under water, and then get out of the pool. The long term enthusiast is the reader who keeps at it. Now with the possibility of archived reviews it is somewhat easier to quickly assimilate information, but it still does not offer a substitute for either a good dealer, or listening experience of one's own.

[This message was edited by bdnyc on THURSDAY 28 March 2002 at 07:20.]

I agree. I have heard differences in cables, albeit not in double blind tests. Some of the differences are so significant that I swear I believe that anybody who's not deaf can hear them.

The problems are at a minimum evaluating 1) why the differences occur (are they due to inherent superiority or simply some serendipitous, non-repeatable effect), and 2) which cables are good, better, and best, as aopposed to just different, as you say.

Might as well follow the KISS principle.

I think a significant problem with Stereophile and TAS is that it's written to support audiophiles' love of equipment and collecting rather than love fo music. I simply can't or won't get into endless obsession over these toys...but it's taken me years to get here.

I find Atkinson's (Sterephile) insistence that his writers collect more software than hardware an inadequate test. I want reviewers who spend hours listening to music, both recorded, live, and live-recorded (i.e. concerts, not studio recordings). That's different from collecting.

When Chicago had 2 classical stations, a Ron Smith/NAT01/52/500/DBL system - thousands in h/w, zero in s/w - made good sense to me.

Phil

[This message was edited by Phil Barry on FRIDAY 29 March 2002 at 13:37.]

quote:

---

On the other hand, I have heard differences between cables. What I refuse to accept is the stupid prices for interconnects that don't necessarily make the sound better, just different. NACA5 works fine for me.

---

I agree that a lot of such cables are vastly overpriced, in the way that much of hifi is, but never let it be said that some (not all) of these very expensive cables don't deliver. For instance, moving from humble DNM cable up to Nordost SPM (a big jump, granted) reaped a bigger reward than the equivalent priced box upgrade would have done in my system. Sure, it's expensive (although some of my SPM was bought s/h) but in terms of what it does, it is very much worth the money.

Then again, I don't run a Naim amps' system. I've tried a couple of different cables with my second system (Nait-2 based) and my impression is that it's more a case of flavourings than 'better than' with cheaper cables. For instance, NAC-A5 (which we have but don't use due to rabbits and A5's relative inability to be routed away from said beasties' pointy teeth) does sound a bit different to the Cable Talk or whatever that it is that we do use (which can be routed away from rabbits). Different, not necessarily better.

I wouldn't dare try my SPM with the Nait-II as I'm sure the girls would make light work of its lilac-ness. They've done it before (her tuner power chord was systematically masticated whilst plugged in - rabbits fine, tuner not so fine, as was her old amp, tv, skirting boards, wire wool, wallpaper, oh yeah, sofa... etc. etc.)

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

quote:

---

If you want to see more good reviews on Naim kit then subscribe to Listener. It's obvious to anyone that Naim is way over represented with reviews here.

---

Boy, Art can't win. Over on Audio Asylum they complain that Lowther speakers are over-represented in Listener.

As for Mr. Salvatore and his web site, I think it's hilarious that a guy who attacks hi fi reviewers for alleged ethical offenses is guilty of one himself. He's recommended at least two components that he has never heard, the Rockport turntable and the Shelter 901 cartridge. After I and a few others called attention to this Mr. Salvatore back - pedalled somewhat and added this bizarre qualification to his site:

quote:

---

I will never again recommend any component unless I, or one of my associates, directly (and properly) audition it, or an overwhelming amount of objective observers (emphasis added) indicate that this particular component is something "special" and deserving of recognition.

---

In other words, if enough people tell him a component is good he'll recommend it even though he's never heard it.

Whatever the failings of those writers Mr. Salvatore attacks may be, at least they actually listen to the gear they review. The same can't be said of Mr. Salvatore. I find nothing more hilarious than a self - righteous self - appointed watchdog being caught with his pants down.

quote:

---

As for Mr. Salvatore and his web site, I think it's hilarious that a guy who attacks hi
fi reviewers for alleged ethical offenses is guilty of one himself. He's recommended
at least two components that he has never heard, the Rockport turntable and the
Shelter 901 cartridge

---

I don't see why this is an "ethical offence", or even a problem, necessarily. Suppose someone has several friends/associates, etc., whom one knows well and whose judgments one has compared many times with one's own, and as a result learned to trust. Suppose further that these friends say "X sounds great", even though one hasn't heard X oneself. Why couldn't this serve as the basis for a recommendation; justified, in this case, by a past coordination and assesment of judgments? One infers from the past similarity and reliablility of one's friends' judgments to the similarity and reliability of those judgments in the current case. Such an inference is fallible, of course, but that doesn't mean that it's not well-justified (most well-justified statements are at least possibly wrong).

Most of our culture is based upon claims made by others that we cannot check ourselves. No one, for instance, can verify all of the claims made by contemporary medicine, and this certainly includes medical researchers themselves. Rather, everyone quite reasonably relies upon the judgments of others who we believe to be suitably qualified to make them and who we believe to be unbiased. Claims from those not suitably trained, or qualified researchers working for major firms and endorsing their products rightly arouse suspicion. Although the situation with hifi is of course much less important, I don't see why the general principles for evaluating the legitimacy of claims to authority are substantially different.

Isn't the relevant question to be asked: Are the people making the recommendations qualified and unbiased? And when I look at a magazine like Stereophile it appears to me, at least, that the answer is no; not so much because of the potential conflict-of-interest (which needn't destroy objectivity), but because of the apparent refusal of the reviewers to give negative reviews, or even anything more than the vaguest negative comments. Obviously I myself have to assume here that not everything is worth recommending. But this assumption seems to me more reasonable than the assumption that there is no, or only a little, bias

I'm completely baffled as to why he would want to give his personal endorsement to anything he hasn't actually heard. I get asked all the time what do I think of this or that component and if I have no experience with it I always respond with "I can't offer any opinion on that since I haven't heard it." Occaisonally I might qualify that with something like "(insert name of another Listenerwriter) auditioned it and thought it was ...", but I'm always clear that in such cases I'm not recommending the device myself. The only reason I can think of for Salvatore's approach is that he wants to be able to declare one component in each category as the best available as opposed to the best that he's personally heard. What value is a declaration that the Rockport is the best turntable in the world if it's based on hearsay? It should be noted that the current version of Salvatore's web site is much clearer about his lack of auditioning the Rockport and Shelter than it once was. One would think that someone who has appointed himself as the policeman of audio reviewers would be beyond question himself.

quote:

---

the apparent refusal of [Stereophile's] reviewers to give negative reviews

---

You might ask VPI or Richard Gray's Power Company about that, to name just 2 that spring to mind. After Michael Fremer criticized the JMW arm in a recent issue VPI's Harry Weisfeld responded with a long letter arguing with just about every aspect of Fremer's review and questioning his methodolgy. Sam Tellig's negative review of the RGPC device a few years ago earned him severe attack by RGPC and its fans in every forum they could find. RGPC's allies at the Stereo Times web zine devoted several articles to attacking Tellig personally, including an astounding article by an RGPC dealer complaining that Tellig's review cost him money. I'm at work right now and don't have my stack of Stereophile back issues to refer to for more examples but it's absolutely not true that Stereophile never gives bad reviews.

How long ago was that Richard Gray piece? I remember it too. But do any other negative reviews stand out since then?

And for all of Mikey's VPI nits, isn't the thing in Class A?

The telling thing to me is that on the phonogram mailing list, where several Stereophile/TAS reviewers hang out, the consensus was "you have to read between the lines" in a review. Frankly, I think that's outrageous, because I don't think many readers are capable of doing so, especially when they are not alerted to be wary.

When I have had speakers at home that got reviewed, I have found that I needed to amplify flaws by a factor of 5 to 10, like "there a was a slight hardness in the upper midrange" meant "on many real-world recordings, Excedrin is required to endure the sounds produced, which resemble nothing you will hear in the real world". Maybe I'm just picky.

If you analyze Stereophile reviews, they give the impression that things are nearly perfect, and that equipment doesn't have much individual character. I don't find that to be the case myself. I've heard problems with every piece of gear I've had in my own system for a decent period of time.

--Eric

quote:

---

Boy, Art can't win. Over on Audio Asylum they complain that Lowther speakers are over-represented in Listener.

---

Rob:

This was an observation, not a complaint! I think listener is great. I love the reviews of Naim kit and hope he continues in this vein. Listener is easily the best Audio magazine out there. The quirky Fi,Lowther,Linn,Naim, stuff kinda makes it more interesting. Heck, I bought a Linn Sizmik sub without ever listening to it based on Art's review. His review was spot on, he nailed it!

Of course I still wonder how he can jump back and forth from Tube kit to Naim or Linn kit.

Now, do I get a bunny?

Arthur Bye