Yaqin tube amps: any further thoughts?

[Ajani]

RGA - that's not a bad rating system. Though I would like to see a system without the extra weights for certain categories - simply because that would vary depending on listener preferences. So an overall score out of 100 for persons who want it simple and a detailed break down of ratings across categories, for the rest of us so we can know whether the speaker scored well in areas we care about.

Lots of readers love simple ratings systems - if I'm not mistaken hi if choice moved from a score out of 100 to out of 5 to appease readers. So that's the danger of having more accurate (and complex) ratings systems.

[RGA]

Yes my system there was quite convoluted but was trying to really pin it down.

Still the other problem was the arbitrary price ranges I had set-up and the sliding scale factor - if something gets a 98 and two years later something destroys it then I have to do what Martin Colloms ended up doing and going over the maximum. Colloms started out rating gear out of 10 - no he gives stuff 89 out of 10. LOL.

Hi-Fi CHoice had issues. The 5 star rating systems winds up with most everything getting 4 or 5 stars and with my previous note that they like things that get 4 better than what they give 5 it causes confusion. This was true of their other system where they liked stuff they gave high 80s over stuff they gave 90+ ratings to.


I think I like what you said here -

So an overall score out of 100 for persons who want it simple and a detailed break down of ratings across categories, for the rest of us so we can know whether the speaker scored well in areas we care about.

Instead of showing all the modifiers and percentages that should be kept just by me or the reviewer.

I think the concern I have is that like Martin the number systems or star systems lump too much stuff together I give one amp a 5 and another a 6 and then something comes along that is better than 5 but not has good as 6 and so now I have to give it a 5.5 and the whole thing becomes problematic - perhaps in 4 years I go back and want to lower a rating on something or increase it on something else.

Indeed the Brit magazines have been known to do that dropping 5 star products to 4 stars when something new comes out. I find that approach somewhat annoying.

I suppose the other approach I could take from the education system and use a Rubric style system with very clearly written "levels" - A speaker that attains level 5 must do the following A,B,C,D and E things very well. A level 4 speaker does three of the things in level 5 but does not meet the level of excellence in the other two areas. Then if something does step up over level 5 it is possible then to add another category of why it outstrips what level 5 is doing. Each level could be named.

It's actually quite difficult to really get one of these systems that I am happy with and then to try and get all the reviewers of a magazine to buy into it is as well. It forces people to pin it down into an objective "number" and I think a lot of reviewers would rather hide from the " you only gave this amp a 3/5 what drug were you smoking" kind of battles.

I agree in principal with the Stereophile class Rating systems - but not the way it is handled in terms of how items are chosen to be placed where. And frankly there is way too much stuff in Class A - Arthur Salvatore may be a bit of conspiracy guy but numbers don't generally lie - Class A implies the best stuff - and that means it should be reserved for a very small number of products (even if the entire industry has gotten much much better and there are many great great brands our there - it is still important to differentiate which is the best of those elite brands - to me the rankings would either look like a pyramid or a diamond. Elite gear at the top - more and more gear heading towards the middle or bottom.

And discontinued or gear that is no longer made should not be knocked off the list. Plenty of people are willing to buy used or search for older gems. Manufacturers may not like it but it certainly would help with the resale value. Examples from this forum might be Tube Fan's Fulton J Modulars or Florian's Apogee Grands or the Quad 57 etc.

I will float the idea to my fellow writers and see if they have interest in this - the issue for our magazine is that we don't all review or audition the same gear. It's easier for a Hi-Fi Choice which brings in 10 amps and has a panel of 10-20 people listen and make notes. The gear with the best combined score wins.

[YBArcam]

RGA - that's not a bad rating system. Though I would like to see a system without the extra weights for certain categories - simply because that would vary depending on listener preferences.

But you can't take listener preferences out of the equation. A review is just that, an evaluation of a product by one person, and so that person's preferences are going to factor in. Especially with something as hazy as discussing the sound produced by an audio system. I think it's true that we don't all hear the exactly the same, or process what we hear the same way.

I personally like the system RGA has outlined. It might be a little convoluted, but it's not that difficult to understand if one puts in a few minutes of his/her time to read it.

If numbers and grades are to be handed out they should only be handed out by the reviewer who reviewed them. And a detailed explanation of what they value.

Agreed. Not just that, but the grades must be attributed back to the reviewer. i.e. you can't have Art Dudley, Atkinson, Tellig, etc. review products and assign Class A, B, C, and D, and then turn around and have these ratings lumped together into one set of Stereophile ratings. You must maintain a separate list of ratings for each reviewer. This is for consistency and integrity of the Class grouping. Because ultimately the grade given by each reviewer is to a large degree based on their preferences. This fact becomes distorted if all ratings are grouped together as if they were assigned by one party instead of 10 or 12 different parties. So a publication may say item X is Class A, but in reality perhaps only one reviewer (the one who actually reviewed it) would give it that rating. All others might have given it Class B. Maybe this is why Atkinson has the final say (but that's not good either).

Getting back to your system, I like the multiplier because in one quick glance I see what you find most important. A reader can easily zero in on the reviewer(s) s/he has most in common with. Their ratings will be of more use to this reader.

I was going to mention Salvatore. His website is a great read. It may come across like a conspiracy theory but he really lays out the case against publications like Stereophile and it's pretty air tight, IMO. WAJ on Audio is another similar site I just discovered. Interesting reading there as well.

Still the other problem was the arbitrary price ranges I had set-up and the sliding scale factor - if something gets a 98 and two years later something destroys it then I have to do what Martin Colloms ended up doing and going over the maximum. Colloms started out rating gear out of 10 - no he gives stuff 89 out of 10. LOL.

You could always adjust the ratings down, similar to how the Brits do it. But you'd have to zero in on the one or two things that the new product does better, and then it will just lead to a new final score. Personally, I find 89 out of 10 not very intuitive. Adjusting a score downward makes sense, as over time new high watermarks will be established.

[RGA]

I of course agree with the logic - or lack thereof of having a classification system where there is no transparency as to why something is graded a certain way.

A rating system where you have speaker XYZ.

If three reviewers have fairly auditioned it - you say Art gave it an A+, Wes gave it an A+, John gave it a B, Fred gave it an A- etc. That makes more sense because you can got to the reviewer you think is best or hears it the way you do.

Unfortunately good dealers seem few and far between. I am fortunate that I have a dealer that carries a lot of brands and they basically laugh at Stereophile as being absurd. Really all magazines are in the sense that magazines are essentially "grouped" individuals writing under one umbrella. The reason magazines give everything positive reviews - well NO - magazines don't give reviews - individuals give reviews. Perhaps it's the corporation is a person that clouds people's judgments - but "Stereophile" doesn't give a class A rating - John Atkinson gave something a class A rating. XYZ won DAC of the year - no John Atkinson awarded it DAC of the year. 4/5 of this staff have probably never heard the product of the year award winner - ditto TAS, and every other review magazine that hands out awards.

I'll use Audio Note again - They had a DAC in enjoythemusic. that won DAC of the year - I am betting that only 3 people at that magazine has ever heard the DAC - and one of those three may not have heard the "specific model" - I love their upper DACs but the award is a complete joke. It implies it is the best DAC on the market in the price range - REALLY - did they all hear EVERY DAC that is available? No.

And then not everyone heard it under ideal conditions.

I loved the Trenner and Freidl RA Box and Acapella Violoncello - if dagogo gave out awards and they asked my I would say "I loved them - top five based on what I heard at the show" - they give them an award based maybe on other reviewer's in home full review + my show condition audition.

To me that would be really weak.

enjoythemusic to their credit does use numerical scoring but the problem there is that some guys are much harder on gear than others - even though they may actually like it more. So a guy might give it 75/100 but actually like the product more than another reviewer handing out 90's like candy.