Quote Originally Posted by RGA
the review industry is highly problematic due in part to the structure of the magazines and the honesty of the individual reviewers.

While I don't agree with Arthur Salvatore on all points he does raise some issue that should be considered when buying into review magazines.

Take the recommended component listing of Stereophile

Under Holt in 1985 there were 9 class A products (combined) in 2000 under Atkinson there were 104 class A recommended components.

"Please consider these statistics carefully. As for myself, I focused on just two obvious and highly relevant details:

In the Summer 1971 issue, there were NO advertisements and 7 components were in "Class A". In the Fall 1985 issue, more than 14 years later, there were still only 9 components in "Class A", despite going from 0 to 47 pages of advertising. However...
J. Gordon Holt was still the Editor during all that time.

Then John Atkinson arrived on the scene.

In short order, there were profound changes, starting from the late 1980's and continuing through the entire 1990's. By April, 1992, there were already 30 components in "Class A". This was just a "warm-up"...

By October 2000, 14 years after Atkinson's arrival, there were 104 components in "Class A". Could there be any "innocent explanations" for this obvious trend? Well, three "excuses" have been used.

Excuse No. 1

The performance of today's components has improved (or "advanced") on those of the past. Assuming that this is a fact, doesn't that mean more components should in "Class A"?

Answer: NO!

The fact that there were numerous "advancements" is totally irrelevant. This is because each and every new advancement must automatically supercede the previous advancement, or else it wasn't an "advancement" in the first place.

As each new improvement "raises the bar" to get into "Class A", any older model, which can not reach that new "bar", is relegated to "second best", which means they can no longer honestly remain in "Class A", which is supposed to be "the best attainable sound" at that time. Just as the newest, fastest computer chips relegate the older chips to "second fastest or best". Ruthless logic yes, but true when you are talking about "the best".

This principle is the primary reason why all of the numerous, earlier advancements during "The Holt Era", from 1971 to 1985, did NOT result in an increase in the "Class A" recommendations.

Excuse No. 2

There are more components available now than ever before. Doesn't that mean that more components should be in "Class A"?

Answer: NO!

The best is the best, no matter how many "participants" are competing for that "title".

An Example: There were far more competitors at the 2008 Summer Olympics "than ever before", but there were still only 3 medals given out for each event. In pro sports, there is just one "all-star team", no matter how many expansion teams and new players are added.

Stereophile, between 1971 and 1985, faced a huge, relative increase in the available number of components (plus the advent of accepting advertising). Even so, during this entire 14 year period, under J. Gordon Holt's direction, Stereophile went from 7 to only 9 "Class A" components.

This historical fact is the final proof that there is not any "law" or "rule" that the Editor must increase his "Class A" recommendations just because there are a greater variety of components.../...

"Class A"?

In October 2000, there were 46* amplifiers alone in Class A, the so-called "best attainable". There are still dozens as this is written. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest, in every sense of that expression, can claim there are 46 "best" anything's. (Do you know anyone with 46 "best friends"?) All the other Class A component categories have had similar, totally implausible expansions.

Atkinson even created a new Class, "A+", which is even better than "the best"! In all human history, and in all human cultures, it has been philosophically impossible to be better than the best, except in Stereophile. It's not even a rare occurance. In fact, in their April 2003 RCL, there were more Digital Processors in Class A+ (7), than in Class C (2)!

*During the publishing control of J. Gordon Holt, from 1962 all the way to the middle 1970's, the highest number of amplifiers in Class A was 4. The lowest number of amplifiers in Class A was 1. Holt kept only that one single amplifier in Class A even after it was discontinued. This means Holt refused to place even one unworthy component into Class A, because he understood and respected the true meaning of the word "best". Now compare Holt's intellectual integrity to that displayed by John Atkinson." http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html

Now I want to say that I don't agree with Arthur on his attacks of Atkinson (and there is a heavy dose of unsubstantiated and unfair attacks) who very may well feel that such league tables are valuable - it is not dishonesty to have a different view than the guy you replace. Nevertheless, I do agree that having so many "class A" products and rave reviews dilutes what truly is the best of the best.

I think that such a league table would or should operate as a bell curve such that the best of the best would be in the smallest percentile - that's what best is supposed to mean.

Even then it is still just opinion - the best thing to do is find a reviewer with a similar ear to you. I like HE and SET based systems more than big power low efficiency systems and I believe a system should be able to play all music because the stereo should not care what is being played - it's job is to reproduce it. Others do not agree with that assessment and so they should find other reviewers who may offer them better help.

Audio reviewing is not all that different than movie reviewing. No matter what your favorite critic says - you're not going to agree 100% of the time.

Mike at AudioFederation and I agree 100% on Audio Note speakers and systems and many other rooms at CES but he HATED the Sony speakers and didn't like Magico speakers - I felt they were some of the better rooms at CES. The Sony just about made my top 5. So even though I trust Mike's advice - there are some polar opposite views.

I like Gordon's elite listing and I think that over time I may develop such a scheme of ranking. I went to over 70 rooms at CES and I could point to maybe 3 loudspeakers that I felt were true standouts. Then maybe another 10 that were excellent but a step down and then another group of good quality sound but didn't do it for me perhaps at the prices they were charging.
I wanted to address this point from RGA in another thread:

While I don't agree with Arthur Salvatore's attacks on John Atkinson (I think they are unsubstantiated) I agree that it is a good question of whether having so many 'Class A' components is actually useful... According to Stereophile, My Benchmark DAC1 is Class A, but the Bel Canto DAC3 and the Logitech Transporter are both supposed to be slightly better than it... What??? So the real question becomes what do they mean by Class A? Is Class A the best of the best (as Holt clearly had it) or just top quality HiFi? So maybe Holt regarded Class A as getting a 99% in a test, while under the Atkinson Admin, Class A means getting an A (90% to 100%)...

Another factor to consider it that when Holt was the only reviewer, he alone selected Class A, now John Atkinson does not select all Class A components. A product is rated Class A because at least one Stereophile reviewer regards it as being Class A (even if others disagree)...