I recently emailed John Atkinson of Stereophile

Maybe some Audiogoners ought to hook up and consider implementing a new section in Audiogon dedicated to component/sounds, comparison, system matching, from our own point of views and listening sessions, I know, sounds a little far fetched, but keeps the mags on the racks and the reviewers could read our stuff !!

Sorlowski, I don't have to speak Polish to look at the pictures do I :>)

Bbenn, very insightful on the lack of any educational content. As for Fremmer, I used to learn a lot from his column but lately all we get is news from the latest stereo show and unrelated crap like his experience driving a sports car. I only subscribe to get exposure to new music. About all I get from the reviews is info about the music the reviewer is currently using to evaluate his system. I think it is worth the $1 an issue for that.

Take a look at the back cover of Stereophile and you will see that Musical Fidelity has bought that advertising space for well over a year. Musical Fidelity has been featured many times within that same period with various reviews.

Stereophile needs both subscription(newstand)and ad revenue to survive, but the higher $$ ads seem to arouse a review, and we are to believe that this review is unbiased?

Not to take anything away from Musical Fidelity, but why would Stereophile go to great lengths with a review for a component that is being produced in a limited supply(500 units)?

Just a thought.

Kek

Atkinson's reply is indicative of the corner they've painted themselves into with this 'ranking' business. It could well be true that, for instance, preamps sound better today on average than they did 10 years ago. But if you read Stereophile's grade definitions, you will understand that even if that were the case, since the preamps (and everything else) are supposed to be ranked in accordance to what is currently available in the marketplace, there are still plenty of moderately-priced models that should be very recommendable at the lower rankings (even if you want to accept that there are no higher-priced models being made anymore that deserve to wind up there).

If that scenario is credible, then "Class A"-ranked products of today should sound better than gear ranked "A" from 10 years ago, and the same thing should hold true for "B"-class gear and so on. Yet even if that description were fact, it should still not change the relative distributions of gear throughout the rankings - unless the magazine has now stopped reviewing entry-level gear, and reviews much more reference-level gear instead.

So: Either they are guilty of promulgating grade-creep, in which "A" or "D" rankings mean something different today than they meant a decade ago (and also than their listed definitions stipulate), or they are guilty of neglecting to review the full range of gear available, at all price levels. IMO, the problem comes from both directions, but either way, the results have rendered the rankings increasingly meaningless and joke-worthy. Doesn't JA ever sit down with his own mag and realize they are now saying (and twice a year no less, which is once too many!) that in many catagories, a majority of the gear that comes across their threshold qualifies to be described as "Best attainable sound for a component of its kind"?! Maybe once they've finished with this progression and everything is rated "Class A", they can consider their jobs done and cease publication, since we'll no longer need audio criticism anymore.

I would like to see an outfit like Consumer Reports for high end. Use the same criteria that they used to use. They got nothing free from vendors, they bought it all just like we do. They would do real judging, and comparisons and give us a real "best buy" Where I would especially like to see them go to work, is on power cords and interconnects, do real evaluations, ie blind tests, and let us know what is snake oil, and what is for real