++++StereoPhile Class A components+++++

Paulwp: The real problem with the disclaimer that prefaces the "A"-rated speakers is that if Stereophile sees fit to include such there, and they were really being honest about it, then they should go ahead and include the same thing everywhere in the rankings. Which they won't do because it would in effect nullify the whole idea of capsule review summaries and catch-all letter grades - and quite rightly so, if they were intent on pretending that these are somehow authoritative. Obviously, the truth is that nothing should be taken as gospel without reading the original review - and then that shouldn't be taken as gospel! Whether the piece in question is a $30K pair of speakers or a $300 set of cables. Upshot: The "A"-rated speakers disclaimer is archaic and wrongheaded, and if they are going to persist with R.C. at all, then the disclaimer should be removed and capsule review summaries included, same as with any other type of gear. Stereophile greatly overestimates their own importance if they can kid themselves into seriously thinking that anyone would actually drop big bux on some speakers - or anything else - because of a blurb in R.C., so let's please drop the pretentious act of seeming so worried for us poor audiophiles' easy impressionability.

But your objection is, to me, essentially meaningless until the day arrives that someone can prove they've produced a perfect component. Barring that, saying that reviewers (and by extension, manufacturers) don't 'know' what gear is 'supposed' to do, because their only possible job is to identify (or produce) sonically flawless gear, is empty sophistry. Of course there is no such gear, and there never will be, but there will always be imperfection and questions of perception and preference, which is why there will always be an audience for subjective reviewing (even if you may not be among it). Criticizing and knowing the limitations of subjective reviewing is one thing, and we should all be cognizant about it, but promoting uselessly unrealistic expectations by way of condemning the whole enterprise is another, and one with which I cannot agree, even if a lot of 'professinal' reviewing is done in a disappointing way.

I wouldn't trust Steropiles "Ratings".
First, they haven't reviewed everything.
I've heard set-ups including the high-priced so-called Class"A" components, and they sound crappy. Very prestigious, but Crappy!
There are obviously Excellent products out there that deserve more attention, but Stereophile doesn't get them. Why?
I've heard from people in the business that it can cost a lot of money to get a Class "A" rating. There are excellent products that we read about here on Audiogon that have had good reviews elsewhere but NOT in Stereophile. The price was too high for the maufacturer to get a review there, so Sterophile doesn't get that component for review. That's why they are losing credibility in the industry.

You wrote: "I've heard from people in the business that it can cost a lot of money to get a Class "A" rating..... The price was too high for the maufacturer to get a review there, so Sterophile doesn't get that component for review."

Speaking as someone who has, in fact, recommended Class A for some components and not for others, this is an old canard for which no proof has ever been offered.

In so much as people's hearing differs--Their likes and dislikes--Their experience as listners differs--The rest of their equipment and the room--the amount of care in set-up,all differ. I doubt it would that difficult to substitute a class B product, within a given system, and get better sound than it had with the class A product it replaced.

Golden Ears, Kr4 presumably knows you have no proof of your claims because there is none that could be had, and I strongly suspect the same thing. So please tell us: Who exactly "in the industry" has purported to tell you what the going price is to 'buy' a Stereophile "Class A" ranking (something which, in your next sentence, you confuse with 'buying' any review at all)? And if there were such a quid pro quo, and it was so prohibitively exhorbitant as you imply, then how could you explain the proliferation of "Class A"-rated components over the past several years, even during lean times for segments of the industry? Or the occasional "B" or "C" rankings sometimes given to products made by financially healthy companies, who would have every incentive to simply pay up for the higher ranking if that were all it took? There are enough real pitfalls to criticize about the mag reviewing game without having to make up incredible and unsupported stories of massive corruption and blatant fraud. As I've written around here before, if that were all that was wrong with 'professional' reviewing the way it's commonly practiced, then fixing the situation would be a lot simpler than reality tells it to be.