Stereophile Recommended Components: 2019 Fall Edition

[the sound of Tao]

No probs - I think I am being perfectly rational as it seems do other WBF members.

Your repetitious attempts to convey that I (and other audiophiles) don’t understand “subjectivity” is frankly absurd. This list is a disorganised and irrelevant pile of nonsensical twaddle imho ymmv. No problem if you think I am harsh - I think I am just calling it out for what it is. As I said, I do enjoy the online writing on Stereophile and vids but hopefully (at least to me) this list is reworked.

What I do find strange is your motive for the need to defend this list?

AJ clearly thinks audiophiles aren’t real smart and don’t even understand subjectivity the way he does. I’m sure the poor ignorant audiophiles who buy his speakers take great comfort in that... and in the spirit of constant emoji punctuation .

 

[Audiophile Bill]

AJ clearly thinks audiophiles aren’t real smart and don’t even understand subjectivity the way he does. I’m sure the poor ignorant audiophiles who buy his speakers take great comfort in that... and in the spirit of constant emoji punctuation .

Exactly. I can’t even be arsed to respond to it.

 

[NorthStar]

Stereophile’s Recommended component list , is usually being loved by those who see their equipment listed there, and hated by the rest.
The first group is also recognizing Fremer as the ultimate objective reviewer until the moment that they will enter into the second group.

Sometime I think like that ... audiophiles who are happy to see their gear in High class of recommended components. Other times I dream of higher levels ...

 

[NorthStar]

Why are you guys playing tough with AJ?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Subjectivity

the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.

AJ clearly thinks audiophiles aren’t real smart and don’t even understand subjectivity the way he does.

My understanding of subjectivity is based on the dictionary definition I previously linked and quoted above, just to clear up your confusion. Whether audiophiles understand it is up to them, not I.
I simply stated that Bill calling Stereophiles purely subjective preferences/grading "rubbish", was a bit harsh, given the defined meaning of the words. In quotes.

 

[the sound of Tao]

My understanding of subjectivity is based on the dictionary definition I previously linked and quoted above, just to clear up your confusion. Whether audiophiles understand it is up to them, not I.
I simply stated that Bill calling Stereophiles purely subjective preferences/grading "rubbish", was a bit harsh, given the defined meaning of the words. In quotes.

AJ the Stereophile recommendation list clearly is not just an open list of subjective assessment. To harp on about how the definition of subjectivity can be used to completely validate the list or it’s findings or even the essential quality of the list is a failure to understand how assessment is made and can be validated.

The list is essentially a compilation of just the gear reviewed by Stereophile. It comes out of objective and subjective assessment. How what is on the list is then shaped by what it takes commercially to get gear reviewed and skewed by other factors beyond just what the reviewers like about any of the gear they can choose to make recommendation on.

How fair or valid that makes the possible choices is clearly open for speculation. How meaningful the list truly is to any of us is going to vary.

Why is this important then?

Because it just comes back to meaningfulness. To a reader who finds nothing meaningful in the recommendations the list then is kind of rubbish. For the reader whose preferences the list reflects the list is potentially valuable.

Subjectivity is clearly graded and content specific. So yes the list can be rubbish to some both subjectively and objectively and it can be equally valuable to others. The method of assessment sets the limits of the validity... and the scope of the value of the list.

You like the list. Great. Doesn’t invalidate that someone else just doesn’t.

This is not an open list so it clearly then dramatically limits how valuable it can truly be to the whole community (of which you go to lengths to continually set yourself exclusive of).

The fact that some here find little of interest in it likely reflects that the way the list is derived in that it lacks sufficient scope and range in assessment to make it more representative or valuable and that the kind of gear that Stereophile actually reviews simply may not be of much interest to significant parts of the community.

Banging on about how you are the only one who understands anything about subjectivity here isn’t a defining or even necessarily salient point in this debate. It’s just a bragging right... and perhaps not a very good one.

I return to my modest day job in developing and validating assessment (both of the subjective and the objective kind) in which I am qualified and both train and write and validate assessment in.

I’m also designing myself a speaker at the moment. Hope it doesn’t end up making me feeling too inflated about what I know and what then all others don’t. Which reminds me... hey Bill, hows your speaker design coming along. Very much looking forward to reading more about it... loudspeaker design is joyful and perhaps not quite as impossibly challenging as it first sounds. Highly recommended A+.

 

[BlueFox]

I think that the list is only equipment they have reviewed at some point. Obviously, they can’t include gear they have never heard.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Bud sticking to what has been comprehensively reviewed could be the limiting factor... perhaps if on the list the potential for consideration included everything that the staff had heard in all their travels that had proved interesting, memorable and worthy of investigation that might open the list up to greater interest.

What is being recommended, is it a recommendation to purchase or recommendation to audition. If it’s a recommendation just for further research then anything the reviewers might feel would be good to listen to or that they’d put on their shortlists for personal audition even if the gear hadn’t previously appeared in the magazine at all.

The reviewers would have experienced much more gear than the limited amount that had made it in for review.

So it was primarily just about all subjective impressions on all the gear all the reviewers had heard including those that they have not engaged in any formal review and included gear with absolutely no previous commercial connection with the magazine then this might actually be the more interesting list as it would include a lot of gear that Stereophile would not traditionally review and broaden it well past just the usual mainstream contenders.

 

[NorthStar]

If some audio reviewers vote for gear they've never heard before...that'll be the day.

 

[tima]

Bud sticking to what has been comprehensively reviewed could be the limiting factor... perhaps if on the list the potential for consideration included everything that the staff had heard in all their travels that had proved interesting, memorable and worthy of investigation that might open the list up to greater interest.
.

Well ... okay - that is a possible approach.

To be fair to the reader, it would need a lot of categorization: Formal reviews, show-based reviews, 20 minutes at a dealer reviews of used products the dealer doesn't carry, the editor told me to hear it reviews, heard at a friend's house reviews, youtube reviews, etc. All with the appropriate verbiage about each category. I suspect most magazines and most reviewers consider non-formal reviews to not carry the same weight and authority that comes from living with a product in a known system for a few months - and they want the reader to be aware of that. So lots of lists and lots of caveats.

Not to say your type of list wouldn't be interesting,

What is being recommended, is it a recommendation to purchase or recommendation to audition. If it’s a recommendation just for further research then anything the reviewers might feel would be good to listen to or that they’d put on their shortlists for personal audition even if the gear hadn’t previously appeared in the magazine at all.

Imo 'responsible' reviews never go beyond a recommendation for follow-up or an audition. Unfortunately opportunities for audtions have dwindled considerably. Maybe there should be lists based on geography and ease of access.

In the world of published reviews there are reviews done because the editor gives an assignment and reviews done because the reviewer wants to review the product. Both are legitimate and can uncover laudible products, but the latter pre-screened coverage is how much of the 'what looks interesting' group makes it into print.

So it was primarily just about all subjective impressions on all the gear all the reviewers had heard including those that they have not engaged in any formal review and included gear with absolutely no previous commercial connection with the magazine then this might actually be the more interesting list

That list would be called 'the internet'.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Bud sticking to what has been comprehensively reviewed could be the limiting factor... perhaps if on the list the potential for consideration included everything that the staff had heard in all their travels that had proved interesting, memorable and worthy of investigation that might open the list up to greater interest.

I think that is a terrible idea. Such ad hoc assessments under strange and variable circumstances (such as audio shows) are completely unreliable imho. For example, I've heard some show demos that were absolutely awful/wonderful (pick either one) but consisted of unfamiliar equipment. How can one say anything useful about any of the individual components?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

AJ the Stereophile recommendation list clearly is not just an open list of subjective assessment. To harp on about how the definition of subjectivity can be used to completely validate the list or it’s findings or even the essential quality of the list is a failure to understand how assessment is made and can be validated.

It absolutely is a purely subjective list, with of course, factors like availability, reliability, etc.
In THEIR words from the link:

The ratings we give components are based entirely on performance—ie, faithfulness of reproduction to the original, in as many aspects as possible. As with any such endeavor, our reviews are not free from bias. Indeed, ratings are strongly dependent on reviewers' tastes and preoccupations.
Get to know our reviewers' tastes and points of view and you'll find their opinions far more useful.
"Recommended Components" will not tell you what to buy any more than Consumer Reports would presume to tell you whom to marry!

It is simply recommendations/ratings based on subjective preferences of several folks, without any controls, for biases, etc.
By their own words. No different from any other purely subjective uncontrolled evaluation. If it is mainly a "load of rubbish" per Bill, then so is every other list, including his own. Can't have it both ways. I think you are acknowledging this.
Btw, I wouldn't consider Bills list "rubbish" if i didn't agree with it. Just different strokes for different folks, as you noted. Tis all.

You like the list. Great.

No sir. I'm neither "defending" or "liking" the list. I have no skin in that game, none of my products are on it, nor likely to be. I know it's convenient to assign a "motivation" from me, but I'm simply pointing out the subjective nature of the list doesn't warrant "rubbishing" nearly the whole thing as if there is a "correct" or more "accurate" non-rubbish version somewhere...outside of someones mind.

I’m also designing myself a speaker at the moment. Hope it doesn’t end up making me feeling too inflated about what I know and what then all others don’t. Which reminds me... hey Bill, hows your speaker design coming along. Very much looking forward to reading more about it... loudspeaker design is joyful and perhaps not quite as impossibly challenging as it first sounds. Highly recommended A+.

Interesting. You seem to have a rather large list of components. Are you a dealer? If not, that's quite a collection. Some of the speakers have some attributes that might be attributed in where I am now. Of course I've been doing it for 40 yrs, so maybe a bit longer that you. Yet the motivation might be surpriingly similiar...maybe. Don't want to drag this thread too off course, maybe you can start a new on detailing your project?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

How can one say anything useful about any of the individual components?

You use your ear/brain gating function to window out the nuisance variables and focus on true culprits.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

It absolutely is a purely subjective list, with of course, factors like availability, reliability, etc.
In THEIR words from the link:

It is simply recommendations/ratings based on subjective preferences of several folks, without any controls, for biases, etc.
By their own words. No different from any other purely subjective uncontrolled evaluation. If it is mainly a "load of rubbish" per Bill, then so is every other list, including his own. Can't have it both ways. I think you are acknowledging this.
Btw, I wouldn't consider Bills list "rubbish" if i didn't agree with it. Just different strokes for different folks, as you noted. Tis all.


No sir. I'm neither "defending" or "liking" the list. I have no skin in that game, none of my products are on it, nor likely to be. I know it's convenient to assign a "motivation" from me, but I'm simply pointing out the subjective nature of the list doesn't warrant "rubbishing" nearly the whole thing as if there is a "correct" or more "accurate" non-rubbish version somewhere...outside of someones mind.


Interesting. You seem to have a rather large list of components. Are you a dealer? If not, that's quite a collection. Some of the speakers have some attributes that might be attributed in where I am now. Of course I've been doing it for 40 yrs, so maybe a bit longer that you. Yet the motivation might be surpriingly similiar...maybe. Don't want to drag this thread too off course, maybe you can start a new on detailing your project?

“If it is mainly a "load of rubbish" per Bill, then so is every other list, including his own.”

Yes every list is rubbish because this list is rubbish!? Oh dear.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

You use your ear/brain gating function to window out the nuisance variables and focus on true culprits.

Are you saying that the nuisance variables differ in timing or frequency?

 

[Bruce B]

Just like the Grammys..... a popularity contest......

Most of us have equipment that's on it (or has been on it) and some of us do not. The only thing that is important is "does your system bring a smile to your face"??

 

[DonH50]

^^^ Exactly! I think it's fun to leaf through, have always known it did not include everything (most of my stuff ain't on it), but interesting to see what they think. The Audio list attempted to include everything but was simply a list of components without any sort of ranking. I actually liked it more as I could find new manufacturers I had not heard about.

 

[Bruce B]

^^^ Exactly! I think it's fun to leaf through, have always known it did not include everything (most of my stuff ain't on it), but interesting to see what they think.

Have never understood how a $1500 turntable and a $40,000 turntable can BOTH be in Class A ?????

 

[NorthStar]

Just like the Grammys..... a popularity contest......

Most of us have equipment that's on it (or has been on it) and some of us do not. The only thing that is important is "does your system bring a smile to your face"??

And some days more than others; it depends of what music is spinning, our mood, the weather outside, ... but our mood is very revealing of our listening judgement ... IMO.