Stereophile 2023 recommended gear list

[Gibsonian]

Textural suppleness sounds like something I need to explore more.............

 

[rdenney]

True, but music recorded in the studio can sound just like the recording engineer intended. You may or may not care about that, but that is after all the idea of high fidelity.

Yes, but the recording engineer is on the art creation side of the equation--not on the distribution and playback side.

I'm reminded of stories from earlier days of photography. When Ansel Adams made his first "book", it was really a limited-edition portfolio of photographic prints, and he made all of them. Nothing about that distribution medium is analogous to music reproduction and playback. It would be like bringing people one at a time into the studio to hear the final mix straight out of the mixing desk, I suppose. The problem with it is lack of scalability. Adams only made a hundred of his first portfolio, and that was an enormous project for him. He tried to make every photograph identical to his best print, and there was enough hand manipulation (literally) under the enlarger that every print was a little different.

But the first time he made photographs for a printed book, a whole new range of issues emerged. What was the range of tones the lithography (or gravure) process could attain? He had to make prints targeted to what those processes could reproduce. When I make a Blurb book, I use a profile from Blurb in Photoshop to simulate what Blurb's high-production printers can attain. That process is akin to taking the mixed master and turning it into a scalable, affordable, and distributable recording. These days, distribution technology is so good that it poses few limitations. Now, we just need equipment at our end that can take advantage of that technology, etc. Art creation stopped long ago. Those books will be evaluated (technically) by how closely they emulate the actual photographic prints, not be the landscape Adams photographed.

That said, I think even photography is a poor analog. Art prints are probably closer to it. The artist makes a painting, typically in oils or watercolors. One example (that my wife collects) is Bev Doolittle. She makes an oil painting from her imagination, so there's the first translation. Then, the painting is photographed, carefully corrected and adjusted, and then printed in a series of actual-size proofs on inkjet printers (the artsy-fartsy term is "giclee"). Doolittle signs and numbers these giclee prints and sells them for a high price. Then, the image is further corrected and adjusted to create a large print on paper using process color (that is, screened half-tones for each of four printer-primary colors--cyan, magenta, yellow, and black), versus the 10 or 12 ink colors the professional inkjet printer would use). A limited series of large prints is made, signed, and numbered, using very fine screens to get the best possible rendering. The series is limited (presumably) because only one set of screens will be used and the series will use them up. These get a high price, but not as high as the giclee print. And so on, down to the smaller high-speed process-color prints in unlimited series using more durable screens in faster machines on cheaper paper. The point is: Each of those prints, from the giclee proofs down to the greeting-card reprints, will be measured by how close it comes to the oil painting, not by how close it comes to the landscape in Doolittle's mind when she painted it.

Again, without making the distinction between art creation, reproduction, distribution, and playback, people come to believe that art is created at every step, but that only serves to pull the product further away from what the art creators were able to attain. The problem of the age is that people expect playback technology to create art, but without defining the art. This opens the door for foolishness. This is NOT the same thing as wondering why something seemed to sound better than it measured, and looking for better ways to measure it as a result, or for better ways to calibrate those perceptions. I think that's where Stereophile started, in contrast to a magazine test-measurement regime that only looked at a limited range of performance that was easy to measure with the technology of the day. What Amir routinely measures is far more detailed and descriptive than what used to be reported in magazines back in the day. This is particularly true for speakers. Stereophile makes good measurements, too, but was already established as the journal of record for anti-technology high-touch skeptics who believe that art is produced at every step. I don't envy the tight-rope John and others had to follow to attempt objective rigor when most of their readers and the advertisers for whom those readers are marks customers were already committed to this mindset. Perhaps the integrity move would have been to simply quit, but that's easier said than done. (I do note that Gordon Holt, after retiring, said something similar about the loss of objective truth in modern high-end audio.)

Rick "step awaaaay from the keyboard, Rick" Denney

 

[rdenney]

"Textural suppleness" seems to have been liberated from the vine...

"textural suppleness" - Google Search

"If one criticism can be levelled at them it is their facility: an easy sweetness of fruit and textural suppleness which sometimes makes one ..."

"Wine Spectator 91 Points Deep, rich and potent, with a seam of elegance and textural suppleness that bodes well for the future, offering a core of dark ..."

"There is precision and energy matched by textural suppleness that has rarely, if ever been seen. Handpicked estate fruit. Cool fermentation with cultured ..."

"The result is textural suppleness to complement the acidity, and a surprising ability to age. (Recent tastings of 1977, 1983, 1989, and 1991 all continue to ..."


It comes at much less expense with wine, so, maybe if you combine yer cheap gear with some bottled textural suppleness, you'll have a weiner.

Wine, and maybe lots of it, certainly helps when reading reviews devoid of rigor.

By the way, I again complain about the term "subjectivist". All evaluations can be subjective and still be rigorous. All of what Floyd Toole did with preference testing for speakers is in that category--both subjective and rigorous. All preference testing is subjective, by definition. There is nothing wrong with subjective testing; it's the uncontrolled subjective testing dominated by the feelings, perspective, and mood of the single reviewer that are, to me, the problem. And they have to be so dominated, because the perceptions they report often cannot survive rigor.

Electronics are easy to measure objectively and be able to predict outcomes accurately. Speakers less so, in part because they work better or worse depending on the environment in which they are installed, and with whatever skill. I still depend on subjective speaker assessments, even when they are uncontrolled. Amir does provide those, too, so apparently I'm not alone in that dependence.

Rick "prefers Scotch" Denney

 

[antcollinet]

Textural suppleness. What an age we live in

I could do with a bit more textural suppleness when I get out of bed in the morning. I think it's the age I live in.

 

[holdingpants01]

"Textural suppleness" seems to have been liberated from the vine...

"textural suppleness" - Google Search

"If one criticism can be levelled at them it is their facility: an easy sweetness of fruit and textural suppleness which sometimes makes one ..."

"Wine Spectator 91 Points Deep, rich and potent, with a seam of elegance and textural suppleness that bodes well for the future, offering a core of dark ..."

"There is precision and energy matched by textural suppleness that has rarely, if ever been seen. Handpicked estate fruit. Cool fermentation with cultured ..."

"The result is textural suppleness to complement the acidity, and a surprising ability to age. (Recent tastings of 1977, 1983, 1989, and 1991 all continue to ..."


It comes at much less expense with wine, so, maybe if you combine yer cheap gear with some bottled textural suppleness, you'll have a weiner.

 

[manisandher]

Okto dac8 stereo (A+) and Okto dac8 pro (A) continue do very well in both the Stereophile recommendations...

Yes, good to see. And yet...

"The Topping DM7's measured performance is superb...", but only good enough for Stereophile class B status. At $599, simply too cheap for class A perhaps?

Mani.

 

[mhardy6647]

Yes, good to see. And yet...

"The Topping DM7's measured performance is superb...", but only good enough for Stereophile class B status. At $599, simply too cheap for class A perhaps?

Mani.

Probably a little short on textual textural suppleness.

 

[egellings]

Textural suppleness. What an age we live in

Get a couple for the kids!

 

[egellings]

Hahaha, I used to held these Magazines in high regard, (and still occasionally) read/watch them, however since ASR i just see them more as the Playboy and such, nice for eye candy but not much else i'm afraid.

I read them to get my laffs.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

HR wrote that "the Marantz version of class-D clarity brought greater transparency to the upper five octaves, in a way I have not previously experienced with any class-D module."

If you start with 10 KHz as the lower boundary of the top octave, think of the sequence Fn = F(n-1) / 2. Doing it in my history major head give me 625 Hz as the lower limit. Sorry for lack of subscripts. It seems like they're saying that class D doesn't usually reproduce sound above 625 Hz very well.

 

[delta76]

Just had a look at the 2023 recommended gear list on stereophile.com, and it appears if the item doesn't cost less than my car, it won't make the highest recommendation grade. It's quite sad that they are appealing mainly to the 'more money than sense' customer. Thank god for ASR.

as we objectivists mostly listen to the graphs, the subjectivists mostly listen to the price tags

j/k

 

[anmpr1]

...it appears if the item doesn't cost less than my car, it won't make the highest recommendation grade.

Well, Fordie, it's not Stereophile's fault you don't have a W16 Mistral in parked in your driveway.

 

[Axo1989]

Amir never hears textural suppleness, though. We have a long ways to go.

Equipment needs textural suppleness. Reviewers need textual suppleness.

 

[fordiebianco]

Well, Fordie, it's not Stereophile's fault you don't have a W16 Mistral in parked in your driveway.

My Suzuki Vitara measures very well, thank you very much (and is probably the equivalent of an Aayima in the motor world).

 

[Sal1950]

​

Arthur Salvatore's​

Audio Magazines

THE (SECRET) RULES OF 'AUDIO REVIEWING'​

​

1. Never anger any protected audio industry entity, such as:

A. An important current, or potential, advertiser; including manufacturers, distributors or retailers, or...

B. Any other audio establishment which has a "personal relationship" with you.
2. Delay acknowledging any serious problems with a "protected" component until you give another rave review to the "updated" model which replaces it and "corrects" the problems.
3. Avoid making any direct comparisons with a "protected" component, but if you have to, follow these "Solutions":
A. Compare the component only to older and/or obsolete models, especially from the same manufacturer. (See Rule #2 above).
B. If Solution "A" is not possible, compare the component to "competitors" costing either MUCH more or MUCH less.
C. If both Solutions "A" or "B" are not possible, "neglect" to mention the actual names and model numbers of the rival components that you compare it to in the review.

D. If Solutions "A", "B" or "C" are all not feasible, and you must compare the model to a current, similarly priced (and "protected") competitor that you must name, then you must be:
1. As ambiguous as possible, and you must also...
2. Never describe any problem as "serious" (See Rule #3.E)
3. Never proclaim one model to be clearly superior to the other(s). In short...
4. Both (or all) of the components must be seen as equally desirable and of similar value.

E. Problems or imperfections that aren't obvious (such as no bass below 40 Hz with small speakers), may be described as "serious" (easy to hear) only when using Solutions "A", "B" or "C".
However, any problems described when using Solution "D" must always be "subtle" and "difficult to hear", or even described as an "advancement" if possible.
4. You must never inform readers if an "audiophile" accessory or tweak is also available in a generic form at a fraction of the price that the "protected" manufacturer is charging (Blue Tac and RFI rings etc.).
5. Any and all "transactions" between you and any of the parties mentioned in Rule #1 must always be kept strictly Confidential. Accordingly...
A. You must never divulge the actual price, if any, you paid to "purchase" your reference components or accessories, or any extra costs you paid, if any, to have those same components updated, modified, repaired, replaced etc.
B. You must never divulge any "gifts", "favors" or "perks" that you received from the "protected" audio entities, or those with whom you have a "personal relationship".
6. You must never mention the actual costs, even at retail prices, of the parts that are used to manufacture the component.
7. Further to Rules #4 & #6, you must never state, or even imply, that any component or accessory is "over-priced".
8. The more corrupt your magazine is, the more you shall proclaim your honesty.
9. Magazines shall never divulge the actual percentage of their advertising revenues to their total revenues.

10. OVERRIDE CLAUSE- Some of the preceding rules (#1, #2 & #3) may be ignored only in the event of either a serious (and apparently indefinite) breach of the "personal relationship" between the audio company and reviewer/magazine, and/or the termination, or non-payment, of their advertising contract.

Top

 

[restorer-john]

There's an awful lot of time, consideration and work that's gone into their recommended lists.

People can sit back in their basemement, peering at their computer screen, poking fun and jeering at Stereophile, but those guys have been properly reviewing HiFi for many decades. Many of you were not even born when JA started using the first Audio Precision System One in his reviews.

They've successfully balanced extensive technical reviewing and hands on operation, along with subjective comments, and I hope they continue to do so for years to come.

 

[Sal1950]

There's an awful lot of time, consideration and work that's gone into their recommended lists.

That would be awesome if they were honest, which they are not.

 

[anmpr1]

​

Arthur Salvatore's THE (SECRET) RULES OF 'AUDIO REVIEWING'​

Salvatore, an ex audio store owner, has been MIA for a while. He's definitely on the tweako side, but his list was pretty funny. In fact, it once infuriated Fremer so hotly, that Mr. Analog threatened to take Art to court for, I guess, hurting his feelings. Typical Mikey over the top lunacy, and coming from anyone else would be embarrassing. He pulled his little act on Aczel too, but that's another story.

From what I've gathered, and to his credit, Fremer seems to have generally calmed these past few years. Maybe it's age, maybe his dosage was properly adjusted. Whatever, this stuff is surely not worth getting worked up over.

To tell you the truth, I'm surprised that AI hasn't taken over the subjective reviewing. Maybe it has, but we just don't know it.

 

[Sal1950]

In fact, it once infuriated Fremer so hotly, that Mr. Analog threatened to take Art to court for, I guess, hurting his feelings.

Mikey publicly did the same to me on the Computer Audiophile forums a few years back.
He claimed I "besmirched his character" and was going to have Stereophiles parent organization take legal action against me. LOL
To their credit a bunch of members jumped on him, making fun of him, and embarrassed him so badly he shut his mouth and never did crap. The whole bruhaha has since been deleted by Chris.
Arthur is quite bit of a subjectivist wack job himself, what he's written on the high end media subject it mostly correct, but it's also a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. ROTF---------
You just can't make this schitt up.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Stereophile has always paid slavish tribute to mega-expensive offering with condescending inclusion of the odd moderate and even budget component, often at 'B' or 'C' levels. Not a whole lot has changed in the regard but it is gratifying to see, e.g. Topping's D90 preamp included with a 'A' rating.

It is the Topping Pre90 that is in the "A" rating class.