• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Stereophile Recommended Components 2024


One of the highlights is seeing the Storm Audio ISP Evo getting A+ for digital processors not just for theater use.

For amps, AHB2 and Schiit Tyr in A class.

I think the speaker list is interesting in showing how preferences can deviate. B&W for example has the ability to make neutral speakers but chooses not to and in the rooms that the listeners are choosing they do seem to like it.

Importantly, many of the reviewers probably have lost their high frequency hearing so the uptilt may not be as noxious in blind testing as compared to the measurements might predict. The strengths of the rest may translate into a good experience.

The one missing part of audio science is *how* stereo imaging masks frequency response irregularities. We know that mono listening helps distinguish speakers and what is preferred in mono is also preferred in stereo, but I would imagine that there may be ways to enhance the masking effect of stereo and one analysis of the B&W treble involves how much HF gets thrown backward.

Oh well! As it's said,"You could laugh or you could cry."
 
My sense is that audiophile publications exist for the ad revenue. The florid prose describing the inherent goodness of spending extra money on components that should be much less costly is all I really need to know. Hard pass.
 
My sense is that audiophile publications exist for the ad revenue. The florid prose describing the inherent goodness of spending extra money on components that should be much less costly is all I really need to know. Hard pass.

Robin I understand that point of view.

I have a somewhat different point of view informed, in part, from my own experience.

During the short period did I did some speaker reviews long ago for online audiophile magazine I had only these goals:
To share my enthusiasm for a particular piece of gear that I really liked, and do my absolute best to describe the sound as accurately as I could so that if somebody heard it, they would say “ yes, it sounds like you described.”

If my prose was florid, it was in service of the above goals not for advertising.

Having known quite a number of reviewers, for the most part I find they are aiming for the same. For instance a very close friend writes for an audiophile mag, and I’m very familiar with the behind-the-scenes of his reviews. He puts a hell of a lot of work into his reviews, and his goal is strictly to be as entertaining and informative as he can be for the reader. (he often brings me over or other people he knows to double check his own impressions.)

I suppose you can say that such reviews as the ones I’m describing still “ exist for ad revenue” but then I guess in the big picture what content doesn’t in any magazine?
The point I’m making is that the prose itself being created is not necessarily done with advertising in mind.
 
Last edited:
Robin I understand that point of view.

I have a somewhat different point of view informed, in part, from my own experience.

During the short period did I did some speaker reviews long ago for online audiophile magazine I had only these goals:
To share my enthusiasm for a particular piece of gear when I was enthusiastic, and do my absolute best to describe the sound as accurately as I could so that if somebody heard it, they would say “ yes, it sounds like you described.”

If my prose was florid, it was in service of the above goals not for advertising.

Having known quite a number of reviewers, for the most part I find they are aiming for the same. For instance a very close friend writes for an online audiophile magazine, and I’m very familiar with the behind-the-scenes of his reviews. He puts a hell of a lot of work into his reviews, and his goal is strictly to be as entertaining and informative as he can be for the reader. (he often brings me over or other people he knows to double check his own impressions.)

I suppose you can say that such reviews as the ones I’m describing still “ exist for ad revenue” but then I guess in the big picture what content doesn’t in any magazine?
The point I’m making is that the prose itself being created is not necessarily done with advertising in mind.

Matt, what did you do when the speaker was average or sounded worse than gear you would use? It's always interesting how different reviewers handle this.

You can be the best reviewer in the world but if it's not generating income the process soon comes to a stop. It's hard to find a model where poor reviews dramatically increase reviewer income. There's the conflict of interest that causes many speakers to get a decent review even when the reviewer would never buy them personally.
 
OMA K3: $363,000 including power supply and Schröder SLM tonearm

MF described this idiosyncratically styled, massive, and very expensive turntable as looking “somewhat like the Guggenheim Museum topped by a heliport and a construction crane.” Even so, he was impressed by its performance, with the 11.1" “aluminum girder” Schröder tonearm fitted with Ortofon Anna D, Lyra Etna l Lambda SL, and Lyra Atlas l Lambda SL phono cartridges. He described the K3’s sound as “fast, clean, detailed, highly resolving, super-transparent, effortlessly dynamic, and capable of producing unparalleled transient precision and depth-charge-deep bass ‘wallop’ that’s fully extended yet totally free from overhang.” He concluded, “As with any truly great audio product, regardless of price, the OMA K3 turntable speaks with a singular voice.” Offers 33 1/3, 45, and 78rpm speeds. Dedicated stand costs $40,000

363,000$ for a turntable without one shred of factual evidence to justify the astronomical price tag.
And that is just one of many example. Imagining a person who bought one, listening to that TT on a pair of speaker connected out of phase brings a smile.
ASR or no ASR, how can a price tag of that magnitude make sense to any sane person?
 
how can a price tag of that magnitude make sense to any sane person?
because it is the cost of craftsmanship, very different from that of industries that produce in series.

A friend produces preamplifiers, and just yesterday he was telling me that for his next model, he has already spent several tens of thousands of euros just on prototypes, parts, craftsmen, certifications, boxes, laboratory tests, fairs and advertising. And nothing has come out of his laboratory yet. In addition, you have to set aside spare parts, guarantee repairs and parts that can break and wear out. It goes without saying that if he were to only sell 15 units he would get by with a cost per unit of a few thousand euros, to repay everything that is behind it…..then, you will also have to make money, the distributor, the shop and also the state, which applies the taxes….

then, I would never spend 360,000 euros on a turntable or a speaker…., a house immediately comes to mind or, if I really have to, a vintage collector's car and in any case objects that can also become an investment as well as a pleasure to have....but I have seen few investments in the audio world...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GDK
Matt, what did you do when the speaker was average or sounded worse than gear you would use? It's always interesting how different reviewers handle this.

You can be the best reviewer in the world but if it's not generating income the process soon comes to a stop. It's hard to find a model where poor reviews dramatically increase reviewer income. There's the conflict of interest that causes many speakers to get a decent review even when the reviewer would never buy them personally.

I certainly see what you’re saying about the problem of a business model and too many bad reviews. I think to me that’s the type of balance a publisher or editor has to worry about. So it’s a legitimate issue, of course.
But I guess I’m saying in my experience that kind of stuff is not top of mind to the person writing reviews (unless perhaps they are publishing their own magazine?).

And I guess all this is going to vary among publications and among individual reviewers.

In my case, I didn’t have to deal with reviewing stuff I didn’t like. I was cherry picking speakers that I’d had some good listing time with and which had characteristics I clearly thought were terrific.
So I was thinking: “ I really want to tell you about this speaker I’ve heard, why I think it’s special and stuck out from among many others I auditioned, and I’ll do my best to describe it warts and all.”

I already knew that I found plenty to like in the gear I was going to review. And frankly, I probably wouldn’t have done it if it involved just being shoved gear I didn’t care for.

And a lot of reviewers seem to work in a similar way. Very often they are reviewing gear that had impressed them elsewhere, and that’s why they chose to review it. There’s a lot of “ why would I bother wasting a lot of my life writing about gear I think sounds poor, when I can choose the gear that I’m actually excited about and that I want to tell other people about?”

I think that type of self-selection bias really does account for many of the positive reviews.

On the other hand, there are reviewers who work for large magazines, and they not only choose some gear to review on their own, but they are also sent some gear to review by the editor. So sometimes they have to review gear they didn’t hand select.

I personally wouldn’t be good at this, or at least I wouldn’t enjoy it. As much as I love listening to different systems, I am incredibly picky about which systems actually make me wanna sit and listen for a long time. It’s actually somewhat rare frankly. So plenty of speakers for which I’d have a hard time raising some enthusiasm.

In contrast, one of my buddies who is a reviewer is well suited for that type of scenario. He both selects gear he wants to review, but he’s also sometimes sent gear to review. And he is way more open and easy about the range of gear he can enjoy.

So I’ve heard just about every loudspeaker he has reviewed at his place. We virtually always agree on how the loudspeaker sounds. But we often enough differ on how much we like it. I’m looking for very specific qualities that I like which limits the number of speakers I truly could have lived with, but he is able to totally get into a wider range of different sound presentations. So I find his descriptions are generally quite accurate from what I’ve heard, and enthusiasm in his reviews comes quite honestly. (and I know that he’s never been told by his publisher that he needs to write a positive review)

As I say, I think our individual feelings about these issues are going to be highly influenced by our own personal experiences.
 
In my opinion, this 2024 Stereophile Recommended components list smacks of advertising under the guise of "Recommended Components". I wouldn't be surprised if great components that didn't place an ad were ignored. I don't even see the RME ADI-2 DAC FS listed and it's the best component I have used for maximizing performance and getting my system to sound just the way I want at any volume level.

Anybody that thinks this list is important can part with their wallet now. Only fools will see this as their audio Bible. :cool:
The RME was never reviewed and, therefore, is ineligible.

FWIW, I requested one for review and RME never responded.
 
Egads, I own 4 items on the list, the Benchmark DAC, amp, preamp and a Audio-Technica phono cartridge

I don’t know how I’m going to sleep tonight
 
Egads, I own 4 items on the list, the Benchmark DAC, amp, preamp and a Audio-Technica phono cartridge

I don’t know how I’m going to sleep tonight

That compelled me to look.

Turns out I have 4 Stereophile recommended components:

Benchmark LA4 preamp
Joseph Audio Perspective 2 loudspeakers
Degritter UltraSonic record cleaner
Benchmark DAC2
(2014)

All Class A recommended! Whoo-hoo!
 
Last edited:
The RME was never reviewed and, therefore, is ineligible.

FWIW, I requested one for review and RME never responded.

Ok, so that's part of the scam? If you don't send us your product you can't be in the Stereophile Recommended Components listing? :facepalm:
Who dreamed this up? :p

I only recommend product I get for free. No bias or conflicts at all.
Canceled Stereophile subscription. One more thing off my to do list.
 
Interesting discussion so far. I actually agree with MattHooper that there is room for pluralistic approach in audio stuff media. I'm pretty much a data oriented person, so my favorite approach is "Just give me relevant data, and let me draw my own conclusions", but I understand that there are those who prefer a more humanistic way of communication. Having said that, there are limits to my tolerance towards certain approaches.

To me, it boils down to honesty. I don't have a problem with expensive tube amplifiers, turntables etc... as long as they are described as what they are: luxury items. There is nothing wrong with great innovative/artistic design, expensive materials, and fine craftsmanship requiring lots of manhours, which all lead to a very high asking price. Just don't claim that it is sonically superior, if there is nothing to substantiate that claim.

Also, at the lower price level, in my opinion honesty means that while it's perfectly ok to discuss about features and performance of amplifiers, DACs and streamers, it should be made clear that unless the equipment has a clear design/implementation flaw, the sonical differences between them are too subtle for us to recognize. If a manufacturer decides knowingly to deviate from the "transparency norm" - fine, then he should just explain in plain language, and without nonsensical hyperbole, how it deviates from that norm, and why some might find it preferable.

When it comes to speakers, I'm giving more leeway to subjective descriptions, because the listening room acoustics interplay with speakers will in practice make every installation one of a kind anyway. To make a review relevant - regardless of whether it was based on measurements, or personal listening - it is important to make it clear exactly how the test was made, with what equipment and in what environment. It is perfectly fine for a reviewer to speculate what his findings might mean in different listening conditions, but make it clear that it is just speculation, and please, leave away adjectives that are totally meaningless bs in the context of sound reproduction.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so that's part of the scam? If you don't send us your product you can't be in the Stereophile Recommended Components listing? :facepalm:
Who dreamed this up? :p

I only recommend product I get for free. No bias or conflicts at all.
Canceled Stereophile subscription. One more thing off my to do list.

Hard to tell if serious.
 
and please, leave away adjectives that are totally meaningless bs in the context of sound reproduction.

I guess it depends on exactly what you mean by that but…

My view is that once you are trying to describe subjective impressions, whether you are writing a novel, a poem or describing food, travelling or anything else, any word in language - adjective or otherwise - should be available in order to get an impression across.

Technical language and terms of art do not cover everything that can be described.

Tangentially related, I’ll never forget how Art Dudley once started a column on the resurgence of horn speakers: “Consider the Coelacanth…”
 
Last edited:
Ok, so that's part of the scam? If you don't send us your product you can't be in the Stereophile Recommended Components listing? :facepalm:
Who dreamed this up? :p
Amir only reviews products he gets sent for review. He even turns down products that he thinks readers don’t want to read about.

There is the unavoidable perceived conflict of interest of ADVERTISEMENTS but they can only recommend products they have tested, and can only test what they are sent.
 
I guess it depends on exactly what you mean by that but…

My view is that once you are trying to describe subjective impressions, whether you are writing a novel, a poem or describing food, travelling or anything else, any word in language - adjective or otherwise - should be available in order to get an impression across.

Technical language and terms of art do not cover everything that can be described.

Tangentially related, I’ll never forget how Art Dudley once started a column on the resurgence of horn speakers: “Consider the Coelacanth…”
I don't demand exactly defined terms and terse technical language, but again, I demand honesty. Using words that imply something that is against the known laws of physics/electrical engineering/etc... is not ok in my opinion.
 
A $9K XLR cable given subjective plaudits for sound quality? Cool...

This baby is sitting in a very large tub full of pretty dirty bathwater, I'd say.

I demand honesty. Using words that imply something that is against the known laws of physics/electrical engineering/etc... is not ok in my opinion.
I agree, but how do you reconcile "honesty" and "person who actually seems to believe audio has magical properties"?
 
Last edited:
I don't demand exactly defined terms and terse technical language, but again, I demand honesty. Using words that imply something that is against the known laws of physics/electrical engineering/etc... is not ok in my opinion.

OK, so I’m guessing something along the lines “the new DragonUltraMark7 AC cable from Shunyata yielded ultra deep, black backgrounds..”

:)
 
Ok, so that's part of the scam? If you don't send us your product you can't be in the Stereophile Recommended Components listing? :facepalm:
Who dreamed this up? :p

I only recommend product I get for free. No bias or conflicts at all.
Canceled Stereophile subscription. One more thing off my to do list.
Sending free units for review is common at all levels and in all parts of the industry. When I worked for a company selling $300 speakers we shipped free units around to reviewers. Usually we asked for them back. It's just a courtesy to someone taking the time to review something that you don't make them buy it out of their own pocket. We still got mixed or even bad reviews sometimes. Giving someone a loaner unit for review doesn't guarantee anything IME.

Reviewers that make a point of buying everything themselves are the exception - like Consumer Reports (sort of like the ASR of everything except audio) - it's clearly the most ethical situation, but not the most practical for the majority of reviewers or publications.
 
OK, so I’m guessing something along the lines “the new DragonUltraMark7 AC cable from Shunyata yielded ultra deep, black backgrounds..”

:)
Yes, that's one example. Also, I find it strange when a reviewer states that his new amplifier sounds faster than the old one. The only explanation I can think of, is that he is accidentally playing a 33 1/3 rpm record at 45 rpm.
 
Back
Top Bottom