Stereophile Recommended Components Fall 2020 is out

[teched58]

You want to be pissed off aim that at the magazines and media. Do something positive , try and make a difference by being as proactive and friendly as you can be to the folks that turn up here as when your not it just pushes people back to the corrupt media sources like ' what hifi ' and stereophile magazine etc .

I really think what's going on is that people are ANGRY at what Stereophile and the few other remaining legacy outlets have become. By people, I mean the mostly older cohort (including me) that now comes to ASR and a very few other outlets. We are angry because we remember the legacy mags (Audio, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, Popular Electronics) we grew up with. We all knew that they were a little bit in the tank because of advertising, but they kept it in check and we enjoyed them.

Today, because the internet has killed print, what we get is Stereophile. Yes, we realize that it's not their fault in that we know the old world is over and the only way they can survive is by having middle class reviewers praising, often contra measurements, equipment that costs more than they make in a year. But us audiophile normies (many of whom make good, but not Jeff Bezos-level livings) resent having to read word salads written by folks who most often have no technical background. We are also ANGRY that they have sullied the public audiophile discourse to the point where "cables affect the sound" is so widely believed there's no putting that horse back in the barn. Ever. This, in turn, has sullied the word "audiophile."

Yes, I love ASR and I also think Archimago has built something great that's close in ethos to the old mags (though it's only one person, so it's like having the Julian Hirsch content but not the rest of the mag). But like I said at the beginning, us readers here tend toward the older side, so, while we actively engage with the internet, the print mags of yore are kind of like our Rosebud. Hence the combo of nostalgia and anger.

That's my theory, anyway.

 

[PierreV]

View attachment 86882
Guys, please stop deciding "intellectually".

Using their brain, even for a fleeting minute, as opposed to being moved to tears by lifted veils, was such an exception for them that it was worth noting.

Note: just for the record, I am aware that a couple of SP contributors don't fall in the blatant snake oil peddler category.

 

[tmtomh]

I wonder how you folks respond to expensive cars and expensive home.

Great question. Here's how I respond: If we're talking about things in the market segment of upper middle-class to somewhat wealthy buyers, a house that costs 2X as much as another house will indeed have better fit and finish, and likely will have additional living space and amenities. It might also have better build quality, but this is far from guaranteed.

So in a 2X as expensive home, I would expect to feel more comfortable because the house would be better insulated temperature and sound-wise. I would also expect to have a more efficient HVAC system, lowering my utility bills and contributing to enhanced comfort. And it's possible I would get a better view or a better location or better landscaping in the yard. Depending on where and what type of house it was, I might also get smart lighting, or perhaps a pool, or maybe more parking capacity. In many parts of the United States, I would be likely to also get a location with a better school district.

If I were also looking for high design - as opposed to architectural charm, which even a modestly price house can have - then I would expect the 2X as expensive home to have a more fully executed aesthetic design, owing to the higher budget for exterior cladding (the biggest single line item on any new home, except possibly for the foundation).

Most of these things would contribute to my basic physical comfort on an everyday basis, at all times of the day or night, no matter what I was doing. If I had school-age kids, a location near better schools would also be a tangible benefit to my family's life.

The aesthetic design aspect would indeed be more of a luxury, something not directly related to my physical comfort - but this is also more optional and less of a reliable benefit, as an old or inexpensive home can be very aesthetically pleasing so long as you are not looking for a very particular kind of high-architecture/modern aesthetic.

Features like a pool or 3-car parking or a huge yard are just that - features. I might or might not want them. If I wanted those features I would of course pay for them if I were able to afford them. But if I didn't want them or didn't care much about them, their presence would not make me think that other aspects of the house were magically better than the cheaper house. Double-paned windows are double-paned windows regardless of whether or not you have a backyard pool.

With the Stereophile list, by contrast, I'm being asked to consider DACs that are 10-15X as expensive than cheaper DACs and perform the same - or worse on their core functionality; might or might not have better user interfaces and feature selections; are no more power efficient; will not last anywhere near 10-15x as long (and might not last any longer given how little there is in a DAC that can break); and might or might not be more visually appealing to me than something like a Topping D90.

So that's how I respond. I think the better analogy is jewelry. A $15,000 DAC vs a $400 DAC is like a large diamond vs a large cubic zirconia: You pay tons and tons more money for the former because it's an ornament that might (might) look slightly better in the right lighting, and more importantly because the former has a certain status (and lends that status to yourself), which you enjoy.

Finally, I probably shouldn't even say this because it seems obvious to me that you are intentionally trying to make a provocative argument that you don't even fully believe yourself, but your claim that build quality is more important than sound quality is nonsense. Build quality is important only if it (a) directly contributes to superior sound quality, or (b) gives the unit superior physical and electrical durability so that you can enjoy its excellent sound quality for a very long period of time.

But if the device's sound quality is inferior to another product to begin with, then build quality is irrelevant, because the build quality is not contributing to superior sound quality (or at least is not able to overcome the unit's sound-quality design flaws), and it's of no interest to have an especially long-lasting unit if you don't want the unit in the first place because its sound quality is not up to your standards.

Of course we all have certain aesthetic preferences, brand preferences, and build quality standards that we prefer. That's subjective, and that's fine. But paying an extra $14,000 for perceived build quality and sacrificing some sonic performance in the bargain - that's something you are free to do for yourself as you please, but as a position you want to claim others should adopt, it's completely and utterly indefensible. And you know it.

 

[richard12511]

I don’t understand why people get all worked up about the high-priced items in Stereophile. These are luxury goods and status items. If you don’t want to spend the money to buy them, then just ignore them. No need for outrage - even the people who buy these ostentatious items admit that great systems can be purchased for much less. They simply have a lot of disposable income and choose to spend it on this type of luxury good versus other types. I personally would not pay $1000 for a watch or a bottle of wine - I’ve spent multiples of that on audio components. To each, his own.

But, like many, I do enjoy gawking at the audio eye candy.

I've got no problem with people buying these sorts of items as luxury goods and status symbols. If they're well informed on what they're buying, then I see nothing wrong with that.

I guess my problem with the list comes from the empathy I feel for people who get tricked into buying a $16,000 DAC in an attempt to improve the sound of their system. Stereophile seems to be recommending these items mostly on the basis of sound quality, and if that's not the case, then they've not made that sufficiently clear(imo). The implication of recommending a $16,000 DAC is that those are $16,000 well spent to improve the sound of one's system. If Stereophile put a disclaimer at the top saying "None of these products will change the sound of your system, but we think they're well built and look really cool", then I'd have no problem with the list.

As it exists, though, this is not a victimless list. I feel sorry for the not so wealthy person trying to get better sound that saves up for 5 years to buy a $16,000 DAC because Stereophile recommended it. That's the reason I take issue with a list like this.

 

[MRC01]

... Exactly. As if any of these people are dropping thousands of dollars on a piece of equipment like a dac and then settling on that item for a decade. lol. ...

Well, I resemble that! Some of my gear is over 2 decades old!

 

[Angsty]

I feel sorry for the not so wealthy person trying to get better sound that saves up for 5 years to buy a $16,000 DAC because Stereophile recommended it. That's the reason I take issue with a list like this.

I get that - snake oil is always repugnant. But even if you save 5 years to by a $16K consumer DAC, it's just a DAC and it's a highly discretionary purchase.

My thoughts on this issue have been altered a bit by my experience with vinyl and turntables. I see something like the VPI Avenger Reference that sells for $20K, the VPI Prime that sells for $4000, and the VPI Traveler which sold for $1500 and realize that the measurable differences between them is quite slight, particularly when you put an eccentrically drilled, less-than-perfect LP on them. But that Avenger sure is pretty!

So while I really wanted a $3800 Bryston BDA-3 for a while, I realized that the $250 Topping D50s likely performs just as well or better, especially given that my digital collection is almost exclusively 44.1K CDs and rips. But Topping doesn't advertise in Stereophile and Bryston does.

Audio is a hobby for us, but a business for manufacturers. It's also a business for Stereophile. I find by keeping that in mind, I can enjoy reading Stereophile without reading too much into their reviews or their "best of" selections. If you're planning to spend $16K for a nonessential, you owe it to yourself keep some perspective.

 

[Deleted member 19195]

Nice troll thread from the OP.

 

[Putter]

View attachment 86884

I'd argue that they do have a recall in Japan. My understanding is that the cost of certifying an older as roadworthy exceeds its value so Japanese buy a newer model and send the older ones offshore.

 

[StefaanE]

A couple of random observations/comments.

1. Lots more people are "well-off" without being millionaires, and a lot of these will be looking for ways to assert their standing in society. Spending a lot of money in a shop where richer people (probably) also spend money does just that. Back in the 1980ies, I ran into folks with 5 records and a top-of-the-line B&O system, used mostly to listen to the radio. They were also into wine and often had other wine-lovers over for tastings. The B&O was a great discussion item to go with the Chateau Petrus (like the forever broken Vacheron-Constantin of one the the other guys). All middle-class business people, no millionaires.
2. Millionaire rankings should be taken with a grain of salt. A guy like Jeff Bezos is rich because of his Amazon shares, but he can only sell smallish quantities without affecting their price. A lot of the wealth is virtual, and unrealisable. Elon Musk apparently lives on credit, because he's probably loath to sell shares (it's bad for the brand image and would weaken his hold over the company).
3. As far as big speaker manufacturers are concerned, they probably build $50,000+ speakers like car manufacturers build concept cars, or get involved in Formula-1 racing. They take them from audio show to audio show, and if someone wants a pair, they get built to order. Meanwhile "the technology of our super-duper speakers found its way" into the $1000 speakers Joe Modal buys (I'm thinking of you, KEF).
4. Many luxury products are functionally inferior to their mass-produced counterparts, but are not marketed as being functionally superior (Ferrari doesn't claim you'll be able to seat more people, drive faster, or use less fuel with one of their cars); audio seems to be rather unique in that respect, and maybe it's that aspect of the business that makes it so annoying.

 

[MRC01]

...
Many luxury products are functionally inferior to their mass-produced counterparts, but are not marketed as being functionally superior (Ferrari doesn't claim you'll be able to seat more people, drive faster, or use less fuel with one of their cars); audio seems to be rather unique in that respect, and maybe it's that aspect of the business that makes it so annoying.

This is what most annoys me about high end audio. I don't mind paying more for higher parts & build quality, durability. But the claims of better sound quality are virtually never (with a few rare exceptions that prove the rule) measurable or true. I see from this thread, I have plenty of company here.

 

[Wes]

I wonder how you folks respond to expensive cars and expensive home.

most expensive cars can take you places, often with xlnt handling and/or power, comfort, etc.

expensive homes are in desirable areas to live and have lots of other 'performance'

while the Benchmark is on their list, most of the stuff appears to have nothing to justify its existence, unlike the above

my bet is that most rich people just hire an audio installer to buy stuff and set it up

I would not consider a mere millionaire rich by today's stds. COLA etc. - esp. in a large city

 

[Robin L]

I went to a Stereophile Show in San Francisco about 20 years ago. Most of the sound was ok, but didn't seem extraordinary. There were a number of deliberately anachronistic designs, I'm thinking of tubed amplifiers with Flash Gordon style accessorizing. There was a lot of action with expensive headphones. No planars I can recall, but lots of electrostatic headphones, with a top of the line Stax pair that sounded extraordinary. I think the OTT Sennheiser tubed 'n' amped electrostatic pair was on display but only for show. I was brought up to an otherwise locked room where the really expensive stuff was on display for those deemed worthy. It was startlingly mediocre. The one system that cut through the noise of all those speaker demos was an AudioNote single ended triode system playing Tom Waits. I don't know how or why it should sound so much more dynamic and engaging. I can easily understand someone with the money getting that sort of system even though it probably measures like hammered dog shit.

I really don't think things have changed that much. This more or less describes the audiophile landscape right now. There are two differences, as far as I can tell. First, the really expensive stuff is really more expensive. The other being, thanks to the internet and near universal access, there's a lot more people expressing themselves as regards price vs. performance and the social implications of this hobby. But there's silly expensive stuff that's really not worth it, good sounding gear that defies scientific analysis and more interest in headphones than mainstream audio publications choose to publish. Everything remains the same.

 

[Angsty]

This is what most annoys me about high end audio. I don't mind paying more for higher parts & build quality, durability. But the claims of better sound quality are virtually never (with a few rare exceptions that prove the rule) measurable or true. I see from this thread, I have plenty of company here.

I do wonder what the point of diminishing marginal utility is for certain audio components. It appears to me, before rigorous analysis, that the less mechanical the component is, the faster the point of diminishing marginal utility arrives. DACs seem to get there before amplifiers, amps before loudspeakers, speakers before turntables. This impacts pricing, of course, but it also impacts our sense of value from a component and how much we are willing to pay to get a little bit more performance. When we start paying more for LESS audio performance, then our primary measure of utility must be shifting.

 

[MRC01]

If you search here at ASR you'll find examples of people having trouble with various equipment from DACs to preamps, which are low-power and mostly non-mechanical, thus normally thought to last "forever". At the opposite end of the Stereophile scale, some manufacturers pursue the best sound quality per dollar aggressively. This is normally A GOOD THING, but sometimes the corners they cut in the switches or knobs, connectors, etc. come back to bite later.
That said, these 5 figure priced Stereophile recommended DACs aren't necessarily built better either. They might be, they might not be. We've seen examples of both.
The bottom line is, you don't always get what you pay for. I sometimes read Stereophile's recommended equipment list... but when I do it's purely for entertainment, or to see which companies advertise the most in Stereophile.

 

[Tom C]

Stereophile uses ABCD grading system. It is explicit that a consumer can choose a component from any category and get excellent sound. That is, category C and D components are recommended components, and considered standouts in their categories. What is implicit is that a component in category A is in some way superior to category B, and both are superior to C. Various factors go in to the rankings, but ultimately, in order for a component to make the list, one of the reviewers has to really like what s/he heard, and persuade the editor and other staff members it deserves to be listed. Price is not the sole factor determining a product’s ranking, and there is considerable price overlap between the categories, but there is a trend.
Revel Ultima2 Salon2 is still on the A list, along with other selections costing up to $255,000/pair. Floyd Toole, speaking to an audience of students in one of his lectures that are available online, pointed to a pair of $2,000 Revel speakers as the point of diminishing returns. I take that to mean that what you get as you spend for the F36 vs the F35 is more than what you get if you choose the F206 over the F36, and so on up the line. What is the point of zero return? I cannot say, except to observe that Kal, who owns the Salon2’s, could not reliably tell the difference between the Salon 2’s and the F228Be’s in a blind test conducted at the Harman facility. Reading that in his column a couple years ago was a real eye opener for me. Kal is exceptional by depth and breadth of experience, knowledge base and intellect, so I’m quite confident that if he can’t hear a difference, I’ll never hear it. So $10,000 is the performance ceiling for me. The only reason to spend more is that you like how it looks. Or you want bragging rights for how expensive your gear is. Or you simply want a unique product that not a lot of people can afford, or care to spend that much money on.
My first job out of business school was as a financial analyst for Ford Motor Company. It is absolutely staggering how much it costs to bring a car to market. Materials, tooling, plumbers and electricians to install the tooling, designers, engineers, support staff, union labor, regulatory compliance, and more. $7.3 billion was the number reported by Ford for engineering, research, and development for one year, 2016. That covers multiple vehicles and model years, but is only a part of the cost for producing a vehicle. Of course, spreading that over the large number of units sold helps. But how big is the market for an Aston Martin? Yet, it can be produced, put on a boat to the US, and sold at retail for $175,000. A speaker, even the largest, heaviest, with the finest finish, is ridiculously simple, light and cheap to make by comparison. For me, there is simply no way a $250,000+ speaker can be worth the money paid. I’d get more out of an original Picasso sketch.
Individuals are free to spend their money any way they wish, as it should be. I would not criticize someone for making the choices they do. It is important to be civil and considerate of those whose opinions differ from our own, and every human should be treated with a basic level of respect and patience. Still, it seems to me that the Stereophile system is likely to be misleading in that it is simply untrue that you have to spend $10,000 to get top sound quality from a DAC, pre amp or power amp, yet it is most likely that the casual, nonprofessional reader is going to come away with the idea that you do. And I think that is the outright lie that those here find upsetting and angering.

 

[mafelba]

There is a reason that Consumer Reports accepts no advertising and pays for the products it reviews. I would not pay any attention to anyone who reviews products while accepting advertising from said manufacturers.

 

[anmpr1]

Stereophile uses ABCD grading system.

In addition to the 'A' rating, I see they've come up with an A+. Must have hired someone from Moody's or S&P. At least commercial bond ratings probably have some objective accounting behind them.

 

[andyc56]

I noticed that the Peter Belt Cream Electret that they recommended in 2019 is no longer on the list.

 

[Dialectic]

I noticed that the Peter Belt Cream Electret that they recommended in 2019 is no longer on the list.

I found that it helpfully reduces chafing.

 

[Dialectic]

I would not consider a mere millionaire rich by today's stds. COLA etc. - esp. in a large city

Yes, to be "rich" where I live, your net worth must be eight figures. Otherwise your existence will be a middle-class one, which is fine for me.