Atkinson's reply is indicative of the corner they've painted themselves into with this 'ranking' business. It could well be true that, for instance, preamps sound better today on average than they did 10 years ago. But if you read Stereophile's grade definitions, you will understand that even if that were the case, since the preamps (and everything else) are supposed to be ranked in accordance to what is currently available in the marketplace, there are still plenty of moderately-priced models that should be very recommendable at the lower rankings (even if you want to accept that there are no higher-priced models being made anymore that deserve to wind up there).
If that scenario is credible, then "Class A"-ranked products of today should sound better than gear ranked "A" from 10 years ago, and the same thing should hold true for "B"-class gear and so on. Yet even if that description were fact, it should still not change the relative distributions of gear throughout the rankings - unless the magazine has now stopped reviewing entry-level gear, and reviews much more reference-level gear instead.
So: Either they are guilty of promulgating grade-creep, in which "A" or "D" rankings mean something different today than they meant a decade ago (and also than their listed definitions stipulate), or they are guilty of neglecting to review the full range of gear available, at all price levels. IMO, the problem comes from both directions, but either way, the results have rendered the rankings increasingly meaningless and joke-worthy. Doesn't JA ever sit down with his own mag and realize they are now saying (and twice a year no less, which is once too many!) that in many catagories, a majority of the gear that comes across their threshold qualifies to be described as "Best attainable sound for a component of its kind"?! Maybe once they've finished with this progression and everything is rated "Class A", they can consider their jobs done and cease publication, since we'll no longer need audio criticism anymore.
If that scenario is credible, then "Class A"-ranked products of today should sound better than gear ranked "A" from 10 years ago, and the same thing should hold true for "B"-class gear and so on. Yet even if that description were fact, it should still not change the relative distributions of gear throughout the rankings - unless the magazine has now stopped reviewing entry-level gear, and reviews much more reference-level gear instead.
So: Either they are guilty of promulgating grade-creep, in which "A" or "D" rankings mean something different today than they meant a decade ago (and also than their listed definitions stipulate), or they are guilty of neglecting to review the full range of gear available, at all price levels. IMO, the problem comes from both directions, but either way, the results have rendered the rankings increasingly meaningless and joke-worthy. Doesn't JA ever sit down with his own mag and realize they are now saying (and twice a year no less, which is once too many!) that in many catagories, a majority of the gear that comes across their threshold qualifies to be described as "Best attainable sound for a component of its kind"?! Maybe once they've finished with this progression and everything is rated "Class A", they can consider their jobs done and cease publication, since we'll no longer need audio criticism anymore.