Why aren't these on the "recommended list?"

Streetdaddy -

If you want to do something really fun in January, ask your local dealer to get you a pass to the CES in Las Vegas, January 8-11. Then go hear for yourself all this cool high-end stuff. Last year was my first year, and my first love is loudspeakers (for 20 years I built them as a hobby), so I made a point of listening to all the highly regarded systems. What I found was that, to my amazement, brands I'd hardly ever heard of, or in some cases never heard of, sounded better than the big names. The same thing with amplifiers. Sadly most people are stuck with "the list" as a starting point, because many of the very finest pieces of audio gear - many of the truly world-class values - will never show up on "the list".

Nicely said cornfed and so truuue.

When the issue of the magazine in question showed up in my mailbox recently I conducted the following numbers analysis:

1. I counted the number of all items that are "ranked". This should be such items as amps, processors, etc. All of the items that use the A+, A, B,......ranking. It does not include cables, stands,...... because they are not ranked.

2. The number that I came up with is 355 items.

3. That particular issue has six equipment reviews in it. This does not include follow-ups or items included in in columns written by "The Audio Cheapskate" or "Analog Corner".

4. If 355 is divided by 6 we find the total number of issues the recommended components list covers. That number is 59 issues. With 12 issues per year; 59/12=4.9 years.

What does this mean?

It means that every piece of equipment that has been reviewed for the past 5 years appears as a recommended component.

In item 4, I indicate that 6 pieces of equipment are reviewed in this issue. That number is probably a little low for the 12 issue average. The bulk of this issue is taken up by "Recommended Components". So let's say 8 is the average number of equipment reviews per issue. The math: 355/8/12=3.7 years. Every piece of equipment reviewed for the last 3.7 years is a "Recommended Component".

I admit that this is a rather crude analysis and someone else can take it to much greater detail to either prove or disprove my thoughts. Consider this though, it seems to me that this is less a list of "Recommended Components" and more an attempt to rank all of the components that have been reviewed. Perhaps the name should be changed to "Ranked Components".

Doug

WOW ( to say the least ). While that was a pretty ambitious effort on your part Doug, there are more than a few pieces that come to mind right off the top of my head that were reviewed favorably and did not make "the list". As such, there are a few holes in your theory. None the less, with people out there like you that are willing to "do the math", Stereophile better keep on its' toes. Sean
>

Whose list and why do they HEAR better than you?, esp in your house?