$4500 amp beat out the Tenor OTL in the latest TAS

Kana813 and Warrenh, far be it from me to defend Stereophile too much. I find everything from their cover blurbs to their Recommended Components list to the actual reviews to be sorely lacking in many ways. I could probably reel off a post, as long as all the ones in this thread combined, on just that one topic. I certainly don't believe they're as objective as they could be in their overall approach.

All I'm saying is that: A) I don't believe - and there is no evidence for believing - that there is a direct quid pro quo of rave reviews for ad dollars; and B) The same thing goes - *as far as ad dollars are concerned* - for the integrity of their individual reviewers (whatever their shortcomings as such). There is no doubt however, that all the gear loans, meals, and general schmoozing which goes on severely calls into question the reviewers' abilities to exercise true independent judgement.

Trust me, I share your frustration with the mag's general lameness and lack of leadership, and how cozy and convenient everything is in that world. It's just that I have equally little patience for accusations - sans *any evidence* - of formal influence-buying corruption at the core. I think the situation would almost be more understandable were that the case. Unfortunately, there are serious ramifications for the way the industry operates directly caused by the audiophile press paradigm, and there is enough guilt to go around in that sense even without a dirty money trail to indict the players.

While I don't know this to be true, I suspect HP doesn't get out much. By which I mean that most of what he listens to are statement products from the upper echelons of the high-end. I don't fault him for this--a broad perspective on the market is not what we look to Harry Pearson for, we'll leave that to others--but I imagine many of us have a better sense of "context" for evaluating products.

It seems quite possible to me that Harry is sometimes caught offguard by the quality of more modestly-priced products because he doesn't hear them too often and imagines a bigger gap between the ne plus ultra and the merely high end. I've never heard the Sound Dynamics speakers, but if all I ever listened to were big Rolls Royce speaker systems, I might find a small bookshelf surprisingly refreshing. Hell, my car stereo has better PRAT than most big rigs I've heard. (So does my boom box, for that matter.)

While I don't know this to be true, I suspect HP doesn't get out much. By which I mean that most of what he listens to are statement products from the upper echelons of the high-end. I don't fault him for this--a broad perspective on the market is not what we look to Harry Pearson for, we'll leave that to others--but I imagine many of us have a better sense of "context" for evaluating products.

It seems quite possible to me that Harry is sometimes caught offguard by the quality of more modestly-priced products because he doesn't hear them too often and imagines a bigger gap between the ne plus ultra and the merely high end. I've never heard the Sound Dynamics speakers, but if all I ever listened to were big Rolls Royce speaker systems, I might find a small bookshelf surprisingly refreshing. Hell, my car stereo has better PRAT than most big rigs I've heard. (So does my boom box, for that matter.)

Asa, that was poetry to my ears. Well said. Cogent and dead on....warren

Huh? Where is Asa in this thread?