I recently emailed John Atkinson of Stereophile

You have to realise that these mags and reviewers are out to promote new equiptment.If it was the case that mothing old was good my system would be toast.
I asked a reveiwer about Axiom speakers contending with NEARs and my statement was come on there is no way they are better.His response was thet NEARs are old.
Yeah well I will certainly take my NEARs over the Axes any day!

Another contention is that old transport are useless,well not according those who know my Phillips CD-60.It is made of Metal and is built like a tank.It is stable as hell.As an example I have 2 transports in my computer that cannot play a track off an Elton John CD.Well the Philly holds up fine as a transport!

You can update parts in old equiptment to make them better also.Amps and Pre's have not really changed in design with the exception of the new Digital amps.

I still use my B&K ST202 that is modded and will outplay some amps today for 4X the price.I know because I have went to hea them.

BS with the assertion that newer is better!Only in some cases like DAC tech and updated parts which can be switched out.

JMO

thsalmon, except for Hi Fi + the Brit mags have a huge Uk bias.

That's true Helcat.

Don't knock Stereophile, they have a place in the audiophile world although their ratings of audio equiptments might be skewed at times. Keep in mind the fact that a reviewer's evaluation is almost always subjective. Use their reviews as a starting point to start your own assesment and evaluation of whatever equiptment(s) you are intrested in and ignore their rating. I know some reviewers are a waste, like one reviewer (could be Chip Sterns I'm not sure) who reviews speakers but never mention the size or configuration of the listening room or at what distance from the walls the speakers sound best. All reviewers like to show off their journalistic prowes, Sam Telling adds his knowledge of french, what country his wife came from and how helpful she is-as if we readers give a dam, all of which is a lot of crap and takes up space; does not add an iota helping the readers learn more about yhe equiptment under review. Those valuable(and now wasted ) space could be used to show a reader how to tell a balanced from an unbalanced connection. It seems to to me that journalism is their forte and they want to flaunt it. But the magazine is helpful also in that it is a "forum" in which high end maufacturers show their products and we audiophiles get to see what's new. I really believe Stereophile needs a technical column.

I have read every issue of Stereophile since the first issue and must admit it has changed drastically since J Gordon Holt days. But how many of you remember the trash and totally biased reviews (if those could be called reviews) that High Fidelity and Stereo Review used to push down our audiophile throats?,and which were an assult on our intelligence.

Let's be reasonable, Stereophile,like any other business must make a profit to survive; our subscriptions alone isn't enough to keep it in business, they need advertising revenue, hence they must cater to advertisers.
If the reviewers are not dishonest (and I don't think they are)then read the entire text of any review, feed-backs on Audiogon and other sources then use your God-given inteligence to chose your equiptments

Stop whining about unfair rating lest Stereo Review and High Fidelity (both demised) reappear.

Sorry Ferd,
I can't buy that. I've been a manufacturer seeking a review. I've been to HQ in Santa Fe. I've been wined and dined by JA and Tom Norton. Then I've been called repeatedly and hounded for advertising by Laura Atkinson.
Stereophile and Bob Harley busted Timbre Technology right put of business by favoring the heavily advertised Sonic Frontiers juggernaut at Timbre's expense.
Stereophile does far more harm than good and their pretense of concern for the advancement of high end audio belies a sickly corporate self-interest.
Saying that something worse used to exist does not make them better.