10 years ago when a friend would buy a computer I would help them and it was really important that they get this one rather than that one for this that and the other reason. Today, I myself, am content to go to Costco and get a computer if I need a new one. The point being that things have improved tremendously.
I am finding Hi Fi to be the same. 10 years ago there was lots of complete crap being sold at many many various prices. These days, as long as you go with a trusted manufacturer, stuff is pretty good. I mean, it depends on what you are trying to do - I have a 10k+ or so system, with 3 components hand built by small manufacturers that I picked after years of reading. But for most people who plunk down 4k total or 2k total - which is the bulk of the market - I am seeing less and less major errors. System matching can be more important than getting this or that piece. They all sound 'reasonable'. Now if you want a special system that outperforms its pricepoint by a large margin, you have to be really careful.
I say all that to say that in this kind of environment, where most stuff is 'good' - and you want to find 'great' stuff, or match what you buy to what you want, i.e., all 2k speakers are compromised somewhere, so what do you want to give up, bass, extended highs, looks vs performance, etc. - In this kind of environment, magazines have a different angle. Maybe all the stuff Stereophile is reviewing is actually 'good'. I'm not trying to excuse the extreme praise that can go too far - but I am trying to explian the lack of negatives.
What do you guys think? Can someone find a piece of equipment that they think is really 'bad' that stereophile said was 'good'?
So, if my hypothesis is correct that most equipment by the main manufacturers is 'good' then the magazines have to help people who care pick 'great' equipment and/or do system matching, explain room matching, teach us what balance different pieces provide. It is a different endeavor than distinguishing between good and bad.
Almost a different topic, but related:
I think what is really interesting - and TAS used to do this a lot, not sure if they still do - put out their pick for 2k, 5k, 10k, 30k systems. And focus on the 2k, 5k, 10k ones more than 30k. That is practical, useful, involves system matching, is actionable by the community, etc.
For example, and I've set this up for 4 friends to great effect,
$350 NAD C315BEE Integrated Amp
$350 NAD C525BEE CD Player
$550 Mangepan MMG
$124 Kimber Kable - 4TC Speaker Cable short run
$77 Kimber Kable - PBJ Interconnect
_____
$1451
And it kicks butt! People spend 1500 on all in one systems from CC and BB that sound 1/100th as good - shouldn't really even be compared. That is the kind of insight I want from the magazines - what to do at pricepoints.
Its amazing to me when some people talk about this versus that speaker or something and people are saying A is better than B, and then it comes out that A is 1500 more than B and someone will say, 'but that doesn't matter'. For most people I know the questions isn't what speaker is better, the question is that there is a 3 or 5 or 7k budget and they want a system in that budget.
Now for some of us, this isn't a factor, we buy things maybe once per year, not a whole system at once, and for 1500 more if we get a different speaker because it is so much better that is fine, but we are the upper crust of this stuff, and most people work with budgets.
