Why aren't these on the "recommended 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?

Unlike Doug28450 I've never taken the time for such an in depth analysis, but, as a long time Stereophile subscriber, began to develop a sense several years ago (prior to the sale) that the magazine was full of inconsistencies and outright hypocrisy and dropped my subscrption. Occasionally I look at it on the newstand and have never had a reason to regret my decision, because the problems have if anything intensified. There is an inherent problem in the "Recommended Components" list: Regardless of Atkinson's suggestions to the contrary, he knows full well that too many audiophiles simply don't trust their own ears, especially for purchases of this magnitude, and will pay far too much attention to these recommendations from "critics" who all too often are in it only because they get to play with the expensive toys-and get "comped" with far better prices than any of us would ever find when they make a purchase. (So much for "objectivity"!) Furthermore I've found many of the recommended items I've actually auditioned to be balanced so far to the side of "detailed" that I can't live with the piece for any period of time before my ears bleed. In other words it's the kind of stuff that tends to make a great initial impression, but that you wouldn't want to live with, not unlike a lot of the things you find in the big chain stores. I really don't know why Jeff Rowland and/or Avalon (or for that matter others like Spectral and Joule Electra) don't appear in the magazine anymore, but I suspect that there may be certain manufacturers which have decided that the fickleness of too many reviewers is more than they want to deal with.