As sort of a side-thread to the "what I'd like to see" thread -- there's a technical change I'd like to see in "Recommended Components."
Now that Michael Fremer has favorably reviewed a phono preamp even more expensive than the Boulder, perhaps the Boulder should no longer sit alone in Class A+ -- and given that there are now apparently several 6-figure turntables being made, maybe the Caliburn will also find company someday. I think it's tme to re-think what is meant by "class A" and "class A+".
Personally, I've never been a fan of "A+" simply because class A is already supposed to mean "best available," but when A+ was simply a way to recognize a few outliers, it kinda almost made some sense -- A+ wasn't exactly a "class" like all the others. But now, IMHO, that's just false. I think it's time to revise the Recommended Components ratings slightly. (I know -- it's easy for me to say "slightly" since I'm not doing the editing.)
(By the way, I think that, owing to the fact that it's now clear that SACD and DVD-A aren't ever going to replace CD, it's time to get rid of the current "class A+" for digital players too. Give hi-rez players their own category, and cross-reference them as CD players on the basis of their CD performance.)
The new top class -- call it "A" or "1" or "A+" or whatever you like -- should simply mean "state of the art sound for this type of component." There should not be any such thing as "high" or "low" class 1 (let's call it.) Components in this class could only differ (insofar as sound reproduction is concerned) in the different trade-offs made by different designers, or the different system synergies that the components may have, with the sole exception of the power outputs of amplifiers (inasmuch as someone could otherwise argue that an amplifier needs to have to have the highest available power to qualify as being state-of-the-art.) If a component is discernibly, generally inferior to any other component of its type, it isn't class 1. Period. And, for the purpose of defining the state of the art, the type of a component should, I think, be independent of the number of boxes it occupies -- so that integrated amplifiers must compete with separates at this level , and one-box CD players with separate converters and transports. If that means there aren't any class-1 single-box CD players, well, so be it. State-of-the-art isn't about doing things in a sensible way.
Class 2 should mean "reference class" -- components good enough for a reviewer's system, but necessarily less expensive than class 1, and overall slightly inferior to class-1 components. I say "necessarily less expensive" because a component with class-1 cost and class-2 performance shouldn't be recommended (except possibly if it has compensatory practical virtues like convenient operation, smaller size, etc. unavailable from any of its class-1 competition.) Most of present-day class A would fall into this category, but some current class-A products -- the very best available line stages power amps, speakers, CD players, etc. -- would move up to class 1.
Below that, of course, things get tricky. Class 3 should roughly correspond to components whose performance is typical of the sort of thing that the average Stereophile reader actually owns -- and which offer savings over class-2 components. (Go ahead, recommend something in class 3 that consts as much as or more than similar products in class 2 -- see how many people are interested in auditioning those!) Class 4 should roughly mean "entry level audiophile." I suppose a case can be made for a class 5, cheap enough for a non-audiophile but significantly better than mass-market. But I always wonder how much modern mass-market gear Stereophile's reviewers get a chance to listen to critically -- can they really make those comparisons reliably? Perhaps this level of thing is best left alone -- if it's not audiophile-grade in some sense, it shouldn't be on the "Recommmended Components" list at all.
As sort of a side-thread to the "what I'd like to see" thread -- there's a technical change I'd like to see in "Recommended Components."
Now that Michael Fremer has favorably reviewed a phono preamp even more expensive than the Boulder, perhaps the Boulder should no longer sit alone in Class A+ -- and given that there are now apparently several 6-figure turntables being made, maybe the Caliburn will also find company someday. I think it's tme to re-think what is meant by "class A" and "class A+".
Personally, I've never been a fan of "A+" simply because class A is already supposed to mean "best available," but when A+ was simply a way to recognize a few outliers, it kinda almost made some sense -- A+ wasn't exactly a "class" like all the others. But now, IMHO, that's just false. I think it's time to revise the Recommended Components ratings slightly. (I know -- it's easy for me to say "slightly" since I'm not doing the editing.)
(By the way, I think that, owing to the fact that it's now clear that SACD and DVD-A aren't ever going to replace CD, it's time to get rid of the current "class A+" for digital players too. Give hi-rez players their own category, and cross-reference them as CD players on the basis of their CD performance.)
The new top class -- call it "A" or "1" or "A+" or whatever you like -- should simply mean "state of the art sound for this type of component." There should not be any such thing as "high" or "low" class 1 (let's call it.) Components in this class could only differ (insofar as sound reproduction is concerned) in the different trade-offs made by different designers, or the different system synergies that the components may have, with the sole exception of the power outputs of amplifiers (inasmuch as someone could otherwise argue that an amplifier needs to have to have the highest available power to qualify as being state-of-the-art.) If a component is discernibly, generally inferior to any other component of its type, it isn't class 1. Period. And, for the purpose of defining the state of the art, the type of a component should, I think, be independent of the number of boxes it occupies -- so that integrated amplifiers must compete with separates at this level , and one-box CD players with separate converters and transports. If that means there aren't any class-1 single-box CD players, well, so be it. State-of-the-art isn't about doing things in a sensible way.
Class 2 should mean "reference class" -- components good enough for a reviewer's system, but necessarily less expensive than class 1, and overall slightly inferior to class-1 components. I say "necessarily less expensive" because a component with class-1 cost and class-2 performance shouldn't be recommended (except possibly if it has compensatory practical virtues like convenient operation, smaller size, etc. unavailable from any of its class-1 competition.) Most of present-day class A would fall into this category, but some current class-A products -- the very best available line stages power amps, speakers, CD players, etc. -- would move up to class 1.
Below that, of course, things get tricky. Class 3 should roughly correspond to components whose performance is typical of the sort of thing that the average Stereophile reader actually owns -- and which offer savings over class-2 components. (Go ahead, recommend something in class 3 that consts as much as or more than similar products in class 2 -- see how many people are interested in auditioning those!) Class 4 should roughly mean "entry level audiophile." I suppose a case can be made for a class 5, cheap enough for a non-audiophile but significantly better than mass-market. But I always wonder how much modern mass-market gear Stereophile's reviewers get a chance to listen to critically -- can they really make those comparisons reliably? Perhaps this level of thing is best left alone -- if it's not audiophile-grade in some sense, it shouldn't be on the "Recommmended Components" list at all.