I don't understand Stereophile's Class ratings. For example, with amps, there is a $1500 Class A amp and megabuck Class A amps. Do they both sound the same or does one mean that at a price point, this is the best you can get. How about the common claim that the piece of gear under review resulted in the best sound ever achieved in the reviewer's system . . . until next month when the phrase is repeated again. What about the claims that a $40-50,000 digital playback system will sound like really good vinyl. How much does the vinyl system cost that it is being compared to? How does one make any objective sense out of this? Why aren't cables bench tested in the reviews. Why aren't sound analyzed to compare the effect of tweaks and cables and cones and other gadgets. When a reviewer claims that small change in the system produces a large perceived musical change, can't there be any type of objective measurement just to show that there was a difference. I know that tweaks will change a sound, but allow the serious mags to demonstrate just what change occured. It is up to us to determine if we like the change or not.
Most annoying Stereo magazine claim
The new thread "What's the most trustworthy stereo magazine" got me to thinking. One of the things that inhibits their credibility, and makes them pretty annoying, is when the reviewers become effusive about a product (as if it were the second coming of Christ), going on and on about a product and using canned flattery like, "it removed another veil from the sound stage." This claim and "it made me want to just listen to the music and play all my CD's again," are the most annoying to me. What about you?