The RCL is just a ranking according to taste of stuff they've been able to review in the previous few years. It's a very skewed list. As John Atkinson might put it, I remain puzzled by the rankings and the many omissions.
You also need to pay attention to who did the original review, as your taste and priorities may be very different.
In any case, do not take the rankings literally. I have to make a conscious effort not to do so. Perhaps it's hard for some of us *not* to take rankings like this seriously, at least subconsciously, after so many years of indoctrination with ABCDF grading in school.
I like the TAS "the best" issues a little better, as they don't encourage thinking in terms of ranks like this. But they have another problem: they list by price. While this makes it easier to choose by budget, it enforces the idea that pricier is always better.
You also need to pay attention to who did the original review, as your taste and priorities may be very different.
In any case, do not take the rankings literally. I have to make a conscious effort not to do so. Perhaps it's hard for some of us *not* to take rankings like this seriously, at least subconsciously, after so many years of indoctrination with ABCDF grading in school.
I like the TAS "the best" issues a little better, as they don't encourage thinking in terms of ranks like this. But they have another problem: they list by price. While this makes it easier to choose by budget, it enforces the idea that pricier is always better.