Recommended components on Stereophile Magazine.

Bravo, Marco! Best post of the year, in my opinion.

For a long time, I've railed against the objectivist argument that audio must somehow be quantified. You just put things in far better terms than I am able.

No one tries to measure and assign a set of numbers that serve as the be all and end all to things like upscale jewelry, ice cream, or handbags. So, why do we continually fight this battle in regards to high-end audio components?

For many reasons, including some previously listed in this thread, the Stereophile Recommended Components List has become obsolete.

A definite pattern I see is that many of the participants in the audio discussion forums seem to have more involved systems than many of the reviewers, and more evolved/refined tastes as well. Beyond that, one of the dirty little secrets of this business is that negative reviewers are persona non grata, not only to the manufacturers, but also the publications and websites. Why would I put any more stock in these reviewers than I would someone participating in the threads?

One of my biggest issues is that there seems to be a lot of "slotting" of components, and by that, I mean, rating a component based more on its pricetag than anything else. "OK, this amp sounds very good, but it's $1250, Class C." There are definite exceptions to this rule, but I think it holds up far more often than not.

Beyond all of this, I've always had a problem with the Class A+ rating. Given that Class A is supposed to be the best attainable sound, how can something exceed that? Rather than demote or reclass products when some component comes down the pike to warrant it (no doubt JGH faced this many times), they decided to create an entirely new class. A lot like the grade inflation that has entered into the world of education.