Quote:
I was curious as to why no Maggies made it into the recommended components.

This is because we haven't reviewed any Magnepan speakers in the past 3 years. We have reviewed and recommended many Maggies over the years, and in our 1988 ownership survey, Magnepan was the most commonly owned speaker brand.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
That leaves a gap of great stuff that has a review older than 3 years, but still in production.

There are components on our list, such as the B&W 802D and Quad ESL-989, which have not been reviewed for awhile but have remained on our list because one or more of our reviewers continues to have regular experience with it. In the case of the Maggies, it's been such a long time since we last heard them that we cannot offer a valid recommendation.

Quote:

Quote:
That leaves a gap of great stuff that has a review older than 3 years, but still in production.

There are components on our list, such as the B&W 802D and Quad ESL-989, which have not been reviewed for awhile but have remained on our list because one or more of our reviewers continues to have regular experience with it. In the case of the Maggies, it's been such a long time since we last heard them that we cannot offer a valid recommendation.

Also, "aging" a product off the new list does not mean, a priori, that it has been down-rated.

i heard a set of maggie 2.7s the other night that almost made me want to make the guy an offer on the spot. even after midnight when i got home, started looking at them on a-gon.

Quote:
If the answer to that is "no" then I'm totally cool with that. If the answer is "yes" but I could not put on the list because of certain rules, then the recommended components is really "best of the newer components list" is it not?

The answer is implicit. If they have not been auditioned in a long time (>3 years), it is impossible to answer the question with a simple yes or no.

"Did you stop beating your wife?"

I am glad you found the Maggies.

Kal

Quote:
If someone came to you with advice on which speakers to audition, would you recommend they give the maggies a listen?

Maggies wouldn't come to my mind, but only because I don't have much experience with them.

Quote:
If the answer to that is "no" then I'm totally cool with that. If the answer is "yes" but I could not put on the list because of certain rules, then the recommended components is really "best of the newer components list" is it not?

What if my answer is no, because of certain rules?

Your idea of "Recommended Components" being a "best of the newer components list" doesn't explain how products like the Naim ARO (originally reviewed in June 1993) or the undeniably old Linn LP12 (originally reviewed when Stereophile was just a wee hi-fi mag, in 1984 in Vol.7 No.2) remain on the list. They remain on our list because one or more of our writers has had continued experience with them. As we state in the introduction to every "Recommended Components" list, longevity in a hi-fi component is rare enough that we think it worth noting.

(Those products that have been on our list, in one incarnation or another, for three years or more are marked with a star.)

There is a lot that goes into making a valid recommendation. If we were impressed by a product's performance when we heard it for the first and only time at a hi-fi show five years ago, does that make it recommendable? No. So, we have rules.

In fact, I don't think of our 3-year policy as a rule so much as common sense. We'd be doing a very bad job if we recommended products that we hadn't heard, or products that we weren't currently familiar with. Similarly, I'd question anyone who'd be willing to accept a recommendation on a product from someone who hadn't heard that product, or who wasn't familiar with it.

Wouldn't it behoove you to regularly review a product or line as popular as Magneplanar's are? I would be surprised if in a new poll Maggy's weren't at or near the top of the list.
I don't own Maggy's. I sold my last pair in 1983. They are what I recommend to people who like my ESL's and don't have ML money. At $500 (MMG) to get in the door, with a money back guarantee they sell themselves. As has been previously noted, people tend to trade up in the line not out of it. The 1.6Qr's being widely considered one of the best buys in audio begs the question why no Magneplanar reviews in three years.
What's the matter? Don't they cost enough? How about reviewing the MG-20's? They should be expensive enough. Although at only $10,000 a pair they are kinda' inexpensive to you guys.

Quote:
Snip.... No. So, we have rules.

In fact, I don't think of our 3-year policy as a rule so much as common sense. We'd be doing a very bad job if we recommended products that we hadn't heard, or products that we weren't currently familiar with. Similarly, I'd question anyone who'd be willing to accept a recommendation on a product from someone who hadn't heard that product, or who wasn't familiar with it.

I can understand the reasoning and it does make sense (and I am sure other publications do something similar), however does this not mean it puts pressure on audio manufacturers that they need to re-invent a product to ensure it is published?
I am saying this because some cynics are critical of audio companies releasing new products that have minor differences but also a slight price increase (caused by hidden costs such as r&d-manufacturing/logistic changes-etc).
However, if an excellent product is not updated it can fall off the radar with an ageing process.
Seems to me this may be contributing to the cycle of re-iterated products just to gain public visibility.

There have been many great products that do not change radically and have limited exposure after awhile even though they are still highly competitive.

Is there a viable process-system that does not encourage the re-iteration of audio hardware release pushing quality long term products out of perception, or provides more of an equal playing field for consumers to compare?

I am not sure what the answer is as there is only so much a publication can do, but to me it does seem more skewed to those releasing products more often or presented consistently at shows.

Cheers
Orbs

Quote:
I can understand the reasoning and it does make sense (and I am sure other publications do something similar), however does this not mean it puts pressure on audio manufacturers that they need to re-invent a product to ensure it is published?
{snip}
Is there a viable process-system that does not encourage the re-iteration of audio hardware release pushing quality long term products out of perception, or provides more of an equal playing field for consumers to compare?

Indeed. Any product still in use by any reviewer can/will remain on the list because there is a continuing familiarity with it as newer products come along.

Quote:
I don't really know what the answer is either. As I understand the process more, the recommended components list becomes less and less a factor in decision making in my future endeavors.

I'm not sure what you want from "Recommended Components." Have you read the introduction to the list? It explains very clearly how we make our choices, how we make our deletions, and what our ratings represent.

Our editor, John Atkinson, has discussed the "Recommended Components" list many times. If you want to know more about it, you can read the following articles:

April 1994: Recommended Components: Really Recommended
April 1995: Conventional Wisdoms & Recommended Components
October 1995: Random Thoughts & Recommended Components
April 1998: Recommended Components: the Stereophile Way
October 1998: Recommended Components: If It Works, Don't Change It
October 2004: Return to Recommended Components
October 2006: 500 Components. Recommended.

Quote:
I seem to be getting more input through forums these days than anything else. It can be less than optimal input at times, but I'm the one ultimately listening and making the decision. I'm just looking for input on potential items to audition.

You should definitely do what's best for you.