Would that not depend on the equipment? I would think a class A amp from a decade ago would hold up well but a class A digital source is now 10 years behind the times and might not rate a C or D.

It is why I often wonder about digital sources on Audiogon as they do not appear to note the age of most gear.

I've been following Rowland for the last few years and hearing the improvements that he regularly makes, I'd say his 10-year old gear is a step down from his current gear. Rowland doesn't even show on the current Recommended Components list, which has more to do with Stereophiles review policies than the quality of Rowland's gear, IMHO.

So, to rephrase your question, "Is a Class A component always a Class A component?" I think that the answer is "no."

Dave

Did you know that Mr. T is an audiophile?

When this came up last year, he said, "I pity the fool who uses class grade style ratings when shopping for gear. Fool's gotta learn to use his ears. My prediction for someone who shops based on letter grades? Pain..."

Take it from Karl Wallinger and tear the Recommended Components List out of your issue of Stereophile and put the list inside a box.
Put the box into your car. Drive the car around the world, listening to the gear for yourself.

The ratings are in relation to the "current state of the art" components. That would seem
to indicate that as the state of the art improves, the grades would warrant revisiting.

I would think that in most instances the older class A components may simply move toward
the bottom quarter of class A as opposed to being relegated to class B.

Digital might be a bit more cutting edge and warrant a more drastic adjustment, but even
that technology has matured quite a bit over the last 10 years. In a generic sense, I would
expect the class C and lower components to suffer the largest declines from aging designs
as the technology trickle down effect would have the strongest impact on these components.

Quote:
How do you (members of the forum) interpret/use the ratings?

Think of it as, "I was at the front today, as point man (owner/maker of class 'A' gear)..and I fought a good battle..and held the line.

I stepped away. Others took my place.

10 years later..the war is still going on.

I wonder how things are going? Who or what is at the front..and what is going on? What's the status of the situation?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Answer: Things change.

But we do have your photo on the wall, from the work done 10 years back.

Today..we have more advanced weapons. No telling what is going on, or how it compares to that time of 10 years back.

And after 10 years of relaxing..we're not foolish enough to put you back at the front without a good refresh.

for me, it is more like advice. there are not many options for listening where i live. if a piece of equipment has made the list, it is a good starting point. i particularly like the comparisons with other similarly priced equipment and also compared to more expensive equipment. i still use my ears, i may go to a place specifically to hear component x and be more excited by component y that is not on the list.
i think it is a useful service, but not gospel.

tom

Quote:
This is a reply to all that responded. I understand what you all are saying and it makes much sense.

If things are improving with time and gear is getting better each year, then we should be advancing toward the live reference. On a scale of 0 to 100% with 100% equal to live music, what percentage "grade" would you give equipment that gets an A rating? What about a B, C or D rating? How close do you think we are to hearing live in an audio system?

I know, reproduced music is never like live, but you see where I'm heading. If we're not much closer to live than 10-20 years ago, then how significant is the claimed improvement in the A-gear, the B-gear and so forth that is advancd by us all in this forum, and in-print, assuming those are valid claims? If we are closer, where would you think the State-of-the-Art is on that artificial scale?

Wow, great way to ask the question!

The best moments of Hi Fi I have ever heard created only momentary lapses into the realm of "is it live?" Usually, there was an extenuating circumstance involved...live from the next room sound, a very large room with room filling dynamics, a vocalist placed just so...but almost all were so fleeting in their illusion as to be evanescent, at best.

The illusion of live music collapses so quickly, I wouldn't venture to rank any gear as being anywhere close to 'reality.'

So, I may be a tough grader.

For category A, I'd say maybe 30% of the way there, as a reference across the board.

For category B, 29.5% for electronics, 27% for speakers, and 30% for interconnects and wires. (Hey, if the threshold of audibility in a blind test is 0.2 dB, and these things don't reach that threshold, it's not that big a percentage difference.)

For category C, 29% for electronics, and 23% for speakers. (Still 30% for the various types of stranded conductors. Maybe getting to the point of 29.9%)

Now, before you react and think those percentages are too closely grouped, remember that a dragster that is 1% faster than another car would win by a large visible margin, eh? Maybe you'd even call it "an order of magnitude" difference.

All in all, what we've got is crap next to live music. It's charitable of us to even mention the two in the same sentence.

Plus, I happen to think that a letter grade rating is a crap system. No offense. No review is able to audition a piece of gear in sufficient context to establish a grade school level hierarchy of grades. ((Except maybe for Wes Phillips' work. Oh, and when JA reviews, he gets pretty deep into what's really going on, too. Both are grade A on the Recommended Reviewers List.))

There's also a terrific reviewer who works for another 'magazine' who travels and 'reviews' systems in different contexts and is able to capture some of the nature of the importance of system building and synergy...who shall remain nameless so he doesn't think I'm sucking up!

Buddha, as an old-timer who loves music, I must say that there is no question that the playback gear is getting better. But, if you shop wrong, it is also getting worse. It just depends, as you so cogently note, how much you love live concerts.

Since music playback is part technology and part witchcraft, the general trend is up, but it proceeds in fits and starts. Some new products are steps forward, some are cosmetic pretenders, and some are steps backwards.

At any time in music-playback history, you can/could buy sound that has no resemblance to what turned you on at last night's concert, or you could get excited and say, "Now that's closer to what I had in mind." Any time.

Still, our current era offers more choices and more true high-fidelity options than any other era that has preceded us.

I will never tire of saying that I can buy a better system (in terms of capturing the memory of last night's concert), now, for $10,000, than I could have 20 years ago for $100,000. That is technology, passion, focus, and the love for music at work.

For listeners who don't know or care to know the live concert experience, one has to wonder about any possibility for even gauging progress or retrogress. Still, as long as they love the music, who can argue with them?

I doubt very much if all this has anything to do with "Recommended Components." In any era, you rate what is in front of you. You listen in the moment. I believe that "Class A" in 1980 is no different than "Class A" in 2008 -- in both cases, you tried to identify subjectively and objectively the best playback equipment that was out there. Now is better. But that certainly doesn't denigrate past efforts. We are always trapped in time.