Recommended Components Fall 2023 Edition Interconnects, Speaker Cabes & Digital Links

Interconnects:

Analysis Plus Silver Apex Interconnects: $1219.99 (1m pair)
The Analysis Plus Silver Apex uses as its conductor an oxygen-free copper "stabilizing strand" covered with pure silver, in an arrangement the manufacturer describes, somewhat elliptically (haw) as "a hollow oval cable inside a hollow oval cable inside a hollow oval cable," said to be double shielded and thus quiet. And MF found it to be so: In his words, the Silver Apex is "highly recommended!" (Vol.42 No.5)

Audio Art Cable IC-3 Classic: $120/1m pair (RCAs), $140/1m pair (XLRs)
The IC-3—available with Audio Art's own gold-plated brass RCA plugs or, for $10 more, DH Labs' Ultimate XLR plugs—uses conductors of silver-coated, oxygen-free copper, a foam polyethylene dielectric, aluminum-Mylar shielding, and a PVC jacket. Compared to AudioQuest's Big Sur, the IC-3 lacked some midrange body and warmth but produced a pleasantly forward, detailed sound with an unusually wide soundstage, said SM. Sold direct with a 30-day, money-back guarantee. (Vol.37 No.2 WWW)

AudioQuest Big Sur: $169.95/1m ★
AudioQuest Golden Gate: $119.95/1m
AudioQuest Evergreen: $79.95/1m
AudioQuest Tower: $49.95/1m
AudioQuest's Bridges & Falls interconnects (of which these are the four least expensive models) put left and right channels in a single cable, thereby minimizing manufacturing costs while maximizing termination possibilities. Available terminations include RCA-to-RCA, mini-to-RCA, mini-to-mini, DIN-to-DIN, RCA-to-DIN, iPod-to-mini, or iPod-to-RCA, making these interconnects ideal for desktop and portable applications. The Tower and Evergreen use AQ's solid Long-Grain Copper (LGC) conductors. Golden Gate uses higher purity Perfect-Surface Copper (PSC) conductors. Big Sur uses even-higher-purity Perfect-Surface+ Copper (PSC+) conductors, and upgrades the other models' gold-plated RCA plugs to gold-plated plugs of pure purple copper. All four models are insulated with foamed polyethylene, and are attractive, well made, and very flexible. Moving up the line, SM heard improvements in image focus, tone color, drama, and overall clarity and extension. "If you're in the market for truly affordable, truly high-quality interconnects, I can think of no better place to start than AudioQuest," he concluded. SM used it between his laptop and PSB Alpha PS1 desktop speakers. Compared with the stock PS1 cable, the AQ produced a larger, more present overall sound, with deeper silences, longer decays, cleaner highs, more realistic bass, and richer tone color. "Suddenly, I had real high-fidelity sound coming from my laptop," SM enthused. (Vol.36 Nos.7, 8, Evergreen; Vol.36 No.10 WWW)

AudioQuest Dragon, XLR: $11,900/1m pair
RCA: $9500/1m pair
Uses "Solid Perfect-Surface Silver (PSS)" conductors with a dielectric comprising fluoropolymer air tubes. MF compared the balanced Dragon with his TARA Labs' "The Evolution Zero" interconnect and concluded that it was considerably more open but not brighter, faster but not leaner. (Vol.45 No.9 WWW)

AudioQuest ThunderBird XLR: $3900/1m pair
RCA: $2900/1m pair
When he substituted the balanced Thunderbird for his previous interconnect, HR wrote that his system's sound changed so dramatically that he immediately realized that what he had perceived as the Bartók's slight grain and grayness disappeared almost completely with the ThunderBird wires, "replaced by a bright, waterlike clarity and a feeling that a dam had burst and the sun had emerged from behind a winter cloud." His conclusion? "Once again, I discovered that changing 3' of wire can be the difference between boring and thrilling, plain and beautiful, hard and supple, gray and colorful." (Vol.45 No.6 WWW)

Cardas Audio Clear Rev.1: $2020/1m pair, balanced; $1840/1m pair, unbalanced
Rev.1 applies to both Cardas's Clear balanced and single-ended interconnects; JM tested the balanced version, which incorporates Cardas's heavy, gold-plated CG XLR plugs. With the Rev.1 in his system, JM gained significant measures of detail and transparency. (Vol.36 No.12 WWW)

Cardas Clear Beyond: $4250/1m pair
When he replaced the budget-priced Cardas Iridium between a dCS Bartók DAC and Genelec's G Three active speakers with the flagship Clear Beyond interconnect, HR wrote that "the apparent volume of the recording venue expanded dramatically—and with that expansion came an equally dramatic sense of separation [between orchestra and choir]. Moreover, I noticed a newfound well-sortedness and a new form of dark quiet—a silence quite unlike any I'd experienced before." HR concluded that the Cardas Clear Beyond endowed the sound from the Genelec speakers "with a sublime quiet, a grand spaciousness, and seemingly infinite LSD detail." (Vol.45 No.8 WWW; also see KM's Clearaudio Reference Jubilee turntable review in Vol.45 No.7 WWW)

Fono-Acustica Virtuoso: $22,100/1.5m pair
The conductors are an alloy of silver and gold (shades of Burl Ives!), the styling is Spanish Cowboy Baroque, and the price is enough to buy a brand-new Volkswagen Golf and a couple of Brooks Brothers suits. What does that add up to? According to MF, when substituted for his reference TARA Zero Evolution interconnect, the Fono Acustica made for "more graceful, almost cautious, romantic, but somehow still precise and well-detailed attacks, and long, long sustains." On switching back to the TARA, did Mikey miss the Fono Acustica? "Yes—but you can't have everything!" (Vol.39 No.3)

Kimber Kable Hero: $380/1m pair with WBT-0114
The "strong, silent type" when it comes to cables, says the inestimable JM. "And reasonably priced, into the bargain." (NR, but see "The Fifth Element" in Vol.33 No.6 WWW)

Kimber Kable PBJ: $148/1m pair, as reviewed
Originally released in the late 1980s, PBJ is a minimalist design comprising three high-quality, multistrand wires in individual Teflon jackets, braided together and terminated with Kimber's Ultraplate connectors. With the PBJs in his system, SM heard greater clarity, detail, depth, and presence. Compared to AudioQuest's Sidewinder, the PBJ lacked body and warmth but was more muscular, insistent, and precise, said SM. (Vol.35 No.6 WWW)

Kimber Kable Tonik: $108/1m pair
Kimber's most affordable interconnect uses three stranded copper wires neatly braided in a noise-canceling pattern. Though they lacked the resolution of much more expensive interconnects, the Toniks "offered clarity without brightness, and reasonably good amounts of color, texture, and touch. For $80, that was A-okay with me," said AD. Price includes Kimber's Ultratike connectors. (Vol.34 No.11 WWW)

Kubala-Sosna Anticipation: $600/m pair; $220/additional meter
Like the K-S speaker cables (see "Loudspeaker Cables"), the K-S interconnects are based on a low characteristic impedance and solid construction. The results are uncolored sound and extremely low noise pickup. (Vol.29 No.7 WWW)

Kubala-Sosna Elation Interconnect: $8000/pair first meter, $1700/each additional meter
Expensive but superbly transparent interconnect that JA found worked synergistically with YG's Sonja 1.3 speakers. (NR)

Linn Silver: $461/1.2m pair, terminated with RCA phono
Single-ended interconnect AH found made a synergistic match with the Lejonklou Entity phono preamplifier. (Vol.45 No.7 WWW)

Luna Red: $2500/1m pair
See Power-Related Accessories.

Nordost Valhalla 2 Interconnect: $9999.99/1m pair
Characterized by the inclusion of Nordost's Dual-Mono-Filament spacing between conductor and dielectric, as well as of Nordost's new Holo:Plug connectors, the analog interconnects, speaker cables, phono cables, and power cords in the company's Valhalla 2 Reference series impressed BD, whose system had been wired with Nordost's original Valhalla-series cables. With the new cables in place, BD heard gains in a number of areas—especially improved transparency and resolution, greater clarity in the reproduction of spatial information, and greater timbral warmth and richness—compared with his ca-2001 Valhallas. BD added that, of all the cable products in the new Valhalla 2 Reference series, "it was the 1m interconnect with RCAs ($7599.99) that had the greatest effect on the sound of my system." (Vol.39 No.7 WWW)

Pure Silver Connection (PSC) PST 8: $1500/1m pair
Balanced interconnects featuring solid, silver-plated 6N copper and round conductors. LG reported that they reduced system hum problems and were "highly recommended!" Price is for both balanced and unbalanced interconnects. (NR)

Raal-requisite STAR-8: $1100
HR found that this cable always played "bigger, denser, and more colorfully" than the stock copper cables supplied with RAAL's SR1a headset. The SR728 Silver Headphone Cable "is a necessity—not an accessory," he wrote. "A necessory." (Vol.44 No.10 WWW)

RSX Beyond phono cable: $3500/1m pair
Fully shielded, double-grounded, paired cable with "long crystal, ultra-pure Laboratory Grade copper," "Teflon variant-plus-air dielectric," and ultralow-mass terminations said to minimize self-inductance. MF tried the Beyond with a Kuzma 4Point tonearm and his CH Precision P1 current-mode phono preamp. To his surprise, he found the result louder than with the standard Kuzma cable—it measured louder, too—due to the RSX cable's very low impedance. Once he'd matched levels, he still heard a big difference: While instrumental timbres remained the same, "the sound was more open. The reverb behind the instruments was presented in greater relief, and the soundstage widened, with more air." (Vol.45 No.1 WWW)

Stealth Helios miniDIN–RCA cable: $9800/1.2m, $10,400/1.5m
The manufacturer claims the construction of this cable allows it to be safely bent at a 90° angle at the jack/wire junction. MF found that used with the AXIOM tonearm, the Helios cable produced noticeable background quiet and far more transparency than that older, "budget" cable he had been using. (Vol.45 No.9 WWW)

Stealth Sakra V16 interconnect: $12,000/1m, $7,600 each additional meter
Balanced version: $16,000/1m pair, $9,500 each additional meter
Lightweight, very flexible, and finished in an outer jacket of near-opalescent white, the Sakra interconnect is built into a hermetically sealed, helium-filled tube and terminated with proprietary solid-silver connectors. The overall sound was open and clean, with lightning-fast attacks, generous sustains, and long decays. Compared to the TARA Labs Zero, the Sakra had a bit more midrange body and texture but lacked some air and speed, felt Mikey. (Vol.34 No.6)

TARA Labs Air Evolution interconnect: $1995 1m; each add'tl meter is $200
TARA Labs Air Evolution w/Evo Ground Station: $2695 each add'tl meter is $250
A slightly less expensive alternative to TARA's Zero Evolution balanced interconnect, the Air Evolution also uses rectangular-core copper conductors for both its positive and negative legs. Its shield is floated with respect to the signal conductors, but is terminated at the source end with mini-banana plugs that can be connected to TARA's optional Evo Ground Station, designed to shunt shield noise to ground. Although MF observed that the Air Evolutions weren't "quite as resolved on top" as the costlier Zero Evolution, he thought the two models were "close." (Vol.40 No.1 WWW)

TARA Labs Zero Evolution w/HFX Ground Station: $20,995/1m, each add'tl meter is $2300
The Zero Evolution is an all-new, physically flexible, easier to manage air-dielectric interconnect than the original Zero with non-insulated square solid-core conductors. Because neither end of The Zero Evolution's shield is attached to ground, TARA employs the Floating Ground Station, a heavy, black box containing Ceralex, a combination of ceramic materials and metallic compounds that absorbs RFI and EMI. Switching from the original Zero to the new Evolution Zero, MF's system benefited yet further from an enormous addition of lushness, texture, and warmth, along with major extensions of air, detail, and transparency. Due to The Evolution Zero's ultrawide bandwidth, some outside transient noise can leak into the system when nearby appliances are activated. But—"I've heard nothing like it," he declares, adding "a genuine breakthrough, though hideously expensive. The TARA Labs Evolution Zero had a fast, clean, open overall sound, with airy highs and tight bass. The Evolution upgrade adds the rich, textured midrange of the Stealth Sakra, while continuing to produce faster attacks, longer sustains, and deeper decays, said MF." (Vol.29 No.12, Zero; Vol.34 No.6 WWW, Zero Gold; Vol.36 No.11, Zero Evolution)

TARA Labs Zero GX DIN-to-RCA tonearm cable: $3800/1m, each additional meter $600
Though it was "somewhat bereft of physicality," the Zero GX's accentuated sibilants and precise attack made it "a good choice for detail devotees," said MF. (Vol.32 No.7)

Tellurium Q Black II XLR: $450/1m pair
A new company based in Somerset, UK, Tellurium Q is a cable specialist offering three lines of products, with Black squarely in the middle. JM responded well to a pair of Black balanced interconnects, which he found "on the slightly warm or musical side of neutral," and praised for sounding "quieter and far less closed-in at the top" than his comparatively plebian Canare interconnects. Extra points for emphasizing engineering over fancy packaging. According to JM, this entry-level-premium cable line is "well worth exploring." Black updated to Black II, at a lower price. (Vol.38 No.4 WWW)

Wireworld Platinum Eclipse 8 Interconnect: $3600/1m pair
Though it wasn't as transparent as the TARA Labs Zero, when used with the Constellation Centaur Mono monoblock amplifiers, the Eclipse 7 "produced a much better overall picture in terms of tonality, texture, and transients," said Mikey. (Vol.36 No.11)

Loudspeaker Cables:

Audio Art Cable SC-5 Classic: $240/10ft pair (gold spades; add $10/pr for silver spades), $250/10ft pair (gold bananas)
The SC-5 has silver-coated OFC conductors (14AWG), a foam polyethylene dielectric, a PVC jacket, and an internal packet of vibration-absorbing fibers. It can be terminated with gold-plated brass banana plugs or, for $10 less, DH Labs' gold-plated copper spade lugs. Compared to AudioQuest's Rocket 33, the SC-5 lacked body, weight, and warmth, but produced a detailed, dramatic overall sound, with clean transients and impressive dynamics, said SM. Sold direct with a 30-day, money-back guarantee. (Vol.37 No.2 WWW)

AudioQuest Dragon ZERO: $34,100/8' pair
"Notably transparent, able to deliver dynamic slam and detail," wrote MF. (Vol.45 No.9 WWW)

AudioQuest Robin Hood ZERO : $2235/10' pair
JA's go-to speaker cable, with clean highs and a good sense of low-frequency clarity that get the best from MoFi SourcePoint 10s, KEF LS50s, and GoldenEar BRXes.

AudioQuest Rocket 33: $749.95/10ft pair
AudioQuest's 14AWG, solid-core Rocket 33 speaker cable offered an exciting leap in performance over SM's RadioShack Flat Megacable speaker wire, infusing music with more low-level resolution, transient speed, clarity, and physicality. (Vol.34 No.9, Vol.37 No.2 WWW)

Benchmark Studio&Stage Speaker Cable: $198/10' pair $$$
Benchmark recommends this affordable cable for use with the AHB2 power amplifier. It uses Canara star-quad conductors with a SpeakON NL2 or NL4 connector on the amplifier end and locking banana plugs on the speaker end. NR, but see JA's Benchmark DAC 3 B review in Vol.46 No.3 WWW.

Cardas Clear rev.1: $4085/2m pair, terminated in spades
JM was most impressed by the Cardas Clear's low-frequency clarity and resolution, finding the Clear to give two or three more bass notes on a pipe organ, with a lower noisefloor and "spooky" resolution compared with his reference MIT MH-770 CVTerminator cables. "The best-sounding cables I have heard," he concluded. JA agrees that these are fine-sounding cables. (Vol.33 No.10 WWW)

Kimber Kable 8TC: $688/3m pair (10') w/o connectors
(NR, but see "The Fifth Element" in Vol.33 No.6 WWW)

Kubala-Sosna Elation Speaker Cable: $8000/pair first meter, $1700/each additional meter
A JA favorite. See "Interconnects." (NR)

Kubala-Sosna Fascination: $1250/m pair; $400/additional meter
Kubala-Sosna claims that their OptimiZ technology "results in a lower characteristic impedance and a higher ratio of capacitance to inductance than any other cable." Each cable consists of a hefty pair of conductors twisted around each other, sheathed with a knitted cover, and solidly terminated in thick spade lugs. The current versions have sleek, tight jackets that make them easy to snake and arrange. With the K-S cables in his system, KR noted a decrease in overall residual hiss and softer but more precise highs. "I can't say that the change is substantial, but it is definable." Further auditioning with his multi-channel system completely wired with K-S cables led him to describe these cables as among the quietest and most transparent cables he has encountered: "Overall, they seem to get out of the way of everything else and let the system do its thing." (Vol.28 No.3, Vol.29 No.7 WWW)

Luna Mauve: $1890/2.5m pair
See "Power-Related Accessories."

Naim NACA5: $26/ft $$$
Inexpensive spaced-twin cable that ST found to work well with the Spendor S100 loudspeaker. Unchanged in Naim's product line since 1986, the NACA5 is made of two chunky runs of stranded heavy-gauge wire twisted into a very tight bundle and molded into a thick sheath of Teflon. "Stiffer than Swedish roadkill," said AD. Compared to RadioShack's inexpensive SW-1650 speaker wire, however, the unwieldy NACA5 was better at communicating pitch relationships and had "a more realistic sense of flow." Worth investigating as a good-value cable, thinks JA. (Vol.32 No.8 WWW)

Nordost Valhalla 2 Speaker Cable: $12,759.99/1.25m
See Interconnects.

Stealth Dream V16: $14,700/2m pair, $6,600 each additional meter
The hermetically sealed, helium-filled Dream V10 is a thick yet flexible cable made of three flat solid-silver wires and a conductive carbon-fiber core. Compared to the TARA Labs Omega Onyx, the Stealth cable had a richer, warmer sound, with a softer attack for a slower overall musical flow. Partnered with the Stealth Sakra interconnects, the Dream V10 cable produced a more textured midrange but lacked the TARA's upper-octave air, said MF. Bi-wiring adds $1300 regardless of cables' length. (Vol.34 No.6)

TARA Labs Air Evolution SP speaker cable, 8' with bananas & spades: $4800; each add'tl foot is $380
See "Interconnects."

TARA Labs Omega Evolution SP loudspeaker cable: $37,000/8' pair, each additional foot $3900
The physically flexible TARA Labs Omega Evolution, incorporating almost twice as many rectangular, solid-core elements of "8 nines" (99.999999%) oxygen-free copper (280 vs the Gold's 156), adds the speed, transparency, dimensionality, and, especially, textural suppleness that the previous Gold cable lacked, thus losing the Gold's "somewhat laid-back overall sound" while paying no sonic penalty for the major improvements, said Mikey. Even more recent is TARA's Omega Evolution SP speaker cable, a higher-inductance and identically priced variant intended as a better match for amplifiers with very low damping factors and/or speakers that present distinctly reactive loads. In his system, in comparison with the less expensive TARA Omega Golds, MF found the Omega Evolution SPs to offer "more precise note attacks" and "greater textural nuance," among other attributes. (Vol.36 No.11, Vol.38 No.12)

Wireworld Platinum Eclipse 8 Speaker Cable: $29,600/3m pair
Compared to the new TARA Labs Omega Evolution, the Platinum Eclipse 7 is equally transparent, resolving, and dimensional, but less texturally supple and extended on top, with a less richly drawn midrange, said MF. (Vol.36 No.11)

Digital Data Interconnects:

DH Labs Silver Sonic D-110 AES/EBU: $155/1m
(NR, but see EL's review of the Bel Canto DAC3.5VB in Vol.34 No.6 WWW)

Kimber Kable Orchid: $948/1m
Expensive, but the best AES/EBU link JA has used. J-10 loved the Orchid's midrange liquidity and detail, but preferred Illumination's S/PDIF cable overall. SD (almost) doesn't equivocate: "Probably the best out there for now...A stunner!" RH and RD are also fans. New lower price usefully brings this cable in reach of more music lovers. (Vol.19 No.5)

Kubala-Sosna Expression: $1050/m, $300/additional meter
A KR favorite. See "Loudspeaker Cables." (Vol.29 No.7 WWW)

Revelation Audio Labs Prophecy CryoSilver Reference DualConduit USB 2.0 Digital Link Cable: $799/1.25m (other lengths available)
KR first became acquainted with Revelation Audio Labs' USB cables when a set was supplied with his Baetis Prodigy-X server. He was especially intrigued by the build quality of RAL's DualConduit design, in which dual Type A USB plugs converge in a single Type B USB plug, with one lead for signal and the other for the 5V USB power. The RAL DualConduit remains a KR reference in various computer-audio settings. (Vol.41 No.3 WWW)

COMMENTS
creativepart's picture

Does Stereophile ever question the validity of this twice a year list? Perhaps it really helps with newsstand sales, but I've come to dread it's release twice a year. First, there are the stupidly priced A+ turntables all reviewed by one staffer that's been gone for quite some time. The entire A+ section will go away with "not tested in a long time" and rightly so.

Some items are ranked by full reviews with testing and others are just columnists saying - highly recommended - at the end of their monthly column. And those items are many times totally out of the mainstream of the product marketplace.

And, while price doesn't indicate quality, it is so jarring to see $500 products achieve the exact same ranking (A or B usually) along side $15,000 products.

I'd love to see you folks test more of the items people are buying in fairly large numbers everyday... even though they don't have the same 5 popular distribution partners or those that advertise in the magazine. No, I'm not saying it's pay to play. But MoFi Distributing buys a lot of ads, it's friends with staffers and routinely gets their products reviewed. It's not payola, but it is a symbiotic relationship.

I'd recommend you scrap the listing and retool the whole thing - and put some thought into how and why you test the products you test.

tenorman's picture

Very objective , well written and fair . You’ve made some great suggestions . Thank you

HeadScratcher's picture

I too recommend scrapping the current format for a complete retooling of a listing that isn't so time lapse convoluted...

alh22's picture

have to agree: these listings are very spotty, and many are quite stale.

Glotz's picture

Creativepart is mincing words to that they fail to commit to... They are saying it's pay to play in no uncertain terms and views their listings with mistrust. To imply MoFi has a friendly relationship is complete conjecture and Stereophile does not make nor position themselves as a symbiotic relationship with any manufacturer or distributor. If they get their product reviewed, it's because a reviewer saw or heard their product at a show, and anything else is implied BS. Rather, they hate MoFi for their lack of transparency about their debacle on digital masters, and want to see any association of Stereophile's behalf as condemnation of their own lack of transparency and veracity. That implication stinks like jaded political pundits grasping for correlated facts.

What CP is also implying directly is that he or she would like validation of their mainstream products purchased to be favorably reviewed (so they can feel good about their purchases of gear). It's generally opposed to what Stereophile does and any long term reader or subscriber would know that as gospel and the very reason the magazine exists on one level- to provide a review of one person's experience with a hard to find or less-investigated piece of gear. It is easy to find, learn and buy any mainstream piece of gear. I do think that should change a bit.

What is important is for Stereophile to review these mainstream audio products and compare against their audiophile offerings and EXPLAIN why they are different and (if) superior. That would be bring in more readers if the descriptions of well known products (vs. audiophile products) could be compared and contrasted well enough. This acts to bring real-world reference points to levels of sound quality that more non-audio dudes would understand.

I do not think this magazine is as good at comparisons (though understandable) as they used to be in the 80's and 90's (less HR and JA). Manufacturers don't like comparisons to their products because often the context is misunderstood by readers. Yes, almost all products in any category are vastly improved and the 80's performance points were much more obvious to hear and report about as negative or positive. Technology marching forward has changed that and leveled the playing field drastically. The fundamental design approaches of audiophile companies still focus on sound rather than ergonomics or functionality.

What should happen is to NOT name the product under comparison in the review but only use price as an indicator of quality vs. price in any comparison. That way readers can understand the product from a price perspective and not feel they have a field day crapping on the product that they 'KNEW was audiophile garbage'.

Side note- Other than subscribers, no reader should be allowed to make comments on this or the other sister websites. By way of omission of the subscribed investment, we will be able to separate the dross from water. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of other websites that do this outright, but I get that Stereophile wants to increase it's readership. Perhaps, this is actually a better way to do it. Require subscriptions for posting comments here and there (AP).

Jazzlistener's picture

high when you wrote this? Talk about verbal diarrhea. Creativepart made some good points. Although I do personally enjoy the Recommended Components feature, I too find it questionable (e.g. the Rega P3 makes it into Class C but none of their higher end tables can crack Class A? Pluh-ease. What I would really love to see is more system recommendations in Stereophile like in some of the British Hi-Fi mags, and at different price points.

Glotz's picture

But I was pissed a bit. Implied collusion ruffles my s***.

Great recommend on the system point you bring up. That should be a regular feature if they can create very different systems for each 'type' of listener. From there they could build on hybrids of system types involving tubes and solid-state, etc.

These rankings are just one reviewer judging a component in relation to their system. The Benchmark reviews come to mind- Certain people loved them, others not. There's massive nuance there and goes to the heart of preference thing- accuracy to source vs. myfi, vs. 'the absolute sound'.

They all need to fit somewhere into the classes here. It may be a hodge-podge like it is, but whatever. It just is.

The Belles vs. McCormack amp comparison from Sam Tellig (2000) comes to mind as well. The pursuit of accuracy vs. warmth and obscuration of detail lent the McCormack the nod and the higher rating for ST in Class A and the Belles to Class B. Same realm of performance and price (in my listening as well) but they don't share a rating. In more ways and in my lighter balanced system (at the time), I preferred the Belles.

I think dollar amounts do have play a part here as sometimes there are positives that 'overweigh' the subtractions to placement a certain class and could serve one particular group of listeners as a justification for a higher cost or greater perceived value.

Expensive modern tube power amps are a great examples. To get to a greater level of measurement and subjective performance to that of solid state one has to spend sometimes thousands more. The classes do need adjustments for a positive listening value like 'superb depth', even though there may be subtractions for other weaknesses.

I look at the classes as just a rough guide. I doubt that the Project DAC reviewed as Class A a few years back could compete with the top dollar DAC's like dCS, but I haven't heard the Project. I would think there is enough areas of merit to make Class A, but probably not as many facets of performance as the dCS or other pricey DACs.

Anton's picture

One of those turntable must surely be A++, no?

And some of that 'A' gear must really be 'A-.'

I think we should switch to the Moody's rating system...

Or, perhaps the Robert Parker 100 point scale.

Glotz's picture

lol.

RobertSlavin's picture

First let me say I heard the Raidho D2-1 speakers several years ago and was very impressed.

However, given how uneven the measured frequency response of the Raidho TD3.8 was in the Stereophile measurements, I question whether it should have even qualified for Class E if it were sold for $700. Instead, we find it recommended at Class A+ for $117,000.

It is generally acknowledged that there is a strong correlation between even measured frequency response and generally perceived speaker quality.

I realize that to get in A+ just one reviewer has to think that way. But it does raise my eyebrow.

Robert

Scintilla's picture

Despite my recent foaming-of-the-mouth and throwings-under-the-bus here, I do think there is value in the list each year. I have used Stereophile reviews and the list to both narrow my choices and to purchase goods based on a long-standing relationship with a reviewers words. Fremer might think me a random hater but I used his reviews to pick both a phono preamp, and a tonearm. I trusted my own ears to pick other parts of my system before glowing reviews appeared here. Assembling a modern, high-quality audio system is made much more difficult by the sheer number of products available, companies and general noise on the Internets. In the 80's we could go to a hifi salon and listen to products like the Robertson 4010 with some Soundlab A1's (made my neck hair stand up) and find Celestions with omni subs paired with Bedini or BEL amps. In this age, having a curated list to help people at least find products to seek is more valuable than ever. What it comes down to is whether you trust the ears that made the choices. And I do not trust all the new reviewers and neither should you. They haven't earned it yet.

Glotz's picture

Haven't you given a reason why you can't trust them?

Specifically why.

Scintilla's picture

Because they can't actually hear differences. I only trust Kal, JA1 and nobody else; maybe Herb; maybe but he's one of those I just write for pleasure guys. So why trust them? Because the rest of the new writers, including JA2 have not proved themselves over time. It's one thing to have a good review when many people agree. Why is JVS reveiwing the highest-end equipment like J10 did? WTAF does he really know about that gear other than his association with the magazine? Not much, actually. He's an amateur listener no more skilled than me. At least Fremer proved himself as a real arbiter of sound quality. I may not agree with his choices for equipment, but the man proved his prowess as a listener. Not so with the rest of these newbies. They can be indignant all they want to be but until they have a record of salient, quality reviews, they are nobodies... And this is Stereophile's big fail.

Glotz's picture

I wasn't trolling you- You didn't give reasons until now.

I thought these reviewers had enough experience at shows, with their own multi-thousand dollar systems and constantly refining their own craft by interviewing and working with manufacturers.

It would seem strange that a manufacturer or distributor installed-system would be anything less than successful playback, as they don't leave until they are satisfied. They certainly have the respect of manufacturers, dealers and distributors when I see them talk together at shows. (And if collusion ruled those relationships, we would see a different dynamic here.)

MF's system is real close in many ways to JVS' so what is the culprit?

Is it your perception of measurements don't match JVS' experiences? Or is that HR has a more observable scientific method by way of comparisons of gear that seems more transparent? Or the way either communicates their observations?

It just may be about the type of subjective tests that reviewers are performing that fails to bring one type of measurement to be audible. Classical music omits a ton of performance areas for review parameters. The component review may be really for classical lovers. I certainly don't read anymore into it if he isn't remarking on other music.

Yet I do see JA defending JVS' experiences in his measurements section in last month's Infigo review. No one seems to ever acknowledge or comment on those reasonable defenses- ever.

Thank you for your explanation no matter what.

ChrisS's picture

...from mine?

No problem!

creativepart's picture

I went to pains to explain I wasn't claiming payola. And, I'm still not. I'm saying that products with distributors are granted more reviews due to attendance at shows, relationships with editors, and just increased personal contact. Companies expect their distributors to represent their brand for them and to advertise their brand for them. And, that's what they do.

Reviewed products end up on the Stereophile Recommended Products list because of this greater exposure to Stereophile writers and editors.

When someone from a small equipment company calls an editor their call will not be answered as readily as a call from that nice rep you met at the Munich show and shared a beer with last year. It's how the business works.

And, everyone should know when a product is getting a review in a future issue the Ad Dept is made aware and sales people call to suggest an ad be placed in that same issue. It's not pay to play because the ad sale has nothing to do with the product review being printed. But companies recognize synergy when they see it.

Add to this that most reviewers seem to be in Urban areas that have the traditional HiFi Shop. Where the rest of the country only has internet forums and online reviews to audition various products.

My entire point is... the list is tilted, skewed toward bigger budget, higher priced gear that is professionally represented and that is not necessarily representative of the broader equipment marketplace, and what mainstream audiophiles are buying.

Jazzlistener's picture

“My entire point is... the list is tilted, skewed toward bigger budget, higher priced gear that is professionally represented and that is not necessarily representative of the broader equipment marketplace, and what mainstream audiophiles are buying.”

I do not begrudge any company that does a good job marketing itself, attending shows, building a presence in the industry, etc. That’s a lot of hard work and investment. There is a boutique speaker company in my home town that makes outstanding speakers, but the owner has steadfastly refused to show them off at shows, market them properly, or work with dealers. The result has been failure to grow his company or draw attention to his speakers. That’s on him. Stereophile is only one of myriad sources on the Internet where audio enthusiasts can find reviews on gear. Many other reviewers cover mainstream products. In fact, if you’re interested in a product you’d be hard pressed not to find a reasonably to excellent credible review on it.

ChrisS's picture

...shopping.

Does no one know how to do that anymore?

Yeesh!

Jean-Benoit's picture

It seems like an obvious thing to include, or else the reader is left to "manually" go looking for reviews of every component that piques his/her curiosity. Seems like a wholly unnecessary hassle for what is otherwise a really useful list.

CG's picture

Good suggestion!

I tried to search for the review of the Ayre VX-8. No luck, link or no.

John Atkinson's picture
CG wrote:
I tried to search for the review of the Ayre VX-8. No luck, link or no.

This review will be posted to the website on Friday. The other reviews in the new (October) issue will be posted over the next 10 days. (Stereophile gives priority to print subscribers.)

John Atkinson
Technical Editor/part-time web monkey

CG's picture

Ahh! Coming attractions, as they say. Fair enough, all around.

ChrisS's picture

The review for the EX is online...The new one should come up soon!

ednazarko's picture

Always stunned by how many people are compelled to tell the world at length how outraged they are about something online they don't like. Maybe insufficient joy in their lives? A lack of purpose? Afflicted with oppositional defiant disorder? I don't know. But if you think online comparison rankings of audio gear are a fruitless exercise, why read them? If you didn't read them, how can you have much of a useful opinion? Expressing outrage about something you refuse to read is mostly chest pounding and declaring superiority over the fools filling the world.

Don't like the comparison reviews? Really, just move on. Less rage hormones in your blood will extend your life span. Or raise money, buy the company, and show us your better ideas in action.

I enjoy reading through these comparison ratings. Don't agree with some, do agree with others. I've found over time that there are reviewers whose ears and preferences seem to match up with mine and others who don't. (In these twice yearly ratings, and in the ongoing reviews published.) These cyclical ratings and the ongoing reviews have been quite useful for me in trying and buying gear when living in a location that limits my ability to hear a lot of gear for myself.

Right now massively enjoying listening to Kingfish Live in London on my Okto stereo DAC, which I'd never have heard of without the review here, and would have never bought other than the reviewers were ones who's opinions and ears have matched with mine in the past, along with the wildly excellent measured performance. Through an old Anthem integrated that was well reviewed way long ago... and through B&W 702 speakers that got mixed reviews, but in the mix there were specifics that told me that they'd work well with my other components and in the large studio listening space I had. (And that I definitely needed the smattering of sound panels on the walls behind and to the side.)

Just because something pleases you not, or strikes you as ignorant and wasteful consumption of bits on the internet, doesn't mean that others don't find value and useful insights. Save your time and your cortisol and ignore the stuff you think it dumb. Life is short. Spend it well.

Glotz's picture

N/T

creativepart's picture

No anger, no stress on this end. Simply making suggestions in hopes of improving this twice a year feature (of the printed magazine). If you read anger and vitriol in phrases in my post like "I'd love to see you folks..." then it's not me that's overreacting.

If you like the listings as they are, then great. No one is stopping you. Me, I think they could be more meaningful than they are currently. But that's just me.

pinkfloyd4ever's picture

It would be really helpful if you posted a link to the full review of each of these products in this list

Jau's picture

Hi,
In delections from their latest Recommended Components they relate to the Devialet Expert 140 Pro and say that it has been replaced by a new model which has not been tested. However, the Expert 140 Pro continues to appear on the Devialet website and there is no new model to replace it. (?)

Firemike's picture

Maybe a quick visit to Funk & Wagnall's might be in order to refresh ourselves of what a review and recommendation is. If a consumer wants to spend $10 or $20,000 on a widget, consider a review as gospel, or only an opinion, isn't that their prerogative? If a person prefers the sound of pink colored audio equipment made from crystals and walnuts from "Big HI FI" that has no scientific or measurable reasoning behind it, who are we to judge? Akin to politics and religion, each person votes with their ears and ultimately, wallet. Not every opposing view is a conspiracy which require's a need to question other's intentions. A review is nothing more than one person's opinion. Aren't we in this hobby to listen and enjoy music - not hyper analyze equipment, materials, and the evil empires that provide it? Somehow fellow hobbyist's have survived all of these years in life - many of them very successfully - without our subjective criticism. Yes, I get it. As a subscriber you have input into how you would prefer to see things done. Maybe a letter to the editor could be a consideration.

moukie's picture

Really surprised NOT to see Bryston 4B3 14B3 or 28B3 in the recommended amps and that is like every year

Leah's picture

This is Leah Gwinn who has been a victim of the BITCOIN AND CRYPTOCURRENCY Scam recently. I have been scammed $350,000 during this fake Chinese Bitcoin. I lost all my life savings. I have paid attention to the fraud website and noticed that the scam website was shut down on 12/07/2022. Just now, I read a news article regarding the Pig Butchering Scam in Delaware. The Delaware DOJ initiated a halt to the Pig Butchering Crypto Scams. The enforcement policemen issued a cease-and-desist order to wallets, accounts, and individuals. This encouraged me because the scam website which robbed me just stopped. It may not be too late to take action against the cybercriminals. As the scammers copied the real American Crypto Company, they are most likely in the States. I didn’t stop at that I had to also look for alternatives to get my money back, so I had to contact (BRIGADIATECHREMIKEABLE@PROTON. DOT ME) who helped me recover my money and my friend as well. I can't thank them enough so I had to make this 5-star review. BITCOIN, CRYPTO, WALLET RECOVERY, SCAM RECOVERY contact the Email: brigadiatechremikeable@proton.me Telegram +13239101605 and get help, Good luck.

X