I happened to read an advance of the October recommended components article. I noticed the the Triton IIs were listed as Class "C." The same for the April issue. I could have sworn they were once noted to be Class "B." No matter, the problem is this, the listing notes the new Triton II+, using the same write up as the old Triton II. The Triton II+ is far advanced over the original. I know, I have a chance to compare. This represents a departure in journalistic integrity and does a disservice to Golden Ear and Stereophile readers.

In addition, I was always suspect of the Class B rating for the Triton I's. "Borderline class A" lets Stereophile off the hook from putting those towers in Class A status. After all, how can anyone justify Class A for a $5000.00 pair of speakers competing with a $100,000 pair? They can't. It is somewhat easier to list the KEF LS50s in Class A, these small monitors represent somewhat of a "niche" product and dissimilar from everything int he same category.

It's a shame.

I thought the Triton's are class D.

Was that a bad pun, GDHAL?

Here's my take on this one. I believe the reviewers write what they believe to be true; however, there is some quid pro quo going on. You don't get reviewed without providing some benefit to the publication. Mind you, I'm not saying that reviewers are being paid for positive reviews but I think finances play a part in what is reviewed: be it cash, mutually beneficial publicity, etc.

Snobbery definitely plays a part in product stratification. There is the belief that cost is some sort of guarantee of performance. The only think uber expensive prices guarantee are exclusivity. As I've alluded to previously, anyone that purchases an audio system worth hundreds of thousands of dollars has their priorities mixed up and needs a bit of extra attention paid to their income taxes. While quality products are not cheap, this industry takes it to ridiculous heights. Let me provides an example of the audiofoolery of which I speak:

www.hifiplus.com/articles/fono-acustica-...-loudspeaker-cables/

To me, GET just gets it right by striking a terrific balance between quality and value. There's no snake oil, fairy dust, or luxury prices to make the customer feel exclusive. Just a great mix of art and science to create great sounding speakers that are within the reach of most consumers. They also do very well at promoting partnerships with industry publications by promoting their reviews. There's certainly nothing wrong with creating mutually beneficial relationships such as those with Digital Trends. Just my .02.

Cheers,

T Cobe

No pun intended. Class D

www.goldenear.com/forum/36-Triton-Series...g-ohms?start=6#15041

hometheaterreview.com/goldenear-technolo...oudspeaker-reviewed/


maybe I'm missing the point of the thread though

GDHAL,

Stereophile stratifies its recommended components by placing them in categories. Class A in this case is based on quality of the component. I believe what roguemodel was saying is that price of the component seems to play a significant a role in this selection criteria. The class of amplification in this regard is irrelevant. Hope this clears things up.

Cheers,

T Cobe

Ah yes T Cobe that certainly does clear things up. I've honestly never heard/read (until herein) a speaker rated alphabetically, meant to categorize it's overall quality, value, sound, etc. etc. Given the glowing pro reviews of all the Triton's it wouldn't make sense to be rated anything other than class A. The class D I was speaking of is the amplifier type. Again, my bad in that regard and my apologies to roguemodel for the misunderstanding.