"Margaret von B." wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"fathom" wrote in message
...
I find myself spending less and less time on each issue. Down
to about 5 minutes now. Maybe I've just outgrown it, but I used
to read every word. There's just something perverse about a
bunch of paunchy old white guys spewing endlessly about $38,000
turntables. Maybe twice a year they write about something I'm
actually interested in.

The thing is, I'm probably the ideal subscriber - I can afford
to buy a $38k turntable if I want one. I don't want one.

The solution is to turn it into a nut rave.
Every month, Atkinson should pick one of us to be a guest ranter.
Stereophile could also implement a scoring system for rao'ers: "Usenet
cacophony pick of the month."

Stereophile is too smooth, too dignified. It goes very well with wine
but
poorly with crack



Robert,

Are you trying to restart the debacle between Krueger and Wheeler? :-)

A while back, I said in a post that Stereophile was most compatible with
readers who have a passive attitude, rather than an activist one.
Stereophile published a pretty good article comparing speaker cables, with
one exception: zip cord. The question arises: why was zip cord left out, and
all the things one can do with zip cord, such as make multiple runs out of
it? One answer might be that there is little money to be made in audio by
selling zip cord. Another might be that bundling the stuff together with
duct tape is too much work.

The fact that Stereophile chose not to include zip cord in the article
troubled me. The Tice Clock, and Shakti stones get far more press than zip
cord. Yet zip cord does something quite impressive: it functionally conducts
signals to loudspeakers. I'm not going to claim that triple runs of zip cord
are the best speaker cables in the world, but who knows? Maybe there are
some undiscovered truths about zip cord that would offend people who make
money selling products dedicated to the same purpose.

Once (or more than once), I suggested to Atkinson that he expand the
magazine to cover synthesized surround sound. Yamaha and Sony have done some
exceedingly impressive work in this area. IMHO, the results are far superior
to multichannel DVD audio, because synthesized surround sound can be
tailored to the reproduction environment. If I recall Atkinson's response to
me correctly, he said that the readership simply was not interested. By
implication, his reluctance to cover surround sound implies he distrusted
the magazine's ability to actively expand the vision of the readership.
Perhaps he is right. Specialty magazines seem to have narrow focus. There
are mags that deal only with certain very short periods of history, such as
the Civil War. It seems to be the acquired wisdom of magazine publishers
that people read magazines not to expand their vision, but to feed a
contracted one.

People read magazines like they listen to their favorite hits: they want to
hear the same message over and over. We may complain about Stereophile, but
there is sound "business psychology" that defines why it is what it is.
Those of us who have broader ranges of interest must seek satisfaction
elsewhere. I'm about to do so, in a "how do I" post to this forum.