Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Hey folks!
I seem to remember a discussion of industry mags a while back, but I don't remember which thread it was in. My question is: Which of the music industry mags are worth subscribing to from both a tech learning standpoint and an industry learning standpoint? IOW, how-tos on tech and info about the industry/music business in general. Scott, I know you contribute to Recording Magazine, and that is one that I'm considering subscribing to. I liked it back when I was subscribing, and I've seen some issues lately that looked interesting. I just hit a link to Sound On Sound that was an article link from the turnmeup.org link in the LOUDNESS WARS thread. It looks really interesting and pretty dang thorough. Seriously thinking about that one. I remember that Mix used to be pretty good, but I seem to remember reading in that earlier thread that it has degenerated somewhat--is that accurate? I used to pick up Electronic Musician, but I've not read one in a while. I'm not sure how many mags I want to subscribe to, certainly Recording Magazine and possibly Sound On Sound, but if much better content is out there, I'd like to know. What's your opinions, folks? ---Jeff |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Arkansan Raider wrote:
Hey folks! I seem to remember a discussion of industry mags a while back, but I don't remember which thread it was in. My question is: Which of the music industry mags are worth subscribing to from both a tech learning standpoint and an industry learning standpoint? IOW, how-tos on tech and info about the industry/music business in general. Scott, I know you contribute to Recording Magazine, and that is one that I'm considering subscribing to. I liked it back when I was subscribing, and I've seen some issues lately that looked interesting. I just hit a link to Sound On Sound that was an article link from the turnmeup.org link in the LOUDNESS WARS thread. It looks really interesting and pretty dang thorough. Seriously thinking about that one. I remember that Mix used to be pretty good, but I seem to remember reading in that earlier thread that it has degenerated somewhat--is that accurate? I used to pick up Electronic Musician, but I've not read one in a while. I'm not sure how many mags I want to subscribe to, certainly Recording Magazine and possibly Sound On Sound, but if much better content is out there, I'd like to know. What's your opinions, folks? ---Jeff Tape Op is a pretty interesting magazine, and available free for the asking. http://tapeop.com/ -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
hank alrich wrote:
Tape Op is a pretty interesting magazine, and available free for the asking. http://tapeop.com/ Thanks, Hank! I'll czech it out. ---Jeff |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Arkansan Raider wrote:
Scott, I know you contribute to Recording Magazine, and that is one that I'm considering subscribing to. I liked it back when I was subscribing, and I've seen some issues lately that looked interesting. It's good. It has some interesting stuff in it. It varies from really good to occasionally lousy, but it's never really really bad. Most of the other big market magazines at least once an issue have something that makes me hit my head and say "That's stupid and wrong." I just hit a link to Sound On Sound that was an article link from the turnmeup.org link in the LOUDNESS WARS thread. It looks really interesting and pretty dang thorough. Seriously thinking about that one. Sound On Sound and Resolution are both British and are probably the two best industry magazines out there today. They are as close as it gets to what R/E/P used to be like. They are, sadly, also the most expensive of the set. I remember that Mix used to be pretty good, but I seem to remember reading in that earlier thread that it has degenerated somewhat--is that accurate? They just changed their format, so things might be different soon. The thing is, Mix was really a magazine that followed the studio industry, and there just really isn't a studio industry left any more. It's a different world, and Mix changed along with it, and it became far less interesting as a result. i used to pick up Electronic Musician, but I've not read one in a while. I'm not sure how many mags I want to subscribe to, certainly Recording Magazine and possibly Sound On Sound, but if much better content is out there, I'd like to know. What's your opinions, folks? Live Sound is very good for the live sound folks. Tape Op is interesting and eclectic; it has some of the best and some of the worst material out there. And Tape Op is free so there's no reason not to get it. FOH is an interesting live sound magazine also which I think fills the same kind of gap that Mix used to, telling what band is working where and what company is going bankrupt this week. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote: Scott, I know you contribute to Recording Magazine, and that is one that I'm considering subscribing to. I liked it back when I was subscribing, and I've seen some issues lately that looked interesting. It's good. It has some interesting stuff in it. It varies from really good to occasionally lousy, but it's never really really bad. Most of the other big market magazines at least once an issue have something that makes me hit my head and say "That's stupid and wrong." I just hit a link to Sound On Sound that was an article link from the turnmeup.org link in the LOUDNESS WARS thread. It looks really interesting and pretty dang thorough. Seriously thinking about that one. Sound On Sound and Resolution are both British and are probably the two best industry magazines out there today. They are as close as it gets to what R/E/P used to be like. They are, sadly, also the most expensive of the set. I remember that Mix used to be pretty good, but I seem to remember reading in that earlier thread that it has degenerated somewhat--is that accurate? They just changed their format, so things might be different soon. The thing is, Mix was really a magazine that followed the studio industry, and there just really isn't a studio industry left any more. It's a different world, and Mix changed along with it, and it became far less interesting as a result. i used to pick up Electronic Musician, but I've not read one in a while. I'm not sure how many mags I want to subscribe to, certainly Recording Magazine and possibly Sound On Sound, but if much better content is out there, I'd like to know. What's your opinions, folks? Live Sound is very good for the live sound folks. Tape Op is interesting and eclectic; it has some of the best and some of the worst material out there. And Tape Op is free so there's no reason not to get it. FOH is an interesting live sound magazine also which I think fills the same kind of gap that Mix used to, telling what band is working where and what company is going bankrupt this week. --scott Thanks, Scott! Looks like I've some online time to spend... (:^) -- ---Jeff |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
As another guy who writes for Recording, I'm naturally prejudiced, but
I think the technical level in that magazine is consistently higher than that of its competitors -- at least, its American competitors. Peace, Paul |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On 2/11/2012 11:52 AM, Arkansan Raider wrote:
My question is: Which of the music industry mags are worth subscribing to from both a tech learning standpoint and an industry learning standpoint? IOW, how-tos on tech and info about the industry/music business in general. I write for Recording occasionally, as do a couple of others from here. It's getting lighter than when I was writing monthly but it's still pretty good, probably the best of the US "general interest" recording-oriented music magazines. They frequently have "themed" issues, so there are some months where I get through an issue in half an hour because I'm just not interested in most of the articles. Other issues can keep focused for a couple of days of part time reading. Tape Op is pretty well written but most of the subject matter deals with music in which I have no interest, so I read it as a matter of curiosity rather than actually learning anything. They try to be retro but everybody they write about uses a DAW unless it's a cheap tape machine for "lo fi" production. Sound on Sound and Resolution are my favorite magazines, but both are British, and neither one has free distribution in the US. I pick up issues at trade shows and there's usually enough reading material to hold me until the next show. If I bought a subscription, they'd probably pile up. I let Mix and Electronic Musician pile up because they rarely have anything that I want to save, so they're good "portable" reading. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Arkansan Raider wrote:
I'm not sure how many mags I want to subscribe to, certainly Recording Magazine and possibly Sound On Sound, but if much better content is out there, I'd like to know. What's your opinions, folks? That's exactly what I've whittled down to for the last 3 years or more. geoff |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/11/2012 11:52 AM, Arkansan Raider wrote: My question is: Which of the music industry mags are worth subscribing to from both a tech learning standpoint and an industry learning standpoint? IOW, how-tos on tech and info about the industry/music business in general. I write for Recording occasionally, as do a couple of others from here. It's getting lighter than when I was writing monthly but it's still pretty good, probably the best of the US "general interest" recording-oriented music magazines. They frequently have "themed" issues, so there are some months where I get through an issue in half an hour because I'm just not interested in most of the articles. Other issues can keep focused for a couple of days of part time reading. Tape Op is pretty well written but most of the subject matter deals with music in which I have no interest, so I read it as a matter of curiosity rather than actually learning anything. They try to be retro but everybody they write about uses a DAW unless it's a cheap tape machine for "lo fi" production. Sound on Sound and Resolution are my favorite magazines, but both are British, and neither one has free distribution in the US. I pick up issues at trade shows and there's usually enough reading material to hold me until the next show. If I bought a subscription, they'd probably pile up. I let Mix and Electronic Musician pile up because they rarely have anything that I want to save, so they're good "portable" reading. Thanks, Mike! I should've mentioned this as well: I'm wanting to go with digital distro rather than print so's I can use an e-reader or laptop or something. I'm not all that interested in letting print copies pile up, I've enough books on my shelves. Saying that, I've noticed that Recording and SoS both will do digital distro, as well as Tape Op, of course. -- ---Jeff |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
"geoff" wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote: I'm not sure how many mags I want to subscribe to, certainly Recording Magazine and possibly Sound On Sound, but if much better content is out there, I'd like to know. What's your opinions, folks? That's exactly what I've whittled down to for the last 3 years or more. geoff Roger that. Thanks! -- ---Jeff |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On 2/11/2012 6:04 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
I should've mentioned this as well: I'm wanting to go with digital distro rather than print so's I can use an e-reader or laptop or something. I'm not all that interested in letting print copies pile up, I've enough books on my shelves. I get Pro Audio Review (which I also used to write for) and Audio Media in digital form because they stopped sending me print copies and they don't seem to be particularly interested in stopping the digital version (though it's just a monthly e-mail pointing me to a link. I never read them, though I'll occasionally take a look at the table of contents before deciding not to bother. I don't know how these look on an e-reader but I absolutely hate how they look on my computer. Way too much clicking in order to read an article. I have shelves and shelves and shelves of magazines dating back to the 1970s. I keep them for reference. Sometimes I'd just pick an old issue of R-E-P, leaf through it, and get an idea for an article to write. I hate, hate, hate, hate print media in non-printed form. I won't put up with it. Saying that, I've noticed that Recording and SoS both will do digital distro, as well as Tape Op, of course. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
In article , Jeff Henig wrote:
PStamler wrote: As another guy who writes for Recording, I'm naturally prejudiced, but I think the technical level in that magazine is consistently higher than that of its competitors -- at least, its American competitors. My exposure to its competitors has been limited, but I've always enjoyed the reviews and DIY projects, not to mention some of the interviews. Well, write the editors and tell them this! I am really, really annoyed when people say patently wrong things in interviews which are then printed without correction or commentary. That's where a lot of some of the fallacious common wisdom in the industry comes from... somebody said something in a magazine interview decades ago and it lives on. And what I like about Recording's interviews is that they try pretty hard to fact-check things. Tape-Op does some of the most interesting interviews, and they do long-form ones, but they don't attempt any fact checking at all. This is a mixed bag. The TAXI section is usually pretty good, IMO. I'm still trying to figure out if that's an ad or if it's content. Still, they seem to be doing okay. I also like the ideas on self-distro and using available channels for doing so. As I'm not really big on the whole big label gig, the indie stuff they write about is very interesting to me. There aren't any big label gigs any more. The big labels now are living off of a few large acts and off of back catalogue. They don't have much in the way of A&R at all and they don't have the distribution channels they used to have. So self-distribution and small-label distribution has become critical everywhere, but self-production has too and that's not such a good thing to my mind. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Feb 11, 5:25*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Tape Op is pretty well written but most of the subject matter deals with music in which I have no interest Not just Tape Op. It seems most of the "audio" mags these days have several features on bands and musicians every issue. Like you, I don't care what mic they used to record the tambourine overdubs. Heck, I don't even care what mic they used to record the lead vocal. I am interested in tips and techniques though, and of course theory. --Ethan |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:52:30 -0600, Arkansan Raider wrote:
Hey folks! I seem to remember a discussion of industry mags a while back, but I don't remember which thread it was in. My question is: Which of the music industry mags are worth subscribing to from both a tech learning standpoint and an industry learning standpoint? IOW, how-tos on tech and info about the industry/music business in general. Scott, I know you contribute to Recording Magazine, and that is one that I'm considering subscribing to. I liked it back when I was subscribing, and I've seen some issues lately that looked interesting. I just hit a link to Sound On Sound that was an article link from the turnmeup.org link in the LOUDNESS WARS thread. It looks really interesting and pretty dang thorough. Seriously thinking about that one. Sound on Sound is great, and has some very interesting original articles. I particularly enjoy the 'classic tracks' thing they have been doing recently. They take a famous song or album and analyse it from a recording point of view, including new interviews with the original engineers, producers and artists. I don't enjoy reading the reviews of music gear though. Software and equipment is often so complicated nowadays that most of the article is often just spent explaining what it does. Tape-Op tends to assume the reader already has some idea, which makes the reviews more interesting. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On 2/12/2012 9:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The TAXI section is usually pretty good, IMO. I'm still trying to figure out if that's an ad or if it's content. An infomercial? I suspect that it pays a good bit of the bills. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On 2/12/2012 11:41 AM, philicorda wrote:
Sound on Sound is great, and has some very interesting original articles. I particularly enjoy the 'classic tracks' thing they have been doing recently. They take a famous song or album and analyse it from a recording point of view, including new interviews with the original engineers, producers and artists. Mix has been doing "Classic Tracks" for years, but Sound on Sound's goes into a lot more detail about the sessions whereas the Mix version is stronger on history. I don't enjoy reading the reviews of music gear though. Software and equipment is often so complicated nowadays that most of the article is often just spent explaining what it does. This is why I enjoy reading some reviews - because it explains what something that I don't know about does. I don't usually bother to read reviews of mics or compressors or preamps because I'm not in the market for any more of them. But since it seems that every new computer audio interface has a little different schtick, I like to read those to see why this one is different from the last one - and they often really are. Sometimes you can get something out of a review that's useful general knowledge, perhaps as a technique. For example, a lot of these new dynamics processing boxes are coming out with a parallel unprocessed signal path that can be mixed in with the processed path. A few sentences of how that can be useful can teach the reader that he can do the same thing with the stuff that he already has, and that it might be worth a try some time. Tape-Op tends to assume the reader already has some idea, which makes the reviews more interesting. Sometimes, though, they assume too much, particularly assuming that people recognize names, often nicknames, of programs, plug-ins, and even hardware. I usually know what they're talking about when they write "We used a 57 3 inches off center" (a Shure SM-57 in front of the speaker of an instrument amplifier) but a novice might need all the words. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jeff Henig wrote: PStamler wrote: As another guy who writes for Recording, I'm naturally prejudiced, but I think the technical level in that magazine is consistently higher than that of its competitors -- at least, its American competitors. My exposure to its competitors has been limited, but I've always enjoyed the reviews and DIY projects, not to mention some of the interviews. Well, write the editors and tell them this! I am really, really annoyed when people say patently wrong things in interviews which are then printed without correction or commentary. That's where a lot of some of the fallacious common wisdom in the industry comes from... somebody said something in a magazine interview decades ago and it lives on. And what I like about Recording's interviews is that they try pretty hard to fact-check things. Tape-Op does some of the most interesting interviews, and they do long-form ones, but they don't attempt any fact checking at all. This is a mixed bag. The TAXI section is usually pretty good, IMO. I'm still trying to figure out if that's an ad or if it's content. It's an infomercial in print. Still, they seem to be doing okay. Yes, they are. Lot of people get in the car and go nowhere, though. I also like the ideas on self-distro and using available channels for doing so. As I'm not really big on the whole big label gig, the indie stuff they write about is very interesting to me. There aren't any big label gigs any more. The big labels now are living off of a few large acts and off of back catalogue. They don't have much in the way of A&R at all and they don't have the distribution channels they used to have. So self-distribution and small-label distribution has become critical everywhere, but self-production has too and that's not such a good thing to my mind. WMB has lost a bit over ten billion dollars in the last ten years. The CEo is still getting paid very well, thank you. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:58:19 -0800, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article ): I don't know how these look on an e-reader but I absolutely hate how they look on my computer. Way too much clicking in order to read an article. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Some of them actually look pretty good on eBook readers like the iPad or the Kindle Fire. I agree, it's a distressing trend for people of a certain generation. Unfortunately, like the death of film, it's one of those things you gotta just accept and move on with. I'm currently in a transition stage: reading some things in book/magazine form, reading others digitally on pad devices. Either way works to the point where I'm unaware what medium I'm using, and I just let the words sink in. Not a big deal to me anymore. Get used to it if you can, because the world is moving on (whether or not we like it). --MFW |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
philicorda wrote:
Sound on Sound is great, and has some very interesting original articles. I particularly enjoy the 'classic tracks' thing they have been doing recently. They take a famous song or album and analyse it from a recording point of view, including new interviews with the original engineers, producers and artists. I don't enjoy reading the reviews of music gear though. Software and equipment is often so complicated nowadays that most of the article is often just spent explaining what it does. That's kind of what I like about their reviews. They explain what it does, if it does it well, and usually with some decent measurements. In fact, they are about the ONLY magazine that does trustworthy measurements in their reviews. Tape-Op tends to assume the reader already has some idea, which makes the reviews more interesting. The Tape Op reviews are sometimes done by experts, and sometimes by totally clueless idiots who have no idea what the product is or what it's for. You pays your money and you takes your chance. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Scott Dorsey wrote:
philicorda wrote: Sound on Sound is great, and has some very interesting original That's kind of what I like about their reviews. They explain what it does, if it does it well, and usually with some decent measurements. In fact, they are about the ONLY magazine that does trustworthy measurements in their reviews. And if there is something they don't like, they actually say it, rather than just 'not mention' that aspect. geoff |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On 2/13/2012 4:39 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:58:19 -0800, Mike Rivers wrote (in ): I don't know how these look on an e-reader but I absolutely hate how they look on my computer. Way too much clicking in order to read an article. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Some of them actually look pretty good on eBook readers like the iPad or the Kindle Fire. Get used to it if you can, because the world is moving on (whether or not we like it). Will they give me an e-reader to go along with their new format? I already have a couch which is all I need to read a magazine. My only experience is reading e-zines is on a computer which is not where I want to be when I'm reading a magazine, and the screen format is all wrong for a magazine page layout (which I know is not the case with an e-reader). -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:37:30 -0800, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article ): Will they give me an e-reader to go along with their new format? I already have a couch which is all I need to read a magazine. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ The question you gotta ask is: how much longer are you gonna be able to receive a printed magazine? My guess is, you got about as much time as you have in buying Kodak film. Five years, maybe seven. --MFW |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On 2/16/2012 5:27 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:
The question you gotta ask is: how much longer are you gonna be able to receive a printed magazine? My guess is, you got about as much time as you have in buying Kodak film. Five years, maybe seven. Maybe by then I'll be dead, or my sight will be so poor that I'll be clamoring for Sound on Sound as a talking book. Or maybe an e-reader will only cost $15 and then I'll buy one. I saw one at Micro Center yesterday for $35, but it wasn't one of the big names, there wasn't any information on the box as to what formats it would accommodate or what material was available for it. So I didn't buy it. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Mike rivers writes: On 2/16/2012 5:27 AM, Marc Wielage wrote: The question you gotta ask is: how much longer are you gonna be able to receive a printed magazine? My guess is, you got about as much time as you have in buying Kodak film. Five years, maybe seven. Maybe by then I'll be dead, or my sight will be so poor that I'll be clamoring for Sound on Sound as a talking book. Or maybe an e-reader will only cost $15 and then I'll buy one. Yep, and then you'll have to hope that sos doesn't disable text to speech in your e-reader of choice, adn that you can manipulate the controls adequately g. That's why folks like me are battling with the industry re such issues today g.. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Marc Wielage wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:37:30 -0800, Mike Rivers wrote (in article ): Will they give me an e-reader to go along with their new format? I already have a couch which is all I need to read a magazine. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ The question you gotta ask is: how much longer are you gonna be able to receive a printed magazine? My guess is, you got about as much time as you have in buying Kodak film. Five years, maybe seven. Maybe they have invented infinite battery life by then, and electronics that don't break. geoff |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
geoff wrote:
Maybe they have invented infinite battery life by then, and electronics that don't break. We had electronics that don't break, but they weren't profitable enough because people weren't replacing them, and people didn't want to pay the up-front costs. So now with RoHS and mass production we have products that don't work as well or last as long but are far more profitable. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:23:52 -0800, geoff wrote
(in article ): Maybe they have invented infinite battery life by then, and electronics that don't break. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Yeah, and we'll have cars that fly and run on mini-fusion reactors, and all they pollute is a gallon of water a year. Surrrrrrre. Check any major newsstand magazine, and tell me they ain't shrinking. I got a TIME magazine issue the other day that I swear, had about 40 pages. Awful. About the only American magazine that hasn't shrunk to the size of a pamphlet is VANITY FAIR, which I swear, has about 300 pages of ads in each issue and 100 pages of actual editorial content. And the recording magazines are awful. What the hell is with MIX? What kind of size is that -- some kind of bizarre non-standard paper format that makes absolutely no sense. And the articles are in like 6-point type. Come on. I grieve for RE/P from the old days. At least with eBook readers, old farts can up the type size and read the damned thing. It's not bad; I've used the Kindle for a few years, and it works. I'm looking forward to the new iPad 3, and hope it doesn't suck too much. (Power, money, and just sucking in terms of performance.) --MFW |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Check any major newsstand magazine, and tell me they ain't shrinking. I
got a TIME magazine issue the other day that I swear, had about 40 pages. Awful. This is due to reduced advertising. It does have one advantage -- TIME and Newsweek now focus on analytical articles. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Feb 11, 11:52*am, Arkansan Raider wrote:
Hey folks! I seem to remember a discussion of industry mags a while back, but I don't remember which thread it was in. My question is: Which of the music industry mags are worth subscribing to from both a tech learning standpoint and an industry learning standpoint? IOW, how-tos on tech and info about the industry/music business in general. Scott, I know you contribute to Recording Magazine, and that is one that I'm considering subscribing to. I liked it back when I was subscribing, and I've seen some issues lately that looked interesting. I just hit a link to Sound On Sound that was an article link from the turnmeup.org link in the LOUDNESS WARS thread. It looks really interesting and pretty dang thorough. Seriously thinking about that one. I remember that Mix used to be pretty good, but I seem to remember reading in that earlier thread that it has degenerated somewhat--is that accurate? I used to pick up Electronic Musician, but I've not read one in a while. I'm not sure how many mags I want to subscribe to, certainly Recording Magazine and possibly Sound On Sound, but if much better content is out there, I'd like to know. What's your opinions, folks? ---Jeff __________________ Yeah, like when Stereo Review was Stereo Review? With folks like Julian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Hirsch at the helm? And other mags that, while nerdish by today's standards reviewed equipment with a professional air, and between reviews were a lot of good articles on "best practices" and the basics? I'd give real hens' teeth for some of Hirsch's transcripts! If there's one thing digital audio and digital processing has done is totally alter this landscape. I guess Mix still harkens somewhat back to that simpler time. Haven't seen Live Sound for a while. -ChrisCoaster |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
geoff wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: philicorda wrote: Sound on Sound is great, and has some very interesting original That's kind of what I like about their reviews. They explain what it does, if it does it well, and usually with some decent measurements. In fact, they are about the ONLY magazine that does trustworthy measurements in their reviews. And if there is something they don't like, they actually say it, rather than just 'not mention' that aspect. Recording and Tape Op are also very good about that. Some of the other magazines, though, seem to have reviews which are thinly-veiled advertisements. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
ChrisCoaster wrote:
Yeah, like when Stereo Review was Stereo Review? With folks like Julian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Hirsch at the helm? And other mags that, while nerdish by today's standards reviewed equipment with a professional air, and between reviews were a lot of good articles on "best practices" and the basics? I'd give real hens' teeth for some of Hirsch's transcripts! Hirsch liked measuring things, but he didn't listen to anything at all. When presented with equipment which sounded bad but measured well, he tended to blame the listener rather than the measurements. In fact, I would say that Hirsch's resistance to anything approaching actual listening tests started the whole controversy that lead to the creation of the subjectivist audiophile movement. This was exaggerated, of course, by his working in an era when solid state electronics were just coming in, and when people were designing solid state electronics with the same methods used to design tube circuits (namely lots of capacitively-coupled stages with feedback around everything). This resulted in a lot of gear that had nice THD numbers on the bench but couldn't reproduce music (or square waves) worth a damn. If there's one thing digital audio and digital processing has done is totally alter this landscape. I guess Mix still harkens somewhat back to that simpler time. Haven't seen Live Sound for a while. Mix is mostly nontechnical, aside from Eddie Ciletti's column. But I don't think digital audio and digital processing have really altered that landscape at all. We still have the same basic problems of technology changing, people having trouble getting the new technology to work the way they want, and incompetent reviewers who just throw up their hands and say "everything is fine." --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Feb 19, 1:30*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote: Yeah, like when Stereo Review was Stereo Review? *With folks like Julianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Hirsch*at the helm? *And other mags that, while nerdish by today's standards reviewed equipment with a professional air, and between reviews were a lot of good articles on "best practices" and the basics? *I'd give real hens' teeth for some of Hirsch's transcripts! Hirsch liked measuring things, but he didn't listen to anything at all. When presented with equipment which sounded bad but measured well, he tended to blame the listener rather than the measurements. -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." _______________ No WONDER I was a fan of his writings! I "listen with my eyes" too. LOL. Remember the whole headphone thing here last fall? But now these guys are trying to tell me the same thing applies to the "original VS remaster" and "loudness" debate. It's all relative, all personal preference, they tell me. Don't pay attention the jagged original waveform of a song and the bloated "remastered" test-tone below it! No wonder Hirsch was and I am such a "spec"-head! There's not absolutes out there, nothing to gauge stuff by - be it equipment or the material played on it. -ChrisCoaster |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
ChrisCoaster wrote:
No WONDER I was a fan of his writings! I "listen with my eyes" too. LOL. Remember the whole headphone thing here last fall? But now these guys are trying to tell me the same thing applies to the "original VS remaster" and "loudness" debate. It's all relative, all personal preference, they tell me. Don't pay attention the jagged original waveform of a song and the bloated "remastered" test-tone below it! No wonder Hirsch was and I am such a "spec"-head! There's not absolutes out there, nothing to gauge stuff by - be it equipment or the material played on it. No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. They're trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anything by. And, except in the special case of classical music and other acoustic music for which you have a concert hall reference, that is the case. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Feb 19, 2:51*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote: No WONDER I was a fan of his writings! I "listen with my eyes" too. LOL. Remember the whole headphone thing here last fall? *But now these guys are trying to tell me the same thing applies to the "original VS remaster" and "loudness" debate. *It's all relative, all personal preference, they tell me. Don't pay attention the jagged original waveform of a song and the bloated "remastered" test-tone below it! No wonder Hirsch was and I am such a "spec"-head! There's not absolutes out there, nothing to gauge stuff by - be it equipment or the material played on it. No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. *They're trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anything by. And, except in the special case of classical music and other acoustic music for which you have a concert hall reference, that is the case. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." __________ That leaves me quite disenfranchised, espescially coming from the likes of you, whose input on these boards I regard higher than that of most contributers here. Sighhhh. No absolutes, no benchmarks. Lets just throw all systems of mesurement, of height/length, of temperature - and loudness. Throw it all out!! Eveything is personal preference. If. a $15 Fisher Price record player with 3-inch mono speaker moves one to tears while a $5,000 rack of components does nothing for them, that's A-OK! Chris(leaving the room crying)Coaster |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:51 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: ChrisCoaster wrote: No WONDER I was a fan of his writings! I "listen with my eyes" too. LOL. Remember the whole headphone thing here last fall? But now these guys are trying to tell me the same thing applies to the "original VS remaster" and "loudness" debate. It's all relative, all personal preference, they tell me. Don't pay attention the jagged original waveform of a song and the bloated "remastered" test-tone below it! No wonder Hirsch was and I am such a "spec"-head! There's not absolutes out there, nothing to gauge stuff by - be it equipment or the material played on it. No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. They're trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anything by. And, except in the special case of classical music and other acoustic music for which you have a concert hall reference, that is the case. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." __________ That leaves me quite disenfranchised, espescially coming from the likes of you, whose input on these boards I regard higher than that of most contributers here. Sighhhh. No absolutes, no benchmarks. Lets just throw all systems of mesurement, of height/length, of temperature - and loudness. Throw it all out!! Eveything is personal preference. If. a $15 Fisher Price record player with 3-inch mono speaker moves one to tears while a $5,000 rack of components does nothing for them, that's A-OK! Chris(leaving the room crying)Coaster Yup, that's pretty much it. However, just to keep you from jumping out the window, I'll add that the more experience you get listening, that "what measures good" tends to correlate well with "what sounds good". The differences between the two then become fodder for religious wars. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Feb 19, 2:22*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:51*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: ChrisCoaster wrote: No WONDER I was a fan of his writings! I "listen with my eyes" too. LOL. Remember the whole headphone thing here last fall? *But now these guys are trying to tell me the same thing applies to the "original VS remaster" and "loudness" debate. *It's all relative, all personal preference, they tell me. Don't pay attention the jagged original waveform of a song and the bloated "remastered" test-tone below it! No wonder Hirsch was and I am such a "spec"-head! There's not absolutes out there, nothing to gauge stuff by - be it equipment or the material played on it. No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. *They're trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anything by. And, except in the special case of classical music and other acoustic music for which you have a concert hall reference, that is the case. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." __________ That leaves me quite disenfranchised, espescially coming from the likes of you, whose input on these boards I regard higher than that of most contributers here. *Sighhhh. *No absolutes, no benchmarks. *Lets just throw all systems of mesurement, of height/length, of temperature - and loudness. Throw it all out!! *Eveything is personal preference. If. a $15 Fisher Price record player with 3-inch mono speaker moves one to tears while a $5,000 rack of components does nothing for them, that's A-OK! Chris(leaving the room crying)Coaster Dry those tears. Measurements aren't useless; they're just not the whole story. The real issue is figuring out which measurements actually correlate with what you hear and which don't. Because, in the end, the idea is to listen to music, not to look at spectra and waveform pictures. (Well, except for a few nutcases like us.) As Scott said a few years ago, listening points you in the directions to measure, and measurements help you figure out why you heard what you heard. They're the yin and yang of audio, and they both matter. Peace, Paul |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
ChrisCoaster writes:
On Feb 19, 2:51=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: snips No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. =A0They're trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anything by. And, except in the special case of classical music and other acoustic music for which you have a concert hall reference, that is the case. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." __________ That leaves me quite disenfranchised, espescially coming from the likes of you, whose input on these boards I regard higher than that of most contributers here. Sighhhh. No absolutes, no benchmarks. Lets just throw all systems of mesurement, of height/length, of temperature - and loudness. Throw it all out!! Eveything is personal preference. If. a $15 Fisher Price record player with 3-inch mono speaker moves one to tears while a $5,000 rack of components does nothing for them, that's A-OK! Chris(leaving the room crying)Coaster Chris, I hate to do this to you, but it gets worse than that... Your own personal "reference" will shift with fatigue, blood sugar level, and many other factors that can move around. Those are short-term variances; long-term changes can affect your internal "reference" as well, such as changes in your hearing, a slow, subtle shift in how you "absorb" music, and so on. It can be very humbling when something internally shifts and you recognize what has happened. There is no simple answer other than "cross-checking" as you can (reviewing recordings you know well, going to live, unamplified music events, even playing or singing yourself). You should, however, always be able to tell the diff between really bad and really good. If someone is gonzo over really-really bad, then IMO they are artistic light-weights, have no depth, and are delighting in being contrary because it draws attention AND makes things "easy" because any idiot can do "art" at that level and, due to the Emperor's New Clothes affect, can dub themselves great artists or great appreciaters without fear. So, come on now. Wipe away those tears and come on back. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Jeff Henig writes:
snips Yup, that's pretty much it. However, just to keep you from jumping out the window, I'll add that the more experience you get listening, that "what measures good" tends to correlate well with "what sounds good". The differences between the two then become fodder for religious wars. Speaking of fodder, didn't you know that Joan of Arc was executed for going digital? (rimshot) Jeff, you know the Bible -- was the Holy Fodder involved with that? (Frank, now ducking for cover, running, etc.) Frank Highly Mobile Audio -- |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Feb 20, 9:46*am, Frank Stearns
wrote: ChrisCoaster writes: On Feb 19, 2:51=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: snips No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. =A0They're trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anything by. And, except in the special case of classical music and other acoustic music for which you have a concert hall reference, that is the case. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." __________ That leaves me quite disenfranchised, espescially coming from the likes of you, whose input on these boards I regard higher than that of most contributers here. *Sighhhh. *No absolutes, no benchmarks. *Lets just throw all systems of mesurement, of height/length, of temperature - and loudness. Throw it all out!! *Eveything is personal preference. If. a $15 Fisher Price record player with 3-inch mono speaker moves one to tears while a $5,000 rack of components does nothing for them, that's A-OK! Chris(leaving the room crying)Coaster Chris, I hate to do this to you, but it gets worse than that... Your own personal "reference" will shift with fatigue, blood sugar level, and many other factors that can move around. Those are short-term variances; long-term changes can affect your internal "reference" as well, such as changes in your hearing, a slow, subtle shift in how you "absorb" music, and so on. It can be very humbling when something internally shifts and you recognize what has happened. There is no simple answer other than "cross-checking" as you can (reviewing recordings you know well, going to live, unamplified music events, even playing or singing yourself). You should, however, always be able to tell the diff between really bad and really good. If someone is gonzo over really-really bad, then IMO they are artistic light-weights, have no depth, and are delighting in being contrary because it draws attention AND makes things "easy" because any idiot can do "art" at that level and, due to the Emperor's New Clothes affect, can dub themselves great artists or great appreciaters without fear. So, come on now. Wipe away those tears and come on back. Frank Mobile Audio -- ______ I said personal PREFERence overrode scientific meaurements, not 'reference'! BTW I was being sarcastic Im not really crying. Disappointed? Yes. Crying? No. -CC |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:51=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. =A0They're trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anything by. And, except in the special case of classical music and other acoustic music for which you have a concert hall reference, that is the case. That leaves me quite disenfranchised, espescially coming from the likes of you, whose input on these boards I regard higher than that of most contributers here. Sighhhh. No absolutes, no benchmarks. Lets just throw all systems of mesurement, of height/length, of temperature - and loudness. Throw it all out!! Eveything is personal preference. If. a $15 Fisher Price record player with 3-inch mono speaker moves one to tears while a $5,000 rack of components does nothing for them, that's A-OK! Frankly, this sounds to me more to be a good argument for listening to classical music than for buying crappy equipment. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
industry stats ...? | Pro Audio | |||
samplitude in the industry? | Pro Audio | |||
Industry Resources | Pro Audio | |||
Some Industry News | Pro Audio | |||
Music Industry in UK | Pro Audio |