Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

Arny Krueger a écrit :

I'm surprised that our resident worshippers of vinylism such as sockpuppet
wheel have no comment on the horrendous amounts of audible distortion that
this review shows. Given that he lists no other music player in his main
system, one has to wonder exactly how profound the ear damage he must have,
actually is.


Scott "high-IQ" Wheeler has explicitly written that he likes distortion,
in fact he is desperately looking for distortion. ;-)
This explains why he likes venyls, I'm sure that now he is very
interested in this turntable.
In fact Scott Wheeler only likes distortion and very expensive equipment
that he can show to his friends on "awesome days" (lol).
Scott Wheeler is ignorant and incult but he loves to exhibit his
money... :-)

  #82   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

Arny Krueger a écrit :

I'm surprised that our resident worshippers of vinylism such as sockpuppet
wheel have no comment on the horrendous amounts of audible distortion that
this review shows. Given that he lists no other music player in his main
system, one has to wonder exactly how profound the ear damage he must have,
actually is.


Scott "high-IQ" Wheeler has explicitly written that he likes distortion,
in fact he is desperately looking for distortion. ;-)
This explains why he likes venyls, I'm sure that now he is very
interested in this turntable.
In fact Scott Wheeler only likes distortion and very expensive equipment
that he can show to his friends on "awesome days" (lol).
Scott Wheeler is ignorant and incult but he loves to exhibit his
money... :-)

  #83   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01...
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/298159.html

Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than subscibers?


This has never been the case ScottW. Stereophile, like all consumer magazines
from the Economist to Sound & Vision, sells subscriptions at a loss.
(Newstand revenue, however, is a significant source of revenue.)

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.


This is is simply not the case ScottW. If you are really interested, then
the ABC, who audits Stereophile's circulation numbers, tracks the average
annual subs price as well as the breakdown between subs and newstand circ.
The historical trend could thus be calculated.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #84   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01...
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/298159.html

Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than subscibers?


This has never been the case ScottW. Stereophile, like all consumer magazines
from the Economist to Sound & Vision, sells subscriptions at a loss.
(Newstand revenue, however, is a significant source of revenue.)

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.


This is is simply not the case ScottW. If you are really interested, then
the ABC, who audits Stereophile's circulation numbers, tracks the average
annual subs price as well as the breakdown between subs and newstand circ.
The historical trend could thus be calculated.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #85   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01...
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/298159.html

Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than subscibers?


This has never been the case ScottW. Stereophile, like all consumer magazines
from the Economist to Sound & Vision, sells subscriptions at a loss.
(Newstand revenue, however, is a significant source of revenue.)

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.


This is is simply not the case ScottW. If you are really interested, then
the ABC, who audits Stereophile's circulation numbers, tracks the average
annual subs price as well as the breakdown between subs and newstand circ.
The historical trend could thus be calculated.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


  #86   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t.
today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can
survive in today's complicated media market.


BTW, one has to act whether this recisitation of the circulation controversy
is just another lame attempt to distract attention from Atkinson's highly
questionable and technically deficient Linn LP-12 review.

http://www.stereophile.com/analogsourcereviews/1103linn


No, Mr. Krueger, As I said in the posting that started this thread, I
posted the historical data for Stereophile's circulation to a comment
from Rusty Boudreaux (in message )
that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for
circulation," while _you_, Mr. Krueger, had stated (in message
) that you thought "there is
plenty
of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate
that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."

By your logic, Mr. Krueger, it was _you_ were trying to divert
attention
away from the Linn review :-) (Or perhaps the shenanigans on your
website.)

"The measured playback frequency was 998.5Hz, but as I don't know the
accuracy of the tone recorded on the test LP (HFS 81, produced by the late
John Wright for the long-defunct UK magazine Hi-Fi Sound), the 1.5Hz
difference can't be used to judge the LP12's speed accuracy."

Odd Atkinson can't find a test record with accurate tones.


No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of
knowing
a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was set precisely
to
the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe was turning at
precisely
the correct speed. All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the
test
record used and the result obtained. A strobe, BTW, indicated that the
Linn
did turn at 33.33 rpm.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #87   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t.
today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can
survive in today's complicated media market.


BTW, one has to act whether this recisitation of the circulation controversy
is just another lame attempt to distract attention from Atkinson's highly
questionable and technically deficient Linn LP-12 review.

http://www.stereophile.com/analogsourcereviews/1103linn


No, Mr. Krueger, As I said in the posting that started this thread, I
posted the historical data for Stereophile's circulation to a comment
from Rusty Boudreaux (in message )
that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for
circulation," while _you_, Mr. Krueger, had stated (in message
) that you thought "there is
plenty
of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate
that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."

By your logic, Mr. Krueger, it was _you_ were trying to divert
attention
away from the Linn review :-) (Or perhaps the shenanigans on your
website.)

"The measured playback frequency was 998.5Hz, but as I don't know the
accuracy of the tone recorded on the test LP (HFS 81, produced by the late
John Wright for the long-defunct UK magazine Hi-Fi Sound), the 1.5Hz
difference can't be used to judge the LP12's speed accuracy."

Odd Atkinson can't find a test record with accurate tones.


No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of
knowing
a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was set precisely
to
the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe was turning at
precisely
the correct speed. All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the
test
record used and the result obtained. A strobe, BTW, indicated that the
Linn
did turn at 33.33 rpm.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #88   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t.
today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can
survive in today's complicated media market.


BTW, one has to act whether this recisitation of the circulation controversy
is just another lame attempt to distract attention from Atkinson's highly
questionable and technically deficient Linn LP-12 review.

http://www.stereophile.com/analogsourcereviews/1103linn


No, Mr. Krueger, As I said in the posting that started this thread, I
posted the historical data for Stereophile's circulation to a comment
from Rusty Boudreaux (in message )
that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for
circulation," while _you_, Mr. Krueger, had stated (in message
) that you thought "there is
plenty
of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate
that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."

By your logic, Mr. Krueger, it was _you_ were trying to divert
attention
away from the Linn review :-) (Or perhaps the shenanigans on your
website.)

"The measured playback frequency was 998.5Hz, but as I don't know the
accuracy of the tone recorded on the test LP (HFS 81, produced by the late
John Wright for the long-defunct UK magazine Hi-Fi Sound), the 1.5Hz
difference can't be used to judge the LP12's speed accuracy."

Odd Atkinson can't find a test record with accurate tones.


No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of
knowing
a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was set precisely
to
the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe was turning at
precisely
the correct speed. All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the
test
record used and the result obtained. A strobe, BTW, indicated that the
Linn
did turn at 33.33 rpm.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #89   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
Arny Krueger had stated (in message
) that he thought "there is
plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at
a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."


However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any.


Sure I do, its right below.


By which I assume Mr. Krueger is referring to these figures:
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668


Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's
circulation is shrinking?


By just 1250 over a 2-year period Mr. Krueger. Please don't now try
to pretend
you meant just "shrinking" when you wrote in message
) that you thought "there is
plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at
a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."

My "no evidence" comment referred to the entirety of your statement..
Mr.
Krueger. The relatively small drop 2002-2003 or even the larger one
2000-2003
do not concern me, "greatly" or otherwise, and you have no evidence
that it
does. The circulation we have guaranteed in this period (our so-called
"rate base")
is 80,000. As long as our actual circulation is greater than than,
there is no reason
for concern.

And as I have stated in another recent posting, over the same period
our
website, www.stereophile.com, has grown to 200,000 unique visitors per
month. So it could be argued that Stereophile's "mindshare." its
influence
if you wish, has grown significantly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #90   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
Arny Krueger had stated (in message
) that he thought "there is
plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at
a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."


However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any.


Sure I do, its right below.


By which I assume Mr. Krueger is referring to these figures:
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668


Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's
circulation is shrinking?


By just 1250 over a 2-year period Mr. Krueger. Please don't now try
to pretend
you meant just "shrinking" when you wrote in message
) that you thought "there is
plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at
a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."

My "no evidence" comment referred to the entirety of your statement..
Mr.
Krueger. The relatively small drop 2002-2003 or even the larger one
2000-2003
do not concern me, "greatly" or otherwise, and you have no evidence
that it
does. The circulation we have guaranteed in this period (our so-called
"rate base")
is 80,000. As long as our actual circulation is greater than than,
there is no reason
for concern.

And as I have stated in another recent posting, over the same period
our
website, www.stereophile.com, has grown to 200,000 unique visitors per
month. So it could be argued that Stereophile's "mindshare." its
influence
if you wish, has grown significantly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


  #91   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
Arny Krueger had stated (in message
) that he thought "there is
plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at
a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."


However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any.


Sure I do, its right below.


By which I assume Mr. Krueger is referring to these figures:
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668


Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's
circulation is shrinking?


By just 1250 over a 2-year period Mr. Krueger. Please don't now try
to pretend
you meant just "shrinking" when you wrote in message
) that you thought "there is
plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at
a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."

My "no evidence" comment referred to the entirety of your statement..
Mr.
Krueger. The relatively small drop 2002-2003 or even the larger one
2000-2003
do not concern me, "greatly" or otherwise, and you have no evidence
that it
does. The circulation we have guaranteed in this period (our so-called
"rate base")
is 80,000. As long as our actual circulation is greater than than,
there is no reason
for concern.

And as I have stated in another recent posting, over the same period
our
website, www.stereophile.com, has grown to 200,000 unique visitors per
month. So it could be argued that Stereophile's "mindshare." its
influence
if you wish, has grown significantly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #92   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YWtJb.45990$m83.5645@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

I'd be more interested in comments to this post on audioasylum.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/298159.html

Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than

subscibers?
I see 12 months subscriptions for less than $1 per issue.

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has

gone
from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.

ScottW



You are making quite an unreasonable extrapolation
based upon one case, even if it were true. Don't let
your hatreds interfere with your common sense.

No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile.
I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate.
You should understand that unless you really hate
homosexuals.

Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple
of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were
$35 a year and now are about $12.
3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than
the cost of delivering the magazine.
What is the unreasonable extrapolation?

ScottW



They were never a 'solid' $35 per year. Introductory rates
were always between $12 and $15 per year since I first subscribed in
1988. The first renewal offer you would get would be $35. If you would
hold out, you would eventually get an offer for $15, but would have to

miss
an issue. Point is, you need to 'average' the subscription price
to get the right ratio between first timers and reups.
And calculate in
those
that might buy a single issue for about $6 at the local stereo salon.


My discussion was "subscription revenue". Your assertion is that
Stereophile never had substantial subscription revenues. I find
that difficult to believe as I understant did not have any advertising
revenue.

I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point.


I think the point is valid, Stereophiles subscription revenue
has declined though perhaps not as dramatically as I said.
Which is worse? To decline subscription revenue by ~$2.3M
or having never made the $2.3M?
Anyway, they changed their business model to rely
on advertising revenue.

If you didn't know this, you have my apologies.


No problem, hope you get some snow .


Only the naive paid the $35 reup. Likely it was a small
percentage of overall subscriptions. This is similar to subscription
policies for many other magazines. A low intro, and a more
expensive reup, which can readily be circumvented.

Your 12:1 ratio for loss of subscription ratioincome does not stand.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #93   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YWtJb.45990$m83.5645@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

I'd be more interested in comments to this post on audioasylum.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/298159.html

Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than

subscibers?
I see 12 months subscriptions for less than $1 per issue.

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has

gone
from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.

ScottW



You are making quite an unreasonable extrapolation
based upon one case, even if it were true. Don't let
your hatreds interfere with your common sense.

No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile.
I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate.
You should understand that unless you really hate
homosexuals.

Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple
of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were
$35 a year and now are about $12.
3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than
the cost of delivering the magazine.
What is the unreasonable extrapolation?

ScottW



They were never a 'solid' $35 per year. Introductory rates
were always between $12 and $15 per year since I first subscribed in
1988. The first renewal offer you would get would be $35. If you would
hold out, you would eventually get an offer for $15, but would have to

miss
an issue. Point is, you need to 'average' the subscription price
to get the right ratio between first timers and reups.
And calculate in
those
that might buy a single issue for about $6 at the local stereo salon.


My discussion was "subscription revenue". Your assertion is that
Stereophile never had substantial subscription revenues. I find
that difficult to believe as I understant did not have any advertising
revenue.

I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point.


I think the point is valid, Stereophiles subscription revenue
has declined though perhaps not as dramatically as I said.
Which is worse? To decline subscription revenue by ~$2.3M
or having never made the $2.3M?
Anyway, they changed their business model to rely
on advertising revenue.

If you didn't know this, you have my apologies.


No problem, hope you get some snow .


Only the naive paid the $35 reup. Likely it was a small
percentage of overall subscriptions. This is similar to subscription
policies for many other magazines. A low intro, and a more
expensive reup, which can readily be circumvented.

Your 12:1 ratio for loss of subscription ratioincome does not stand.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #94   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YWtJb.45990$m83.5645@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

I'd be more interested in comments to this post on audioasylum.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/298159.html

Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than

subscibers?
I see 12 months subscriptions for less than $1 per issue.

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has

gone
from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.

ScottW



You are making quite an unreasonable extrapolation
based upon one case, even if it were true. Don't let
your hatreds interfere with your common sense.

No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile.
I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate.
You should understand that unless you really hate
homosexuals.

Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple
of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were
$35 a year and now are about $12.
3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than
the cost of delivering the magazine.
What is the unreasonable extrapolation?

ScottW



They were never a 'solid' $35 per year. Introductory rates
were always between $12 and $15 per year since I first subscribed in
1988. The first renewal offer you would get would be $35. If you would
hold out, you would eventually get an offer for $15, but would have to

miss
an issue. Point is, you need to 'average' the subscription price
to get the right ratio between first timers and reups.
And calculate in
those
that might buy a single issue for about $6 at the local stereo salon.


My discussion was "subscription revenue". Your assertion is that
Stereophile never had substantial subscription revenues. I find
that difficult to believe as I understant did not have any advertising
revenue.

I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point.


I think the point is valid, Stereophiles subscription revenue
has declined though perhaps not as dramatically as I said.
Which is worse? To decline subscription revenue by ~$2.3M
or having never made the $2.3M?
Anyway, they changed their business model to rely
on advertising revenue.

If you didn't know this, you have my apologies.


No problem, hope you get some snow .


Only the naive paid the $35 reup. Likely it was a small
percentage of overall subscriptions. This is similar to subscription
policies for many other magazines. A low intro, and a more
expensive reup, which can readily be circumvented.

Your 12:1 ratio for loss of subscription ratioincome does not stand.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #95   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scott Gardner said to ****-for-Brains:

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's
circulation is shrinking?


I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation.


How about this: Everybody agree that Stereophile's circulation has
dropped, however Turdborg wants to define "drop". We can further
stipulate that said drop is the direct result of Arnii Krooger's
machinations on Usenet, including his exhaustive tests of obsolete
soundcards.

Once we do this, maybe Krooger will feel he's achieved his life's
work. What can he possibly do to top that? ;-)



It wasn't Arny that did it.
It was Ferstler's wreckng ball.
Now that the monster is dismantled, JA can expect
circulation to rise to record levels!







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


  #96   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scott Gardner said to ****-for-Brains:

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's
circulation is shrinking?


I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation.


How about this: Everybody agree that Stereophile's circulation has
dropped, however Turdborg wants to define "drop". We can further
stipulate that said drop is the direct result of Arnii Krooger's
machinations on Usenet, including his exhaustive tests of obsolete
soundcards.

Once we do this, maybe Krooger will feel he's achieved his life's
work. What can he possibly do to top that? ;-)



It wasn't Arny that did it.
It was Ferstler's wreckng ball.
Now that the monster is dismantled, JA can expect
circulation to rise to record levels!







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #97   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scott Gardner said to ****-for-Brains:

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's
circulation is shrinking?


I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation.


How about this: Everybody agree that Stereophile's circulation has
dropped, however Turdborg wants to define "drop". We can further
stipulate that said drop is the direct result of Arnii Krooger's
machinations on Usenet, including his exhaustive tests of obsolete
soundcards.

Once we do this, maybe Krooger will feel he's achieved his life's
work. What can he possibly do to top that? ;-)



It wasn't Arny that did it.
It was Ferstler's wreckng ball.
Now that the monster is dismantled, JA can expect
circulation to rise to record levels!







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #98   Report Post  
cwvalle
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On 3 Jan 2004 05:52:39 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of
knowing
a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was set precisely
to
the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe was turning at
precisely
the correct speed. All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the
test
record used and the result obtained. A strobe, BTW, indicated that the
Linn
did turn at 33.33 rpm.


This is not actually true. You don't need to know the frequency of
the signal source _and_ the speed of the cutting lathe. You _just_
need to know the number of cycles/ revolution and this is something
that can easily be measured using just the LP and a soundcard and some
sort of audio editor. The sound card does not need an accurate
timebase either. If you don't follow, you could search google groups
for "John's dad say : "Ratiometric measurement lot better than kick in
balls."


You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f than the
table under test.
I think that this may well be the case, we are talking about very small
values here. The strobe may also not be accurate enough.
The only way to do this would be to set up some kind detector on the platter
itself and this could measure the accuracy of rotation. The effects of the
tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined this way.
The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere

Carl


  #99   Report Post  
cwvalle
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On 3 Jan 2004 05:52:39 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of
knowing
a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was set precisely
to
the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe was turning at
precisely
the correct speed. All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the
test
record used and the result obtained. A strobe, BTW, indicated that the
Linn
did turn at 33.33 rpm.


This is not actually true. You don't need to know the frequency of
the signal source _and_ the speed of the cutting lathe. You _just_
need to know the number of cycles/ revolution and this is something
that can easily be measured using just the LP and a soundcard and some
sort of audio editor. The sound card does not need an accurate
timebase either. If you don't follow, you could search google groups
for "John's dad say : "Ratiometric measurement lot better than kick in
balls."


You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f than the
table under test.
I think that this may well be the case, we are talking about very small
values here. The strobe may also not be accurate enough.
The only way to do this would be to set up some kind detector on the platter
itself and this could measure the accuracy of rotation. The effects of the
tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined this way.
The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere

Carl


  #100   Report Post  
cwvalle
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On 3 Jan 2004 05:52:39 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of
knowing
a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was set precisely
to
the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe was turning at
precisely
the correct speed. All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the
test
record used and the result obtained. A strobe, BTW, indicated that the
Linn
did turn at 33.33 rpm.


This is not actually true. You don't need to know the frequency of
the signal source _and_ the speed of the cutting lathe. You _just_
need to know the number of cycles/ revolution and this is something
that can easily be measured using just the LP and a soundcard and some
sort of audio editor. The sound card does not need an accurate
timebase either. If you don't follow, you could search google groups
for "John's dad say : "Ratiometric measurement lot better than kick in
balls."


You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f than the
table under test.
I think that this may well be the case, we are talking about very small
values here. The strobe may also not be accurate enough.
The only way to do this would be to set up some kind detector on the platter
itself and this could measure the accuracy of rotation. The effects of the
tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined this way.
The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere

Carl




  #101   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that
do not include in-store sales.


Hi Mark, please note that they _are_ circulation numbers. They are the
total paid sales from all sources, whether subs or newsstand, plus the
complimentary circ (writers and advertisers). They do not include returns,
unsold copies, and office copies.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #102   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that
do not include in-store sales.


Hi Mark, please note that they _are_ circulation numbers. They are the
total paid sales from all sources, whether subs or newsstand, plus the
complimentary circ (writers and advertisers). They do not include returns,
unsold copies, and office copies.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #103   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that
do not include in-store sales.


Hi Mark, please note that they _are_ circulation numbers. They are the
total paid sales from all sources, whether subs or newsstand, plus the
complimentary circ (writers and advertisers). They do not include returns,
unsold copies, and office copies.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #104   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"John Atkinson" wrote

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Please note that there are many factors which
contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and
that to draw any general conclusion concerning
any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect.

Agreed.

Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of
Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest.

I think that age demographics would indicate a new
paradigm is in play. Here are the 1994 demographics
reported by Stereophile:

Median age (1994): 41

Under 30 - 12.5%
30-49 - 65.8%
50-64 - 17.0
65 or over 4.7%

Sex: 98.1% Male 1.9% Female

A significant portion of the Baby Boomers, now ten
years later, have peaked in income and are heading
for retirement. Half of the over 65 group are dead
now, too. Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.

The average length of time a subscriber has been a
reader of Stereophile was (1994) 4.8 years. Over
the last ten years that is almost a 100% turnover.
Without new hobbyists entering into high end audio
the days of Stereophile and TAS are numbered.
Again, I think the draw
(paradigm change/demographics) is toward HT and
less interest in high end audio.

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?











  #105   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"John Atkinson" wrote

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Please note that there are many factors which
contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and
that to draw any general conclusion concerning
any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect.

Agreed.

Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of
Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest.

I think that age demographics would indicate a new
paradigm is in play. Here are the 1994 demographics
reported by Stereophile:

Median age (1994): 41

Under 30 - 12.5%
30-49 - 65.8%
50-64 - 17.0
65 or over 4.7%

Sex: 98.1% Male 1.9% Female

A significant portion of the Baby Boomers, now ten
years later, have peaked in income and are heading
for retirement. Half of the over 65 group are dead
now, too. Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.

The average length of time a subscriber has been a
reader of Stereophile was (1994) 4.8 years. Over
the last ten years that is almost a 100% turnover.
Without new hobbyists entering into high end audio
the days of Stereophile and TAS are numbered.
Again, I think the draw
(paradigm change/demographics) is toward HT and
less interest in high end audio.

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?













  #106   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"John Atkinson" wrote

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Please note that there are many factors which
contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and
that to draw any general conclusion concerning
any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect.

Agreed.

Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of
Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest.

I think that age demographics would indicate a new
paradigm is in play. Here are the 1994 demographics
reported by Stereophile:

Median age (1994): 41

Under 30 - 12.5%
30-49 - 65.8%
50-64 - 17.0
65 or over 4.7%

Sex: 98.1% Male 1.9% Female

A significant portion of the Baby Boomers, now ten
years later, have peaked in income and are heading
for retirement. Half of the over 65 group are dead
now, too. Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.

The average length of time a subscriber has been a
reader of Stereophile was (1994) 4.8 years. Over
the last ten years that is almost a 100% turnover.
Without new hobbyists entering into high end audio
the days of Stereophile and TAS are numbered.
Again, I think the draw
(paradigm change/demographics) is toward HT and
less interest in high end audio.

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?











  #107   Report Post  
Mark A
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Powell" wrote in message
...

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?

Do you expect John to live forever?


  #108   Report Post  
Mark A
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Powell" wrote in message
...

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?

Do you expect John to live forever?


  #109   Report Post  
Mark A
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Powell" wrote in message
...

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?

Do you expect John to live forever?


  #110   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Powell" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Please note that there are many factors which
contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and
that to draw any general conclusion concerning
any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect.

Agreed.

Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of
Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest.

I think that age demographics would indicate a new
paradigm is in play. Here are the 1994 demographics
reported by Stereophile:

Median age (1994): 41

Under 30 - 12.5%
30-49 - 65.8%
50-64 - 17.0
65 or over 4.7%

Sex: 98.1% Male 1.9% Female

A significant portion of the Baby Boomers, now ten
years later, have peaked in income and are heading
for retirement. Half of the over 65 group are dead
now, too. Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.

The average length of time a subscriber has been a
reader of Stereophile was (1994) 4.8 years. Over
the last ten years that is almost a 100% turnover.
Without new hobbyists entering into high end audio
the days of Stereophile and TAS are numbered.
Again, I think the draw
(paradigm change/demographics) is toward HT and
less interest in high end audio.

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?


Let's just assume he grows older with the rest of us,
and someday, he will retire, and eventually expire, like we all will.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


  #111   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Powell" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Please note that there are many factors which
contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and
that to draw any general conclusion concerning
any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect.

Agreed.

Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of
Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest.

I think that age demographics would indicate a new
paradigm is in play. Here are the 1994 demographics
reported by Stereophile:

Median age (1994): 41

Under 30 - 12.5%
30-49 - 65.8%
50-64 - 17.0
65 or over 4.7%

Sex: 98.1% Male 1.9% Female

A significant portion of the Baby Boomers, now ten
years later, have peaked in income and are heading
for retirement. Half of the over 65 group are dead
now, too. Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.

The average length of time a subscriber has been a
reader of Stereophile was (1994) 4.8 years. Over
the last ten years that is almost a 100% turnover.
Without new hobbyists entering into high end audio
the days of Stereophile and TAS are numbered.
Again, I think the draw
(paradigm change/demographics) is toward HT and
less interest in high end audio.

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?


Let's just assume he grows older with the rest of us,
and someday, he will retire, and eventually expire, like we all will.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #112   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Powell" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Please note that there are many factors which
contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and
that to draw any general conclusion concerning
any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect.

Agreed.

Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of
Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest.

I think that age demographics would indicate a new
paradigm is in play. Here are the 1994 demographics
reported by Stereophile:

Median age (1994): 41

Under 30 - 12.5%
30-49 - 65.8%
50-64 - 17.0
65 or over 4.7%

Sex: 98.1% Male 1.9% Female

A significant portion of the Baby Boomers, now ten
years later, have peaked in income and are heading
for retirement. Half of the over 65 group are dead
now, too. Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.

The average length of time a subscriber has been a
reader of Stereophile was (1994) 4.8 years. Over
the last ten years that is almost a 100% turnover.
Without new hobbyists entering into high end audio
the days of Stereophile and TAS are numbered.
Again, I think the draw
(paradigm change/demographics) is toward HT and
less interest in high end audio.

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?


Let's just assume he grows older with the rest of us,
and someday, he will retire, and eventually expire, like we all will.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #113   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Powell" wrote in message ...
Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.


Actually no. The HT magazines in general are not maintaining
readership as well as Stsreophile. S&V, foe xample, recently
dropped its ratebase by a significant amount.

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?


I kinda fancy pool attendant at the Cancun Club Med.
Either that or Howard Dean's White House Chief of Staff. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #114   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Powell" wrote in message ...
Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.


Actually no. The HT magazines in general are not maintaining
readership as well as Stsreophile. S&V, foe xample, recently
dropped its ratebase by a significant amount.

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?


I kinda fancy pool attendant at the Cancun Club Med.
Either that or Howard Dean's White House Chief of Staff. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #115   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Powell" wrote in message ...
Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.


Actually no. The HT magazines in general are not maintaining
readership as well as Stsreophile. S&V, foe xample, recently
dropped its ratebase by a significant amount.

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?


I kinda fancy pool attendant at the Cancun Club Med.
Either that or Howard Dean's White House Chief of Staff. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


  #119   Report Post  
cwvalle
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:

You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f than

the
table under test.


True. However the measurements I just mentioned show a peak to peak
speed variation of 1.2 Hz in 303.8 =0.004 This mainly at the
rotational frequency and could be accouted for by the LP off-centre 2
thou/ inch of radius say 10 thou at radius of 5 inches. The rest of
the w/f above the second harmonic of this are down in the region of
1/10th to 1/100th of this, say +/- 0.0002. This test record is not
that bad. . .


I think that this may well be the case, we are talking about very small
values here. The strobe may also not be accurate enough.
The only way to do this would be to set up some kind detector on the

platter
itself and this could measure the accuracy of rotation.


There is more than one way to skin a cat.

The effects of the
tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined this way.


In the example I showed (300_1-fmfft.jpg) there is very little FM to
be seen at the tone arm resonant frequency of around 10 Hz

The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be

measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate

them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere


I would be delighted to process your test tone with my polar plotted
FM detector(tm). I expect to see a flower shape with petals
corresponding to the number of poles but we may never know. You might
not like what you would see but at least it would test your and
other's beliefs mentioned in Message-ID:

If I were you I would chicken out. . . On the other hand the width of
the plot published in Stereophile might just be due to a hole in a
record being off-centre.


I do not have the WAV file that I sent to JA and he used to produce that
graph.
I can make another one if you want.

I have several test records

Command Stereo Check Out - CSC 100
Telarc Digital Omnidisc - DG-10073, '74

The Telarc is the one I use as a standard, and is the one i used to make the
WAV file I sent to JA

I have a CBS STR 100, 102 but I dont know where it is right now

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever
Specify your email and you will get a tone

my email is



  #120   Report Post  
cwvalle
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:

You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f than

the
table under test.


True. However the measurements I just mentioned show a peak to peak
speed variation of 1.2 Hz in 303.8 =0.004 This mainly at the
rotational frequency and could be accouted for by the LP off-centre 2
thou/ inch of radius say 10 thou at radius of 5 inches. The rest of
the w/f above the second harmonic of this are down in the region of
1/10th to 1/100th of this, say +/- 0.0002. This test record is not
that bad. . .


I think that this may well be the case, we are talking about very small
values here. The strobe may also not be accurate enough.
The only way to do this would be to set up some kind detector on the

platter
itself and this could measure the accuracy of rotation.


There is more than one way to skin a cat.

The effects of the
tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined this way.


In the example I showed (300_1-fmfft.jpg) there is very little FM to
be seen at the tone arm resonant frequency of around 10 Hz

The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be

measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate

them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere


I would be delighted to process your test tone with my polar plotted
FM detector(tm). I expect to see a flower shape with petals
corresponding to the number of poles but we may never know. You might
not like what you would see but at least it would test your and
other's beliefs mentioned in Message-ID:

If I were you I would chicken out. . . On the other hand the width of
the plot published in Stereophile might just be due to a hole in a
record being off-centre.


I do not have the WAV file that I sent to JA and he used to produce that
graph.
I can make another one if you want.

I have several test records

Command Stereo Check Out - CSC 100
Telarc Digital Omnidisc - DG-10073, '74

The Telarc is the one I use as a standard, and is the one i used to make the
WAV file I sent to JA

I have a CBS STR 100, 102 but I dont know where it is right now

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever
Specify your email and you will get a tone

my email is





Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Magazine Statitistics John Atkinson Audio Opinions 409 February 5th 04 03:22 AM
Saddam/Time Magazine EggHd Pro Audio 35 December 21st 03 08:13 PM
Remove magazine from Sony CDX-656 changer Bruce Car Audio 1 December 5th 03 03:08 PM
- TAS magazine Website Updated - Steven R. Rochlin Audio Opinions 1 July 24th 03 05:18 AM
FA: Matrix sound design magazine (this might interest some of you) Eamon Pro Audio 0 July 8th 03 03:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"