MINe 109 a écrit :

In article m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:


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?


Lowering subscriptions to attract more readers in order to raise
advertising rates is a time-honored strategy for publishers.

Another way to look at a magazine is the proportion of editorial content
to advertising. More editorial pages (music reviews, blind tests,
multichannel gear reviews) come at the expense of advertising pages. Too
much advertising comes at the cost of alienating readers, generally
speaking.


When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-)

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:58:07 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile.
I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate.

Now *that's* choice after you tried to tell me what *I* think.

Hypocrite.

Socky said:

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

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.

Too many strings being plucked here. My head is ringing.

At least, though, you gave the Terrierborg's leash a good tug.

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


Socky said:

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

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.

Too many strings being plucked here. My head is ringing.

At least, though, you gave the Terrierborg's leash a good tug.


"At least".




----== 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 =---

"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

"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

"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.

An odd conjecture presented as fact:

"The tonearm resonance with the Arkiv lay at 10Hz; the "shoulders" at
exactly 10Hz on either side of the central peak are due to this resonance.
They lie at -41dB ref. 5cm/s, so it's hard to predict what their subjective
effect will be. Small spurs at ±20Hz, the second harmonic of the tonearm
resonance, can also be seen, but these are 60dB down in level. "

Basically, we're seeing what could easily be horrendous FM distortion being
attributed to a seemingly-benign source.

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.

"Look over there, cake!".

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... :-)

"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

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."

"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

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.

"cwvalle" wrote in message
m
"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."

The number of cycles per revolution on a LP track of a steady wave can also
be measured with a microscope. In fact it was once common practice to
confirm the technical properties of a number of different tracks on test
records with a microscope.

Test records from the days when they were taken quite seriously can still be
acquired for a reasonable price on eBay. Most of these are IME in pristine
or near-pristine condition.

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

That's false because wow and flutter can be averaged out quite easily.

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.

I seriously doubt that Atkinson's tests with a strobe are accurate enough to
support the number of decimal digits he presented. It's typical of his
sloppy and naive experimentalism to present data that is bogus in this
fashion.

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.

One such detector is a LP with a scratch that is reasonably radial. Play the
LP and digitize the results and measure the distance between the tics. With
CoolEdit/Audition (the tool Atkinson claims to use) this can easily be done
with accuracy of +/- 1 millisecond. A single rotation at 33.33 rpm takes
1,800.000 milliseconds. Thus, measuring the time it takes for one rotation
is accurate within no more than 0.1%. Measuring the time it takes for
multiple rotations can extend the accuracy by factors of 10, 100 or more. A
20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times so speed accuracy measurements
with errors and ambiguities no less than 1 ppm can easily be obtained
without even buying a test record.

This kind of accuracy calls into question the time base of the means used to
collect the data (sound card) but the accuracy of the sound card can be
measured by using it to digitize tones transmitted by the NIST.

http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq...l/pdf/1383.pdf

A sound card capable of sampling at 192 KHz could even be checked by
digitizing the carrier of the atomic clock-derived radio transmitter in
Colorado. Any sound card can be used with the tones described on page 59 of
the cited document.

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

This is a false claim. The tone arm and cartridge, being fixed-mounted to
the same structure that the turntable is mounted on, has zero average
velocity with respect to the turntable. Therefore, they can't introduce
long-term speed errors.

The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can
only be measured in a partial way.

The scratched-LP method can be used to make highly-accurate measurements.
The clocks of quality sound cards have accuracy that itself can be measured
and traced back to govenerment frequency standards. If atomic-clock type
accuracy does not suit you, I guess you might still have a complaint...

Even if the exact same test record
were used to compare tables, the combination of effects could mask
defects, or exaggerate them.

Wrong again. The world of vinyl seems to be full of fuzzy-headed
experimentalists that defeat themselves in their own minds. I think this is
because they fear the truth about vinyl.

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

Not if you are a worshipper of vinylism, whether for fun or profit.

ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message
...
On 3 Jan 2004 05:52:39 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the test
record used and the result obtained.

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.

Thanks David. I'll fool around with this technique. But it does look as if
the 1kHz tone on HFS81 is rather approximate. :-)

If you don't follow, you could search google groups for "John's dad
say : "Ratiometric measurement lot better than kick in balls."

That John's dad, he's one wise fella. Know if he's looking for a gig?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:


(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message
...
On 3 Jan 2004 05:52:39 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the test
record used and the result obtained.

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.

Thanks David. I'll fool around with this technique. But it does look as if
the 1kHz tone on HFS81 is rather approximate. :-)

If you don't follow, you could search google groups for "John's dad
say : "Ratiometric measurement lot better than kick in balls."

That John's dad, he's one wise fella. Know if he's looking for a gig?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile








I've always liked listening to "Uncle John's Band", especially on vinyl.
Sometimes I even wear one of his ties



Bruce J. Richman

On 3 Jan 2004 19:23:17 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message
...
On 3 Jan 2004 05:52:39 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the test
record used and the result obtained.

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.

Thanks David. I'll fool around with this technique. But it does look as if
the 1kHz tone on HFS81 is rather approximate. :-)


Hum, I am not sure I would like to count 1800 cycles by hand, myself.

Less direct, you could beat it with a known tone which is always
higher or lower than the maximum deviation of the LP test tone output.
Try adding (mix paste) say 1010 Hz to the recorded tone, if the error
is less than 1%, and count an ideal 18 beats in the envelope in one
revolution, or perhaps use 1125Hz if you can count to 125 and want to
check easily that the reference 1125Hz is correct. If you make the
added tone small enough the beat will not go through zero and may be
easier to track.

Thinking about modulation index, it just occurred to me that, since
the deviation due to wow/flutter is a fixed percentage, that 1000Hz
will give 3.33 times greater modulation index than 300Hz which will
result in a wider FFT with more sidebands making it more difficult for
you to resolve/interpret detail at the higher frequency. I think that
works but I have not tried it yet. . .


If you don't follow, you could search google groups for "John's dad
say : "Ratiometric measurement lot better than kick in balls."

That John's dad, he's one wise fella. Know if he's looking for a gig?


I don't know whether I will continue to hear "the voices" but they are
usually very wise. It all dates back to:

"
Arny, when I was a kid, my dad always said, "if someone gives you well
intended advice, think about it this way:
(1) If the advice is appropriate for something that you could be doing
better, thank the person and heed his/her advice.
(2) If the advice is not appropriate, thank the person and be grateful
that someone thinks enough of you to bother to give you advice.
(3) If the advice is appropriate for the situation but you don't think
need the advice, thank the person and consider that we tend to be the
most biased critics of ourselves.
"
Google is your friend.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

"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.

I find it questionable that a strobe could actually measure speed with
sufficient accuracy to justify a final number with 4 significant digits.

Illuminated strobes aren't the best way to measure the speed of turntables
because the power line itself is prone to short-term frequency variations.

I have at least one very popular (in its day) test record for which the
signal source was specified, and for which strong claims for rotational
accuracy were made. I believe it was sold by a competitive magazine, which
is probably one reason why you don't want to use it, Atkinson.

If there is a serious question about the speed accuracy of a test record, it
could be resolved by means of microscopic examination.

However, this is just more example of "Look over there, cake", by Atkinson.
The more serious issue, is his highly questionable presentation of a test
that clearly shows relatively high levels of modulation distortion, and
suggests either deceit or technical incompetence on his part.

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

I see Arny Krueger is up to his old snipping tricks, refusing to answer
the text above of mine and deleting it from his reply. :-)

And of course, elsewhere in this thread, as has been pointed out by others,
he has been selectively choosing among the data I provided just those
figures that support his predetermined conclusion. "Data dredging" this is
called in scientific circles, or "pulling a Ferstler," here on r.a.o.

"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.

I find it questionable that a strobe could actually measure speed with
sufficient accuracy to justify a final number with 4 significant digits.

Why? The velocity of any precession will in a way act as a vernier. But if
there is no precession, it can be assumed that the rotational velocity is
exactly 33 and one third rpm, no?

Illuminated strobes aren't the best way to measure the speed of
turntables because the power line itself is prone to short-term
frequency variations.

Not by enough to matter too much. But there are plenty of battery-powered
strobe illuminators available these days, of course.

And as I said, why all this fuss over a remark I made about readers not
taking the departure from 1000Hz with the HFS81 record as indicating the
Linn LP12 has a speed accuracy problem?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And of course, elsewhere in this thread, as has been pointed out by others,
he has been selectively choosing among the data I provided just those
figures that support his predetermined conclusion. "Data dredging" this is
called in scientific circles, or "pulling a Ferstler," here on r.a.o.

LOL

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

recisitation

Enjoy.

"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 ?

"Powell" wrote in message
...

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

Do you expect John to live forever?

"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 =---

"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

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

There'll be no more music for you if you become the WH Chief of Staff.
By the way, do they let Brits do that position? smile
John

John M. said:

Either that or Howard Dean's White House Chief of Staff. :-)

By the way, do they let Brits do that position? smile

They let crooks do it, so why not?

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


John M. said:

Either that or Howard Dean's White House Chief of Staff. :-)

By the way, do they let Brits do that position? smile

They let crooks do it, so why not?


Ha! Good one! Personally, I can't stand politicians.
John

"John Atkinson" wrote

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.

Has the age demographic profile for subscribers
changed over the last ten years... different from
what I posted for 1994?

"Powell" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote

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.

No comment about any changes in the SP rate base.

Has the age demographic profile for subscribers
changed over the last ten years... different from
what I posted for 1994?

It's 9-10 years later, right? Add 8-9 years, allowing some for drop-off due
to increased mortality with age.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Has the age demographic profile for subscribers
changed over the last ten years... different from
what I posted for 1994?

It's 9-10 years later, right? Add 8-9 years, allowing
some for drop-off due to increased mortality with age.

What’s unknown is the source of new (by age)
subscribers given an average 4.8 year subscription
turnover. If baby boomers still are the largest source
of new business then what you infer maybe true.