On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


"dave weil" wrote in message


Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two
segments to account for changing markets.

Correction:

The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is
volume 9 number 1.

The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its
circulation for the next 6 years.

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

Wanna try again?

Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again".

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 04:22:14 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote:

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
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

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

Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say
that
the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number
of
years.

Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact?


I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If
you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis
at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild
peaks and dips.

Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la
"USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride.

I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks.
The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and
the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation.

Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a
decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two
years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty
premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the
numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't
offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small
sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from
those numbers.

Scott Gardner

Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do
not include in-store sales.


Sorry, my mistake. I think the rest of my post is still valid,
despite the error.

Scott Gardner

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


"dave weil" wrote in message


Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two
segments to account for changing markets.

Correction:

The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is
volume 9 number 1.

The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its
circulation for the next 6 years.

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

Wanna try again?

Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again".

And I only see an increase for the next two years - from 1995 to 1996
and 1996 to 1997. Is there a second set of numbers that's been
posted?

Scott Gardner

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? ;-)

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
Most magazines subscriptions are sold for the printing and distribution
cost. That is because they make their money on advertising. the higher the
magazine sales, the higher the ad rates.

This is correct.

In the final analysis, the health
of the high end audio industry will control the fate of the magazine, since
they are the ones that purchase the ads.

As the major proportion of any consumer magazine's revenue comes from
ads,
this is also true.

The post office statistics are irrelevant. Magazine sales
(subscriptions and store sales) are audited by an independent agency to
protect advertisers. The audited statistics subtract out copies that are
printed and not sold by stores (returns), or are extra copies printed for
office use.

These figures were not incvluded in the mailing stament figures I
quoted.
If you go the actual formas from which I extracted the information
(printed
in the December or Juanry issues of the magazine) you can see the raw
data.

Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile?

Our circ figures are audited by the ABC. I can get hold of them, just
not immediately, which is why I quoted the publisher's statement data.

It should be printed in the magazine once per year.

That was the source of the data I quoted.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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... :-)

"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

"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

"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

"Lionel" excrete:

You have already demonstrated several time that Objectivism isn't your
prefered philosophy...
You will understand that I prefer to not discuss the subject with you. ;-)



Au revoir!




----== 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: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 =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


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

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


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!

Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!
LOL!




----== 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 =---

"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 =---

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

recisitation

Enjoy.

Arny Krueger had stated 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.


No it's not, you dumb ****ing bitch. Where is your proof that Atkinson is
"greatly concerned"? That IS what you said, isn't it, bitch?

The numbers show a decline of 11% from the peak, only 2-3% down in each of the
last two years and UP from 8 years ago. Almost every business in the country
is down more than that as a result of the economy.


Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact?


Yes - we can all agree that you're the biggest asshole we know.

l.com

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

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


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!


You do love to parade your stupidity. This is the "objectivist" method of
statistical analysis? Use carefully chosen data, ignore the rest and draw
conclusions that are not supported by the chosen data? Figures. I guess this is
why you don't want to take an IQ test. You have just shown why you would likely
do poorly. No wonder you don't understand the math involved in plotting a sin
wave with varying peak amplitude.

Socky said:

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!

Right up there with that darned Krooglish.

S888Wheel said to ****-for-Brains:

You do love to parade your stupidity. This is the "objectivist" method of
statistical analysis? Use carefully chosen data, ignore the rest and draw
conclusions that are not supported by the chosen data?

How quickly we forget....



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Cyborg's High-Predictability "Scientific" Method

1. Decide what conclusion you want to reach. It's best to do this
now -- it simplifies your activities and eliminates the need for
all that time-consuming hypothesizing. (Note: The activities
referenced in this outline correspond to what non-braindead humans
call "experiments".)

2. Line up the data that support your premise and invent
rationalizations to show that these data are "better" than others.
Also, if time permits, jot down some notes on why data reported by
people with whom you disagree shouldn't be considered in your
activities.

3. No hypothesizing is necessary because the desired conclusion is
already known, so go on to the activities.

4. Set up an activity that is bound and certain to reinforce
your desired conclusion.

5. If people are watching, pretend to run the "experiment". Be
sure to fake a demeanor of impartiality and devotion to truth.

6. Promulgate the results of your "science" as noisily and as
obnoxiously as possible. Make sure you shout down and ridicule
anyone who criticizes your hypothesis chuckle, your method, or
your conclusion. Experience has shown that you can usually deflect
criticism, no matter how well-founded it is in reality, by
impugning the motives of your critics.

7. Sit back, complacent and smug, and trumpet to all and sundry
that you've "proved" your theory and that no more "science" need
be brought to bear on this issue.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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."

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :
"Lionel" excrete:


You have already demonstrated several time that Objectivism isn't your
prefered philosophy...
You will understand that I prefer to not discuss the subject with you. ;-)




Au revoir!



Bye !

"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

"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

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


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

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


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!

Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!

So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

l.com

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

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


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!


You do love to parade your stupidity. This is the "objectivist"
method of statistical analysis? Use carefully chosen data, ignore the
rest and draw conclusions that are not supported by the chosen data?

I didn't choose the data, Atkinson did.

Stereophile's circulation has shrunk steadily for three years and you can't
see it?

Figures. I guess this is why you don't want to take an IQ test.

I've taken plenty of IQ tests given their significance.

You have just shown why you would likely do poorly.

I've never done poorly on IQ tests.

No wonder you don't
understand the math involved in plotting a sin wave with varying peak
amplitude.

Say what?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


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

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


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!

Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!

So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000?



so, you can't see that 2000 was the highest year, over
4,000 higher than the next highest year. And that the three years after 2000
are typical compared to the 6 years before 2000?




----== 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 =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message



Figures. I guess this is why you don't want to take an IQ test.

I've taken plenty of IQ tests given their significance.

You have just shown why you would likely do poorly.

I've never done poorly on IQ tests.

You hit 100. Congratulations!




----== 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 =---

"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?

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.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

S888Wheel a écrit :


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

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



you are wrong.


I propose you an exercise Scott "Hi-IQ" Wheeler. It is simple but
efficient...
Imagine the above numbers are Krueger's websites frequentation
statistics.
...You see it works ! :-)




If you can imagine that, I guess you could also
imagine that they are paying customers.


You have already demonstrated several time that Objectivism isn't your
prefered philosophy...
You will understand that I prefer to not discuss the subject with you. ;-)

As have you.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


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

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


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!

Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!
LOL!



It's less than 91,384 the highpint reached in 2000. Since then the numbers
are clearly falling. Perhaps this is a good sign and people are wising up
to the fact that most of what passes for high end exists only in the mind of
some unreliable reviewer or salesman.

Speaking of unreliable not to mention insane, I wonder what Fremer's doing
these days. Hopefully not having screaming fits at people who point out he
doesn't know what he's talking about like he did with Nousaine, years back.







----== 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
=---

Arny said


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

I said


you are wrong.


Arny said


Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Art said


Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!

Arny said


So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000?


So you can't see this isn't what you said to begin with? You can't see that
what you said to begin with was plainly wrong? You can't see that you were
picking and choosing your evidence to support your attack against me personally
and my claim that you were plainly wrong? You can't see that Art pointed out
just one aspect of how you were wrong? You can't see that even with the
evidence you cherry picked that your conclusion was at best a presumption? You
don't understand why many of us laugh when you present yourself as objective?

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

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

I said



you are wrong.


Arny said


Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384


Arny said


Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!


I said



You do love to parade your stupidity. This is the "objectivist"
method of statistical analysis? Use carefully chosen data, ignore the
rest and draw conclusions that are not supported by the chosen data?

Arny said


I didn't choose the data, Atkinson did.


Liar. here is the data Atkinson presented.
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

Here is what you cherry picked to support your idiotic conclusion.
Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Did you use *all* the data John provided? No.YOU CHOSE THE DATA. Art already
pointed this fact out and you quickly changed your story in typical Krooger
fashion.


Arny said


Stereophile's circulation has shrunk steadily for three years and you can't
see it?

Stereophile's circulation shrank for three years. It was not steady. Of course
this sin't what you said and this isn't what i claimed was wrong when you asked
if you were wrong. Can't you see that?

I said


Figures. I guess this is why you don't want to take an IQ test.

Arny said


I've taken plenty of IQ tests given their significance.


I don't doubt that. You have never disclosed your scores though. Not
surprising.

I said


You have just shown why you would likely do poorly.

Arny said


I've never done poorly on IQ tests.


Prove it liar.

I said


No wonder you don't
understand the math involved in plotting a sin wave with varying peak
amplitude.

Arny said


Say what?

Figures.

"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

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

"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

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

"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com...

"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




now i have a problem
i just checked the Telarc disc and indeed it has at least .001 inch larger
hole than the spindle diameter
that is the limit of my ability to check it with a runout micrometer
and that is only the mechanical measurement of the hole, not of the actual
grooves which could be worse
so what do i do now?

Carl

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.