wrote in message
oups.com...
I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
The direct reason is that they went broke.

Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why products
are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more ethical reason
would be the reluctance of the publisher to be responsible for business
failures.

I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence of
multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the readers
didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do. Most hifi
nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If more modern
content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative effect.
Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior patterns. Catholic
tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want to read about
something outside the box, publishing dictates that you find another "box",
ie., magazine.

In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now that
Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no alternative.
The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an example of the dgree
of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one issue with some pleasure that
additional editorial pages had been allocated.

I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite Stereophile
article on speaker cables, with comprehensive measurements, analysis of
materials and geometry. However, one choice was conspicuously absent: the
doubling or tripling of common zipcord.

Yet Stereophile is the only major survivor. Although I applaud Atkinson's
excellent measurements and technical analysis, my personal favorite was
Audio, as I feel the content was more related to merit than appearance and
marketing. Yet there came a time, in the early 90's, when the industry began
to decline as consumer dollars fled to other amusements. It no longer became
viable to service the merit of sound reproduction; there simply wasn't
enough money in it. Other factors, such as appearance, exclusivity, and
consequent high cost, allowed for favorable business models.

This trend continues. I would guess that half or more of the cost of high
end audio equipment is in the cabinet, and capacitors with "name brand"
recognition. Even that was not enough to prevent market saturation -- hence
the current shift to tubes. Tubes appear even where they have no effect, as
in the input stage of solid state amplifiers. It must be there, because it
sounds different, or because it glows.

None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way, of
anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe. Arny believes
that PA amplifiers are the "final solution". This "dumbing down" of audio,
by men with defective hearing, is a tragic sideshow. Although I do not agree
with tube lovers, I do believe that the limits and variations of audio
reproduction are subtle and still distant from complete characterization.