"EddieM" wrote in message
om...
Robert Morein wrote
EddieM wrote
Robert Morein wrote
calcerise wrote



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 degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one
issue
with some pleasure that additional editorial pages had been
allocated.

It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to
make
money.

I didn't say what the "porpose" of Stereophile is.
Did you by any chance mean to write "purpose" when you wrote "porpose"?
Or did you mean "porpoise", the aquatic mammal?
You also said "It seem".
You confuse with grammatical errors. Did you intend to write "It
seems..."
?

I did not use either word. I said "REQUIREMENT".
It is a requirement that Stereophile will make money, or it will cease
to be
published.
This does not exclude the possibility that John Atkinson may have other
motivations, such as a love of audio, and a great job.


You said that since organization such as Stereophile is now part of a
larger
entity, and that there's "no alternative" but to make money. Whether that
is
their sole requirement or not I'm not sure base on your talk. You said
that
every subscription magazine is a business and that a direct consequence
for failing to follow a business model is that they will go broke. You
also
said that their fear of losing advertising revenue is one reason products
are
not trashed as often, and you gratuitously supported this by adding that
for
an
even more ethical reason, their publisher is reluctant to be responsible
for
business failures of HE mfr.

Further, you enunciate that Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces
the rigid thinking pattern of their readers as a result of their
reluctance to
delve away from this business model you enthuse about for fear that they
will go broke -- as they have no alternative but to make money, according
to
you.

Can you separate your facts and fiction from these ?


In your reply above, you said that it is a requirement for organization
like
Stereophile to make money, or it will cease to be published and therefore

must adhere strictly to this bus. model. BUT yet, you now say that its
editor
may have other motivations, such as a love for audio, and a great job.


Do you mean to say to do a great job in succumbing to the obsessiveness
of most of these hi-fi nuts for ... the love of audios ?

Could you share your wisdom on these?



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.

Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
promote
using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though
they're
not commonly use as such?

Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
that
multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or may
not
be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the popularity of
zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary formulations, I
would
have liked to see how it measured.


How do you think they're going to measure ??

You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
Could
you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the same ?

I can, but I won't.