Robert Morein a écrit :
I've been a Stereophile hater, then a Stereophile admirer, then a selective
critic of a magazine that many credit as a strong contributor to the growth
of the high end market. At the same time that I've bemoaned the flaws I've
seen, I have become an admirer of John Atkinson's technical reviews,
although they sometimes appear disconnected from the subjective review work.

With word that the magazine's circulation is declining, I have a regretful
feeling of portent, of what life might be like if one more hitching post
vanishes.

Stereophile has been attacked on a number of grounds. Among these
accusations a
1. Exclusion of equipment from review that is a better value than that which
receives reviews.
2. Favoritism.
3. Columnization about "tweaks" that some believe have zero, as opposed to
doubtful basis. Even by very liberal standards, it would appear that some
pseudoscience snuck into the magazine.

My own personal rant figures about #1. I am inclined to think that
Stereophile's exclusivity contributed, in the early 90's, to the
disappearance of some American-made, very utilitarian equipment from the
market. I regret the passing from the scene of the Hafler brick much more
than Swedish surgeon Forsell's dubious accomplishments in amplifier design.
The remarkable accomplishment of the Hafler DH-110 will never grace
Stereophile's pages, even though this all-discrete design is extremely
neutral

Likewise, Stereophile's extensive reviews of speaker wire never included a
comparison with triple runs of common zipcord.

But with all these possible facts in mind, the magazine, especially in it's
latter days when it was fat and well nourished, was a showcase of
technological innovation. Should Stereophile one day pass from the scene,
reproduction technology will lose it's most important venue.

In my opinion, Atkinson's mistake was to underestimate his influence. He
never really understood how pivotal his magazine became. If he had, he might
have taken more care in making the editorial venue available to a wider
group of contributors.

But with influence come options. Unbeknownst to him, Atkinson had the
ability to perturb the vector of history -- not throw it off course
completely, but make it take a turn. In my opinion, his great mistake was to
put "home theater" in it's own magazine, and dumb it down. While a separate,
"dumber" magazine was commercially viable, Atkinson could have also
gradually introduced cutting-edge multichannel into his magazine -- without
video.

There IS high end multichannel sound, but there are very few products for
it. In most cases, multichannel sound systems are kludged together from
common consumer equipment. Ambisonics, Ambiophonics, etc., are seldom
practical in the pure form advocated by their practitioners, but with
emphasis, practical hybrids might be devised. And with Stereophile's
emphasis on quality, surround components might be better than they are
today.

The strategy Atkinson followed had some of the flaws of the Detroit
automakers in the 70's and 80's. Seeking to preserve their aging customer
base, they made no concessions to the stylistic and performance innovations
of imports. Their adherents aged out of the marketplace, and Detroit was
faced with a market collapse, from which they have never completely
recovered.

Personally, I love variety. I derive pleasure from both two channel and
multichannel listening experiences. A magazine that embraced both would be
my cup of tea.


Coming from you Bob it's an other way to say "I'm getting old..."