Robert Morein a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

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..."


Lionel, I don't get the inference.
Could you elaborate a little?


Sorry Bob, in RAO's hatred context it was a stupid comment...
....When I wrote it I was just finishing to read an interesting article
on a french forum about magazines which use to mix "stereophile" and
"home-theater" (multichannel ?) subjects.
One of the die-hard stereophile said that multichannel and home-theater
was just a distraction, a toy for ex-stereophiles who are becoming
senile ;-), who are losing their criticism. :-)