"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Powell" wrote in message
...

Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence
that I've got considerable empirical experience
with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?

Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience.
We all know you've not subscribed to any audio
magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not
even well read on the subject.

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting
that
magazines will keep you "well read".

I like the juxtapositioning of a true statement:

"Talking about amps is not experience."

With his apparent claim that reading about amps would somehow
mitigate this
problem.

Reading between the lines Powell is very proud that he reads
about
amplifiers, LOTS!

My wife reads murder-mysteries. I'm surprised the FBI hasn't
called for her help yet.

What Powell is missing is the obvious connection between the
data on my web
sites and intimate and continuing contact with the amplifiers
that it is
attributed to. Amps tend to have technical and in some sense
audible
signatures. It can be possible to falsify a claim that detailed
technical
data came from a certain amplifier. I wouldn't risk that.

Agreed.

By the time a review is published the product is
usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years
it's
been since I read something first in an audio mag.

Ever since you started surfing the web?

Yeah, pretty much.

I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's
magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly
concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He
might even admit
it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an
editor and
reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him.

I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for
circulation.

Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John? How's it doing?

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel
audio is dying
pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will
continue to
rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that
aftermarket car
audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available
video will
languish and eventually die out

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high
frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel
16bit/44kHz. Video is definitely a plus.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message


I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly
concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He
might even admit it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his
inadequacies as an editor and reviewer are the sole cause.
Demographics are against him.

I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for
circulation.

Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John?

I see evidence that its editor is Thomas Norton.

How's it doing?

You're asking the wrong guy. I don't read it.

The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is
dying pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will
continue to rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV,
that aftermarket car audio is stagnant but strong, that audio
without available video will languish and eventually die out

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen
when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music?

The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high
frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel
16bit/44kHz.

I'm not a big fan of AC-3 - I'd rather listen to multichannel that hasn't
been perceptually compressed. For example, my portable hard drive player is
loaded with 100% .WAV files even though it cuts its capacity by over 10:1
and cuts battery life by about two due to the extra hard drive activity.

Video is definitely a plus.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen
when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music?

There are several good reasons.

The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?

There are several good reasons.

The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.

Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You
don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the
experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but
if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?

There are several good reasons.

The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.

Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You
don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the
experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but
if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while
listening to music.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.

I answered your question.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled
with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better
content?

Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why
just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to
the music?

There are several good reasons.

The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the
listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying
images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music.

Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it.
You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you
have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have
tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a
different experience.

This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I
usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing
music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is
distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might
disagree of course.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video
while listening to music.

I agree, but I like having the choice.

You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.

Acutally, I didn't ask about anything. I restated someone else's question.

I answered your question.

Except it wasn't my question.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:32:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to
watch.

Acutally, I didn't ask about anything. I restated someone else's question.

I answered your question.

Except it wasn't my question.

Once you restated it without answering it, you inherited it.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern
Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately.

I have no idea where or how Arny Krueger hears either of these things, Mr.
Boudreaux.

I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for circulation.

Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's Statements,"
published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid circulation
in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are 12-month averages.)
Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John?

The Guide is edited by Tom Norton, who was Stereophile's technical editor
for many years.

The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high
frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel
16bit/44kHz.

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority interest for
resadres in general.

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot," in Marshall
McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's
magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably
does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it
privately.

I have no idea where or how Arny Krueger hears either of these
things, Mr. Boudreaux.

That's good, and its based on facts, as presented below:

I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for circulation.

Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932
paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both
figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to see a
rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

All other things being equal, it should have risen.

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements,"
published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid
circulation
in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are
12-month averages.)
Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop,
IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

What about total circulation instead of just paid and the drop
from the peak (early 90's I think)?

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back
in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel
music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority
interest for
resadres in general.

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot,"
in Marshall

Not if you don't watch the video portion. I prefer to choose the
experience I wish to have.

McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

That relationship needs to change. Pure audio is dying due to
among other things the growing availability of other media. If
changes aren't made to increase interest in audio it will become
purely a commuter or background music market. For many people it
already has.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues:
82,932 paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003.
(Both figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to
see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

Yup. Nothing wrong with that.

What about total circulation instead of just paid...

I am not sure I grasp the distinction. US publishers only formally track
paid subscriptions as it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish
an accurate "pass-along" ratio (ie, how many people read each copy).

and the drop from the peak (early 90's I think)?

That was, if I remember correctly in the mid 1990s. If you wish, I
can research the historical trend for you.

once the following takes place I bet the vast majority of consumers
will choose multichannel over stereo.
1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

We shall see. All of us in publishing and audio manufacture are having
to place our bets, Mr. Boudreaux. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Since you're talking about the "vast majority of consumers" there
really is no format war. SACD and DVD-A are not even on the radar of
the majority of consumers--nor would they be if one format was gone.
The format war is ended and the winner is Dolby Digital. An ordinary
CD will hold over 3 hours of DD surround sound. If it could be played
on an ordinary DVD player, the consumer would love it.

So why isn't DD sweeping the field? My guess is that the industry
hasn't yet figured out a good way to limit the amount of time
available in that format. SACD and DVD-A solve the time problem, but
have not been embraced by the public. If you stop to think about it
there is no technical reason why DD surround sound audio couldn't be
distributed via an ordinary DVD. With no video to contend with a DVD
could carry as much as 20 hours of music. It would be available to
anyone with a DVD player, and entirely satisfactory to 99% of them.
Therein is the problem: too much time. The race to fill it would be
on, and the RIAA would be the loser.

Cheers, and Happy New Year,

Norm Strong

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932
paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both
figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to see a
rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

What about total circulation instead of just paid and the drop
from the peak (early 90's I think)?

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back
in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority
interest for
resadres in general.

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot,"
in Marshall

Not if you don't watch the video portion. I prefer to choose the
experience I wish to have.

McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

That relationship needs to change. Pure audio is dying due to
among other things the growing availability of other media. If
changes aren't made to increase interest in audio it will become
purely a commuter or background music market. For many people it
already has.

Last year's Rolling Stones holiday offering was a number of DVD-A remasters.

This year's Rolling Stone Holiday offering appears to be a plain old DVD-V
release.

Perhaps someone is learning about what the market wants...

Once bitten, twice shy?