| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The problem with Stereophile, in a nutshell
jeffc wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Given that SP subscriptions are cheap, I may subscribe again eventually. It's a catch 22. Magazines that charge very low prices for subscriptions do so for one reason - to get higher circulation. Do you really think they can hire a staff of expert, objective reviewers, print a glossy magazine, and mail it to your house for $1 each month? Ha! Of course not. All their money comes from ads. Higher circulation = more ad money. More ad money means less objective reviews. Less objective reviews means less circulation, unless they lower the cost. etc., until they pay you to take the magazine, at which point it becomes beyond worthless. IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the manufacturers. Period. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite
some time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the manufacturers. Period. It would more correct to compare the magazine under JGH's management with it under JA's. Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which equipment most closely achieved this goal. Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
George M. Middius wrote: William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote George M. Middius wrote: If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". You might want to get a flat screwdriver and have someone help you unlocked the panel on top of your head. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
EddieM said: If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". [snip mindless parroting] You might want to get a flat screwdriver and have someone help you unlocked the panel on top of your head. Tinkering with his head might have caused Thing's current condition. A more drastic remedy might be called for. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Les Cargill wrote:
Why? Because Hefner used to put stuff in Playboy to tell rawboned farm kids who went to college after a stint in the Army, (and went to work on Madison Avenue) which fork to use, what clothes to buy and what hi-fi set to buy. He was more often accurate on the hi-fi recommendations than on the clothing recommendations, anyway. Oh, well. --scott (Now, do I eat the antepasto with the salad fork?) -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
George M. Middius wrote:
William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded. There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and having an "expert" justify your purchase. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote: George M. Middius wrote: William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded. There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and having an "expert" justify your purchase. What? "Middius" asked: "If you value 'realistic' sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it?". I asked essentially the same question, but changed 'realistic' sound (the old SP paradigm) to 'good' sound (the new SP paradigm). IOW, if you do not need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "realistic", why would you need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "good"? At least "realistic" sound has some sort of objective standard, so you have an idea of where the reviewer is coming from. "Good" sound is *completely* subjective. What sounds "good" to you (or JA or someone else) may not sound "good" to me. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck said to Thing: You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded. There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and having an "expert" justify your purchase. Good luck getting Thing's teeth marks off your shoes. :-( |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". It could be practically useful if that was one's goal, and the magazine provided observations as to how well the goal was met. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote: William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. On bad pretexts. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". Once you've heard *real* studio quality monitoring and 'heard the light' that argument is revealed as the fallacy it is. For as long as I can remember consumer 'hi-fi' tended to falsely accentuate bass to make it sound more prominent. That was *popular*. It was / is also vastly inaccurate reproduction. Graham |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck said:
Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". I don't find it odd at all. Like most businesses, Stereophile tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". I don't find it odd at all. Like most businesses, Stereophile tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Some common denominators can be so low as to be useless. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". I don't find it odd at all. Like most businesses, Stereophile tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator. "At least" the lowest common denominator that wants to spend $30,000 on an amplifier. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote: IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the manufacturers. Period. It would more correct to compare the magazine under JGH's management with it under JA's. Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which equipment most closely achieved this goal. Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. Isn't this just saying the same thing in a gentler way? It's not much of a leap from what you wrote to: "it exists primarily to justify to the readers the purchase of whatever the advertisers want to sell ". |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... William Sommerwerck wrote: IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the manufacturers. Period. It would more correct to compare the magazine under JGH's management with it under JA's. Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which equipment most closely achieved this goal. Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. Isn't this just saying the same thing in a gentler way? It's not much of a leap from what you wrote to: "it exists primarily to justify to the readers the purchase of whatever the advertisers want to sell ". The following claims are not the same: 1: the magazine is beholden to advertisers 2: the magazine has no objective standards 3. justify whatever choice the reader wants to make These have all been made as derogatory, but they are different. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein wrote:
The following claims are not the same: 1: the magazine is beholden to advertisers Seems like. 2: the magazine has no objective standards Arguable. SP does do technical tests. 3. justify whatever choice the reader wants to make Seems like. These have all been made as derogatory, but they are different. So what? |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
2: the magazine has no objective standards
Arguable. SP does do technical tests. But when have they ever been correlated with what one "actually" (???) hears? An "objective" test is objective only if it correlates with valid subjective tests. Otherwise it's meaningless. To the best of my knowledge, Stereophile has never performed listening tests that might provide this correlation (or show there was none). Stereophile's technical tests are largely window dressing. 20+ years ago, when JA introduced cumulative decay spectra as a speaker measurement, I urged him to hold off for a year or so, to do additional listening tests in the hope they would reveal correlations between the measurements and specific subjective aspects of the speaker's sound. This, like every other suggestion I made to JA, was instantly rejected. It's worth noting that, when I reviewed the AKG K1000 ear speakers, I ran a waterfall plot that correlated with the 'phones' extreme midrange "honking". JA's reaction was to ask me whether I'd run the tests properly. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
The following claims are not the same:
1: the magazine is beholden to advertisers 2: the magazine has no objective standards 3. justify whatever choice the reader wants to make These have all been made as derogatory, but they are different. No one ever said (or implied) they were equivalent (though #2 and #3 are at least Velcro'ed at the hip). |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" said:
.. Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". What's wrong with that? -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" said: . Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". What's wrong with that? The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's there when there's no actual bass instrument playing. If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'. Graham |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear said:
Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". What's wrong with that? The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's there when there's no actual bass instrument playing. Those people usually don't care about how anything sounds, as long as it provides a steady flow of non-silence. Definition of a music system annum 2005: "A contraption that makes noise in people's homes". If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'. Thank God. My-Fi is my goal. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote: Pooh Bear said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". What's wrong with that? The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's there when there's no actual bass instrument playing. Those people usually don't care about how anything sounds, as long as it provides a steady flow of non-silence. Definition of a music system annum 2005: "A contraption that makes noise in people's homes". If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'. Thank God. My-Fi is my goal. Well Sander - you are one of the few who appreciate an accurate sound ! Graham |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote: "William Sommerwerck" said: . Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". To be fair to JA, in the Measurements section he'll say, after a dire set of numbers, "I don't know why he liked it". What's wrong with that? The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's there when there's no actual bass instrument playing. If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'. *cough* Wavac 833 *cough* Francois, speaking of dire. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" said: . Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". What's wrong with that? By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best Wilson WAMM systems. Howard Ferstler |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler said:
Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". What's wrong with that? By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best Wilson WAMM systems. Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system? BTW there are some very good sounding juke boxes (for a juke box) out there. All of them with tube amps ;-) -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". What's wrong with that? By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best Wilson WAMM systems. Hear tell that the very best WAMM systems aren't all that grand sounding, once the hype is stripped away. Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system? Ferstler did say red-neck, didn't he? BTW there are some very good sounding juke boxes (for a juke box) out there. All of them with tube amps ;-) Thanks for substantiating my comments about tube and vinyl bigots, Sander. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:35:27 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote:
Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system? BTW there are some very good sounding juke boxes (for a juke box) out there. All of them with tube amps ;-) I had an AMI F (1955) and an AMI J (1959) both had GE VRII magnetic pickups, ported woofers, a decent tweeter, and ultralinear output. Frankly, a lot better than the competition, which usually had the woofer (or full range speaker) mounted on a baffle board like a Fender guitar amp or a cheap EJ Korvette's Xam console stereo. (to Korvette's credit, they also sold Harmon-Kardon and Dynaco gear) IIRC, both of those wound up in Holland, which as I understand it, is the European mecca for discriminating jukebox collectors. The main problems with jukeboxes are the same as ever, the source material (all over the map) and the playback mechanism (back then, rumbly offspeed 45 turntables, now cheap CD mechs). -- Ned Carlson Triode Electronics Chicago,IL USA www.triodeelectronics.com |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:27:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Sander deWaal wrote: "William Sommerwerck" said: . Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". What's wrong with that? By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best Wilson WAMM systems. Howard Ferstler They probably sound better than if the WAMMS were in the same bar. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message It would more correct to compare the magazine under JGH's management with it under JA's. Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which equipment most closely achieved this goal. Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. I really agree with this! Thirty years ago, I valued each issue produced by J. Gordon Holt. I dropped my subscription more than a decade ago. Based on samples of the magazine since then, I don't regret it. Ed Presson |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:36:57 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the manufacturers. Period. It would more correct to compare the magazine under JGH's management with it under JA's. Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which equipment most closely achieved this goal. Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition of the utility of a piece of equipment. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should
sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which equipment most closely achieved this goal. Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition of the utility of a piece of equipment. It's not "too-narrow" a definition -- it's the only _valid_ definition. If I were running an audiophile magazine, I would categorically bar reviews of non-acoustic music, and reviewers would not be allowed to use such music in judging equipment. But that wouldn't sell very many magazines. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 06:27:51 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which equipment most closely achieved this goal. Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition of the utility of a piece of equipment. It's not "too-narrow" a definition -- it's the only _valid_ definition. So you say. But I disagree. With you AND Harry Pearson. If I were running an audiophile magazine, I would categorically bar reviews of non-acoustic music, and reviewers would not be allowed to use such music in judging equipment. But that wouldn't sell very many magazines. And it wouldn't be a very useful magazine either. Please remember that there's not a system on the planet that can sound exactly like a live performance. All systems are a series of compromises and there's no system or component that offers an absolute reference vis a vis live or "acoustic" music. Different components and systems have strengths and weaknesses that can also be judged by "non-acoustic" music, especially since there's precious little music that hasn't been processed electronically in one way or another (and I'm not *just* talking about the physical act of recording either, which imposes its own "signature"). |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please remember that there's not a system on the planet that can sound
exactly like a live performance. All systems are a series of compromises and there's no system or component that offers an absolute reference vis a vis live or "acoustic" music. Different components and systems have strengths and weaknesses that can also be judged by "non-acoustic" music, especially since there's precious little music that hasn't been processed electronically in one way or another (and I'm not *just* talking about the physical act of recording either, which imposes its own "signature"). JA once made that point to me -- that if a recording reveals a difference between two components, it's useful. I see the logic, except that we aren't as much interested in differences as we are in which one (if either) is closer to "correct". |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition of the utility of a piece of equipment. It's not "too-narrow" a definition -- it's the only _valid_ definition. If I were running an audiophile magazine, I would categorically bar reviews of non-acoustic music, If you define non-acoustic music as music that was never played into a performance space, then I would agree. If you define non-acoustic music as music that not made with traditional musical instruments and voices then I would not agree. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you define non-acoustic music as music that was never
played into a performance space, then I would agree. If you define non-acoustic music as music that not made with traditional musical instruments and voices then I would not agree. Rock music played over a huge PA system is not, to my mind, acoustic music. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... jeffc wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Given that SP subscriptions are cheap, I may subscribe again eventually. It's a catch 22. Magazines that charge very low prices for subscriptions do so for one reason - to get higher circulation. Do you really think they can hire a staff of expert, objective reviewers, print a glossy magazine, and mail it to your house for $1 each month? Ha! Of course not. All their money comes from ads. Higher circulation = more ad money. More ad money means less objective reviews. Less objective reviews means less circulation, unless they lower the cost. etc., until they pay you to take the magazine, at which point it becomes beyond worthless. IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the manufacturers. Period. I don't have the opportunity to read Stereophile, as I live on the other side of the world, but generally speaking, magazines on any topic are only as good as their readership demands them to be. If you are not satisfied, then a letter to the editor is the best solution. Any editor who receives letters from dis-satisfied readers in large numbers will certainly not ignore them. But, an editor who receives little or no feedback will assume that the readers are happy with the magazine, as long as circulation figures are maintained. Iain |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The problem with Stereophile, in a nutshell | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| CLC: More | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
Hybrid Mode
