In article ,
fathom wrote:

I find myself spending less and less time on each issue. Down
to about 5 minutes now. Maybe I've just outgrown it, but I used
to read every word. There's just something perverse about a
bunch of paunchy old white guys spewing endlessly about $38,000
turntables. Maybe twice a year they write about something I'm
actually interested in.

The thing is, I'm probably the ideal subscriber - I can afford
to buy a $38k turntable if I want one. I don't want one.

That's too bad. I thought June was more entertaining than usual, what
with the Linn universal player (everything but HDCD) and the Fisher
receiver both getting review space as well as the ongoing interest in
inexpensive speakers extending to a "big box" brand, Infinity.

OTOH, I had to disagree with the review of Fleming's crossover recording.

Stephen

fathom wrote, of Stereophile:

old white guys spewing endlessly about $38,000
turntables. Maybe twice a year they write about something I'm
actually interested in.


If the paper they print it on were more absorbent, it might come close
to being worth the $1 per issue subscription price. But as it stands,
it is just more junk mail and fodder for the recycling bin.

fathom a écrit :

I find myself spending less and less time on each issue. Down
to about 5 minutes now. Maybe I've just outgrown it, but I used
to read every word. There's just something perverse about a
bunch of paunchy old white guys spewing endlessly about $38,000
turntables.

I have read *every* word of the above.
Perhaps this means that Blacks haven't The Golden Ears so
they have no chance for the High-End audio.
This is the Whites' revenge. The 100 meters sprint for the
Blacks the refinement of the audio for the Whites.
Ooops, did you write "perverse" ?



Maybe twice a year they write about something I'm
actually interested in.

The thing is, I'm probably the ideal subscriber - I can afford
to buy a $38k turntable if I want one. I don't want one.

May we understand that you don't suffer class envy ? ;-)

Lionel said:

I have read *every* word of the above.
Perhaps this means that Blacks haven't The Golden Ears so
they have no chance for the High-End audio.
This is the Whites' revenge. The 100 meters sprint for the
Blacks the refinement of the audio for the Whites.
Ooops, did you write "perverse" ?


Perhaps, but this doesn't explain the existence of "Black Gate"
capacitors, and their huge popularity among tube-o-philes.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Sander deWaal a écrit :
Lionel said:


I have read *every* word of the above.
Perhaps this means that Blacks haven't The Golden Ears so
they have no chance for the High-End audio.
This is the Whites' revenge. The 100 meters sprint for the
Blacks the refinement of the audio for the Whites.
Ooops, did you write "perverse" ?



Perhaps, but this doesn't explain the existence of "Black Gate"
capacitors, and their huge popularity among tube-o-philes.

It is very important to have a Black in a hidden nook to
regulate the tensions.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
fathom wrote:

I find myself spending less and less time on each issue. Down
to about 5 minutes now. Maybe I've just outgrown it, but I used
to read every word. There's just something perverse about a
bunch of paunchy old white guys spewing endlessly about $38,000
turntables. Maybe twice a year they write about something I'm
actually interested in.

The thing is, I'm probably the ideal subscriber - I can afford
to buy a $38k turntable if I want one. I don't want one.

That's too bad. I thought June was more entertaining than usual, what
with the Linn universal player (everything but HDCD) and the Fisher
receiver both getting review space as well as the ongoing interest in
inexpensive speakers extending to a "big box" brand, Infinity.

OTOH, I had to disagree with the review of Fleming's crossover recording.

Stephen

Hi guys,

What did Fremer say about the Nottingham? Yet another new reference
standard? :-)
FYI, a gentleman in Houston has both the Rockport Sirius III and the SME
30/2 and when compared side by side, it is easy to see that Fremer's reviews
are not accurate. Perhaps it is the changes in his room, setup or speakers
over time. Perhaps it is his incompetence. Perhaps it is both.

Cheers,

Margaret

Margaret von B. wrote, of Stereophile:


snipped

it is easy to see that Fremer's reviews
are not accurate.


An unstable looney-tune writes reviews that "are not accurate". I'm
shocked, shocked!! ;-)

fathom wrote:
I find myself spending less and less time on each issue. Down
to about 5 minutes now. Maybe I've just outgrown it, but I used
to read every word. There's just something perverse about a
bunch of paunchy old white guys spewing endlessly about $38,000
turntables.

That sort of stuff is irrelevant to me also. Even if I thought the
high-end gear was good enough to justify the prices, I'd never spend
that sort of money on it. I've got other priorities.

I've subscribed intermittently. I found the music reviews could be
pretty useful and I found some good music via those reviews.

I'm realizing as I write this that I haven't even flipped through SP at
a newsstand lately, so I guess that may me a measure of my disinterest.

Maybe twice a year they write about something I'm
actually interested in.

The thing is, I'm probably the ideal subscriber - I can afford
to buy a $38k turntable if I want one. I don't want one.

I got rid of my LPs many years ago. I suppose I could come up with $38k
if I had to, but I can't imagine buying any gadget at a price like
that.

Given that SP subscriptions are cheap, I may subscribe again
eventually. The only audio mag I subscribe to now is Sound & Vision,
which covers a broad range of audio and video topics these days. My
subscription to that ends this year and I haven't decided whether to
sign up again.

I occasionally buy What HiFi?, a UK magazine that covers a huge amount
of audio and video hardware and is available on larger US newsstands,
but my purchases of that have tapered off.

wrote in message
oups.com...


fathom wrote:
I find myself spending less and less time on each issue. Down
to about 5 minutes now. Maybe I've just outgrown it, but I used
to read every word. There's just something perverse about a
bunch of paunchy old white guys spewing endlessly about $38,000
turntables.

That sort of stuff is irrelevant to me also. Even if I thought the
high-end gear was good enough to justify the prices, I'd never spend
that sort of money on it. I've got other priorities.

I've subscribed intermittently. I found the music reviews could be
pretty useful and I found some good music via those reviews.


I much prefer John Atkinson's old gig, HFN&RR, for the music reviews. They
cover a much wider range of music. I really got bored with SP recommended
music despite the typically great technical quality of the recordings. SP
really needs some diversity in its staff to produce a more interesting and
provocative product. Whew, I almost got started there..... :-)

I'm realizing as I write this that I haven't even flipped through SP at
a newsstand lately, so I guess that may me a measure of my disinterest.

Maybe twice a year they write about something I'm
actually interested in.

The thing is, I'm probably the ideal subscriber - I can afford
to buy a $38k turntable if I want one. I don't want one.

I got rid of my LPs many years ago. I suppose I could come up with $38k
if I had to, but I can't imagine buying any gadget at a price like
that.


I buy that kind of stuff usually at around half price in functionally new
and cosmetically excellent to mint condition. That way additional
depreciation is minimal and the only real damage is the opportunity cost of
the capital involved. The only exception are phono cartridges. I consider
them too delicate to take a chance given the usually horrendous re-tip
costs. Of course one has to be very patient to do that but knowing a lot of
fellow audiophiles helps a lot. :-)

Given that SP subscriptions are cheap, I may subscribe again
eventually. The only audio mag I subscribe to now is Sound & Vision,
which covers a broad range of audio and video topics these days. My
subscription to that ends this year and I haven't decided whether to
sign up again.

I occasionally buy What HiFi?, a UK magazine that covers a huge amount
of audio and video hardware and is available on larger US newsstands,
but my purchases of that have tapered off.


I like their equipment group comparison tests that actually have winners and
losers -right or wrong- and clear statements of individual preferences. In
SP most everything is just "wonderful" in 25 different ways and when there
are comparisons, they're sometimes against equipment that was auditioned
several months prior. Darn, I'm getting started again....


Cheers,

Margaret

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 glassy 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.

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.

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.

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

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".

"Iain M Churches"

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,



** Then for Christ's sake shut the **** up.




........... Phil

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 ".

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".

Phil Allison a écrit :
"Iain M Churches"


IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some
time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.

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

** Then for Christ's sake shut the **** up.

.......... Phil

Phil you have no reason to be so rude with Iain.
He was just giving a opinion that I personnaly find correct. If your not
happy with what is writen in a magazine, just write a letter to the
editor to let him know. If nobody write to complain how would the editor
will know. And if people do write and nothing change in this magazine
just stop buying it. Magazine cannot live with publicity alone, they
need readers. If the readers go away so will the company that buy
publicity.

Regards

Jocelyn

"Jocelyn Major"

** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ??

Wanna try again with the actual post ??

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Iain M Churches"

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,


** Then for Christ's sake shut the **** up.



........... Phil


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

Middius, who has made you the authority about what normal
people do? Need I belabor how abnormal you are? Let's start
out with the fact that you are a purpose-built persona that
exists only on Usenet!

If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer
to tell you whether a system delivers it?

Yes, because people don't depend on reviewers to tell them
about the system or component(s) they have, they depend on
reviewers to tell them about some other system or
component(s) that they are interested in, but don't have
easy access to.

Iain M Churches wrote:

I don't have the opportunity to read Stereophile, as I
live on the
other side of the world...

I've always thought the UK was a lot more cosmopolitan than
that.

In article ,
"Margaret von B." wrote:

Hi guys,

What did Fremer say about the Nottingham? Yet another new reference
standard? :-)
FYI, a gentleman in Houston has both the Rockport Sirius III and the SME
30/2 and when compared side by side, it is easy to see that Fremer's reviews
are not accurate. Perhaps it is the changes in his room, setup or speakers
over time. Perhaps it is his incompetence. Perhaps it is both.

He wouldn't be the first audio expert who I've heard has an
idiosyncratic system. The usual culprit is too bright and/or too
detailed. The Nottingham? Some carping about the looks and build quality
("blob-soldered" cartridge pins), but he didn't like the sound: "soft,
indistinct"; the arm was not "lumpy, just kind of lazy." Odd, he didn't
mention what records he listened to. Anyway, he liked the Deco better
with the Graham arm: "elegant and deliberate, with an inviting underling
warmth" but "sluggish and overdamped" and with "a slight honey
coating..."

For those intimately familiar with Bad Brains lps, some tracks on the
latest cd collection on Caroline were mastered on Fremer's analog rig
and could be a basis for comparison.

Stephen

"Arny Krueger"
Iain M Churches wrote:

I don't have the opportunity to read Stereophile, as I
live on the other side of the world...

I've always thought the UK was a lot more cosmopolitan than
that.



** Iain M Quarterwit lives permanently in a Twilight Zone on the other side
of some parallel universe populated with autistic alien cretins.





............... Phil

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.

"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.

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?

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

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

Iain,
Writing letters to the editor complaining about Stereophile is a sort of
a sport, and surprisingly, Atkinson publishes many of them.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:02:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:

I don't have the opportunity to read Stereophile, as I
live on the
other side of the world...

I've always thought the UK was a lot more cosmopolitan than
that.

But Finland is probably not so "cosmopolitan"...

wrote:
IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some
time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.


IMO, most "electronic related" magazines are not what they used to be
pre 1980. They are all dumbed down for observers and not doers, and
foster a culture of end-users as opposed to true amateurs (lovers of
the hobby). I think it stems from the fact that the American male,
(with the exception of folks on groups like this), are no longer
do-it-yourselfers. By the time I was 7 I already knew how to square a
board, solder a wire, drill a hole, dismantle a 5 tube radio, etc.
Today boys grow up playing and watching video and not building or
dismantleing equipment. They get no feel for how things work, they
just see the output. I remember when every issue of Popular Science
had an electronic project to build, and when hi-fi magazines regularly
had speaker projects, or pre-amp projects, or whatever. Stereophile is
a classic case of this dumbing down effect, a magazine run by marketers
for folks with lots of money who couldnt fix a lamp cord and regularly
cross-thread their toothpaste caps. You know a good magazine by how
long it takes you to read it, when my Stereophile arrives I'm usually
done with it in 7 minutes, same old dribble over and over. When my
copy of Circuit Cellar arrives I'm with it all month because of it's
depth. When I did'nt renew my last Stereophile subscription they just
extended it for free, they must be desparate to keep their subsription
numbers up.

RickH wrote:


snipped


When I did'nt renew my last Stereophile subscription they just
extended it for free, they must be desparate to keep their subsription
numbers up.


That's it.....Stereophile has crossed over into "junk mail" status. I
wonder if these guys know of this:

http://www.accessabc.com/

IOW, is Atkinson scamming the advertisers as well as the readers? Does
unpaid circulation count?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:02:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:

I don't have the opportunity to read Stereophile, as I
live on the
other side of the world...

I've always thought the UK was a lot more cosmopolitan than
that.

But Finland is probably not so "cosmopolitan"...

Or perhaps more so:-)
In addition to the English language mags, we also have
Swedish, German, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish and
even Russian periodicals which are probably not
available in the US or the UK.

Having heard so much about Stereophile, I would
certainly like to see a copy.

Iain

On 17 Jun 2005 08:13:24 -0700, "RickH"
wrote:

wrote:
IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some
time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.


IMO, most "electronic related" magazines are not what they used to be
pre 1980. They are all dumbed down for observers and not doers, and
foster a culture of end-users as opposed to true amateurs (lovers of
the hobby). I think it stems from the fact that the American male,
(with the exception of folks on groups like this), are no longer
do-it-yourselfers. By the time I was 7 I already knew how to square a
board, solder a wire, drill a hole, dismantle a 5 tube radio, etc.
Today boys grow up playing and watching video and not building or
dismantleing equipment. They get no feel for how things work, they
just see the output. I remember when every issue of Popular Science
had an electronic project to build, and when hi-fi magazines regularly
had speaker projects, or pre-amp projects, or whatever. Stereophile is
a classic case of this dumbing down effect, a magazine run by marketers
for folks with lots of money who couldnt fix a lamp cord and regularly
cross-thread their toothpaste caps. You know a good magazine by how
long it takes you to read it, when my Stereophile arrives I'm usually
done with it in 7 minutes, same old dribble over and over. When my
copy of Circuit Cellar arrives I'm with it all month because of it's
depth. When I did'nt renew my last Stereophile subscription they just
extended it for free, they must be desparate to keep their subsription
numbers up.

All of this is just a sign of the times. You can thank microprcessors
and convenience for the "dumbing down" effect. You can thank the
"black box" aspect of audio these days. I think it's supposed to be
called "progress". For bench hobbyists, there are still specialty
low-circulation mags like Circuit Cellar And Vacuum Tube Valley that
they can subscribe to.

I think that you are feeling nostalgia for your youth, when in
actuality, things are quite different now and the mass market 'zines
have evoloved to meet the needs of the 21st century.

Nothing wrong with being nostalgic, mind you. However, I think that
you were in the minority, even in those days. And you still have
options to fill your need. Obviously, you don't have any use for a
review-type magazine, which is cool.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

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

Iain,
Writing letters to the editor complaining about Stereophile is a sort
of
a sport, and surprisingly, Atkinson publishes many of them.

Robert,
Why is that surprising? I see it as an open approach, which few
editors would choose to follow. Have the readers ever told the
magazine what they would like/expect it to be?
It is clear that no magazine can please everyone.

Iain

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:40:18 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:02:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:

I don't have the opportunity to read Stereophile, as I
live on the
other side of the world...

I've always thought the UK was a lot more cosmopolitan than
that.

But Finland is probably not so "cosmopolitan"...

Or perhaps more so:-)

That's why I put the word in parentheses g.

For Arnold, I suspect that cosmopolitan means more strip malls and the
abillity to get a Starbucks' coffee.

Of course, he can't even read headers these days and his
internet/computer expertise seems to be limited to throwing some
boards in a box and selling them door to door as "enterprise systems".

In addition to the English language mags, we also have
Swedish, German, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish and
even Russian periodicals which are probably not
available in the US or the UK.

You even have a reindeer or two.

dave weil wrote:

All of this is just a sign of the times. You can thank microprcessors
and convenience for the "dumbing down" effect. You can thank the
"black box" aspect of audio these days. I think it's supposed to be
called "progress". For bench hobbyists, there are still specialty
low-circulation mags like Circuit Cellar And Vacuum Tube Valley that
they can subscribe to.

I don't at all! Microprocessors just give you more great opportunities
for homebrewing! The amount of stuff that you can pack inside a little
box with an 8051 in there is amazing, and it doesn't take much more than
a cheap PC and a ROM burner to do it. We even have things like the BASIC
Stamp which allow you to homebrew your own microcontroller-based devices
with debugging on the fly and hardly any external equipment. Fifty bucks
and a PC with Hyperterminal and you're on your way to building some amazing
stuff.

Modern ASICs are even more fun! One guy with a 486 machine from the
thrift store can layout enormously complex digital circuits. Hell, you
could make your own microprocessor on an inexpensive FPGA today.

We won't even talk about some of the wonderful stuff you can do with
modern linear components for hardly any money. There is some stuff
in a typical junked VCR that I'd have given my eyeteeth for as a kid.

I think that you are feeling nostalgia for your youth, when in
actuality, things are quite different now and the mass market 'zines
have evoloved to meet the needs of the 21st century.

I am not nostalgic, I am peeved. Modern technology has made homebrewing
easier and it has given us a huge set of powerful tools to make sophisticated
electronic systems on a low budget with hardly any infrastructure. If
anything, the DIY phenomenon should be taking off. But it's dying. Why?

Nothing wrong with being nostalgic, mind you. However, I think that
you were in the minority, even in those days. And you still have
options to fill your need. Obviously, you don't have any use for a
review-type magazine, which is cool.

I think that homebrew electronics is far less mainstream than it was
in the sixties and seventies. Hell, you don't even see kids building
up PCs from boards any more. We won't even talk about the death of
hotrodding.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:40:18 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:02:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:

I don't have the opportunity to read Stereophile, as I
live on the
other side of the world...

I've always thought the UK was a lot more cosmopolitan than
that.

But Finland is probably not so "cosmopolitan"...

Or perhaps more so:-)

That's why I put the word in parentheses g.

For Arnold, I suspect that cosmopolitan means more strip malls and the
abillity to get a Starbucks' coffee.


Perhaps he could be forgiven for thinking that
..fi stood for Finchley:-)

Of course, he can't even read headers these days and his
internet/computer expertise seems to be limited to throwing some
boards in a box and selling them door to door as "enterprise systems".

In addition to the English language mags, we also have
Swedish, German, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish and
even Russian periodicals which are probably not
available in the US or the UK.

You even have a reindeer or two.

And bears, and wolves, and pretty, blonde scantily-dressed
maidens. The last of these three being the most dangerous:-)

Iain

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 17 Jun 2005 08:13:24 -0700, "RickH"
wrote:

wrote:
IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some
time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.


IMO, most "electronic related" magazines are not what they used to be
pre 1980. They are all dumbed down for observers and not doers, and
foster a culture of end-users as opposed to true amateurs (lovers of
the hobby). I think it stems from the fact that the American male,
(with the exception of folks on groups like this), are no longer
do-it-yourselfers. By the time I was 7 I already knew how to square a
board, solder a wire, drill a hole, dismantle a 5 tube radio, etc.
Today boys grow up playing and watching video and not building or
dismantleing equipment. They get no feel for how things work, they
just see the output. I remember when every issue of Popular Science
had an electronic project to build, and when hi-fi magazines regularly
had speaker projects, or pre-amp projects, or whatever. Stereophile is
a classic case of this dumbing down effect, a magazine run by marketers
for folks with lots of money who couldnt fix a lamp cord and regularly
cross-thread their toothpaste caps. You know a good magazine by how
long it takes you to read it, when my Stereophile arrives I'm usually
done with it in 7 minutes, same old dribble over and over. When my
copy of Circuit Cellar arrives I'm with it all month because of it's
depth. When I did'nt renew my last Stereophile subscription they just
extended it for free, they must be desparate to keep their subsription
numbers up.

All of this is just a sign of the times. You can thank microprcessors
and convenience for the "dumbing down" effect. You can thank the
"black box" aspect of audio these days. I think it's supposed to be
called "progress". For bench hobbyists, there are still specialty
low-circulation mags like Circuit Cellar And Vacuum Tube Valley that
they can subscribe to.

I think that you are feeling nostalgia for your youth, when in
actuality, things are quite different now and the mass market 'zines
have evoloved to meet the needs of the 21st century.

Nothing wrong with being nostalgic, mind you. However, I think that
you were in the minority, even in those days. And you still have
options to fill your need. Obviously, you don't have any use for a
review-type magazine, which is cool.

You are right, Dave. Things have changed, even nostalgia is not
what it used to be:-)

Iain

wrote:

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 know it for a fact but I'm inclined to believe you.

IMHO all stereo mags are worthless pieces of waste paper designed to feed their
authors' egos. ( oh and to drive ad revenue ).

This really doesn't belong in rap - hence trimmed.

Graham

dave weil wrote:


snipped

Obviously, you don't have any use for a
review-type magazine, which is cool.


Not when it prints reviews meant not to inform, but to drive sales. :-(