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.

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.

"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. :-(

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.

No do-it-yourselfers? What about Home Depot, etc?

No audio do-it-yourselfers?

That's a bit more comples to explain.

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.

But, you didn't know how to dismantle a computer, because
there probably were no computers in your house to dismantle.

Modern kids are probably operating at the same level of
complexity that you did, but that complexity takes many
different forms.

Today boys grow up playing and watching video and not
building or
dismantleing equipment.

There have been more than a few paradigm shifts.

They get no feel for how things work, they just see the
output.

Just understanding the output can be a technical task.

I remember when every issue of Popular Science
had an electronic project to build,

Actually several projects, maybe 1-2 major ones, 2-3 minor
ones and then a bunch of trivial ones.

and when hi-fi magazines regularly had speaker projects,
or pre-amp projects, or whatever.

Home construction of audio gear started out with practical,
mostly economic justifications. Low-cost overseas production
of finished products elimianted quite a bit of that. OTOH,
there's more complexity to hooking up the speakers in a 5.1
system then there was to building a 3-way speaker from my
boyhood days.

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.

So much for them.

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.

Blame that on authors like Fremer.

When my copy of Circuit Cellar arrives I'm with it all
month because of it's depth.

Fun!

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.

Intersting.

dave weil wrote:
options to fill your need. Obviously, you don't have any use for a
review-type magazine, which is cool.

I do read the ranting letters to the editor in it though. I think any
magazine that even mentions a tube is a good thing because it will
create a demand for quality current-production tubes, as NOS wont last
forever. Stereophile just needs to dedicate at least one article a
month to the amateurs (in the classic definition), and not just
consumers in the form of all subjective reviews.

"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

Iain M Churches wrote:
"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.

Note that Weil apparently can't tell the difference between
quotes and parenthesis.

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

One could apparently write a book about Weil's ignorance of
Grosse Pointe, Michigan, and US culture in general.

For openers, there can't be any strip malls in the city
where I live. They are simply illegal per the zoning laws.
There are no fast food drive-ins etc., same reason.

Secondly, the nicer strip malls contain shops like Barnes
and Nobles as well as Borders, who have fairly cosmopolitan
magazine stands including a goodly number of international
publications.

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

It's all that posting in a uk newsgroup and your name, Iain.

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".

As compared to Weil whose resturant-employer trusts him so
much that he's forbidden to access the cash register. Weil
is so ashamed of where he works he won't mention its name on
Usenet.

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.

Given that the Russians used to virtually own Finland, but
not the US or UK that's understandable.

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:-)

Only if you are afraid of girls... ;-)

On 17 Jun 2005 11:50:26 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

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.

That's just your inner geek talking. I wouldn't be surprised if the
same percentage of "consumers" are doing the same things that you are
talking about as built radios when you were growing up.

My best friend growing up was such a geek. His room always smelled
like solder. He was always building stuff and was always trying to
teach me about it and I learned a bit about it myself (yes, I built a
couple of kits in my time, mostly through his prodding). Yet, he was
about the only kid I knew who was into breadboarding. If anyone else
was into that sort of thing, it was regarding cars, not amplifiers.
His hobby served him well. He's now vice-president of engineering for
a leading communications company specializing in broadcast, wireless
and microwave techology. Previously, he was involved in satellite
technology. He has a few patents to his name. But he came by his hobby
in a way that most don't - his dad was a TV repairman.

Frankly, and this is an aesthetic consideration, there isn't as much
fascinating about plugging in little black boxes into a socket as
there is building point-to-point wiring with sockets holding glowing
glass bottles. And it's not nearly as lucrative as geeking out in the
computer industry.

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?

Because, the geeks have gone more toward the SOFTWARE side of things.
It's sexier and more lucrative, by a wide margin.

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.

Absolutely. That was my point. but I think you're still overestimating
the number of people who were heavily involved in it in the 60s and
70s. I'd say the vast majority of people interested in the hobby were
STILL just end users for all intents and purposes.

Hell, you don't even see kids building up PCs from boards any more.

Why should they? Their older bothers and sisters made it pretty much
unnecessary. In the late 50s and 60s, there was still an incentive to
build your own amplifier. Now, why bother? There are probably still a
few kids who "take apart VCRs" to see how they work. When they can
find one, that is chuckle.

We won't even talk about the death of
hotrodding.

I almost mentioned shadetree mechanics, but it's still a lot more
alive than you might suspect. There are LOTS of kids who are into
tricking out their compact cars and turning them into pocket rockets.
But it IS very difficult to do many of the things to new cars, since
they aren't very user-friendly these days. It's all "plug 'n play
these days.

Hey, it's guys like Ferstler that are probably loving the fact that
everything is black boxes these days. After all, how many of you guys
built toasters when you were growing up?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:54:21 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

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

Don't I know it.

I saw Cheap Trick the other day for the first time in 25 years and
they only played an hour g.

They ROCKED though! I guess I'm spoiled since most artists I seem to
see these days play close to 2 hours, if not more.

On 17 Jun 2005 09:03:38 -0700, "RickH"
wrote:



dave weil wrote:
options to fill your need. Obviously, you don't have any use for a
review-type magazine, which is cool.

I do read the ranting letters to the editor in it though. I think any
magazine that even mentions a tube is a good thing because it will
create a demand for quality current-production tubes, as NOS wont last
forever. Stereophile just needs to dedicate at least one article a
month to the amateurs (in the classic definition), and not just
consumers in the form of all subjective reviews.

That isn't a bad idea. It's probably harder to find good topics for
such an article than in the old days though.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:12:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Note that Weil apparently can't tell the difference between
quotes and parenthesis.

So stipulated. But I'd note that you can't tell the difference between
the singular and plural form of the word parenthesis.

I guess that makes us even.

Phil Allison a écrit :
"Jocelyn Major"

** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ??
???? I simply don't understand what is your problem.
I simply put back the text that *you* remove from Iain M Churches before
posting to make thing in the "correct" perpective.
Did you remove parts of Iain M Churches post simply to have a reason to
blast him?
Also what give *you* the right to remove part of Iain's post before
being rude with him?
Wanna try again with the actual post ??
Yes without any problem
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"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

Here is my text again!

Phil you *still* have no reason to be so rude with Iain (or anybody else).
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.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it disturbing that on some newsgroup so many people are so quick
to either insult or give unneccessary rude comment. Why is it so
difficult for some to act like civilized people.

Iain simply said that he "did'nt have the opportunity to read
Stereophile" so what? But he also give a good point about readershio
that you simply did'nt include in your post just to be able to tell him
to shut the **** up. You where simply rude and unfear.

It is something that I see way to often. Because some people do not see
the other people they are writing they simply forget to be courteous.
Would you have said the same word to Iain if it was sitting next to you?

I don't think it is too difficult to be courteous with other. It is
simply what our parents teach us when we where young. I hope that you
did'nt forget? I am not blasting you, I never will. I simply tell you
that you where being unneccessary rude.

Regards

Jocelyn

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:12:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:
"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.

Note that Weil apparently can't tell the difference between
quotes and parenthesis.

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

One could apparently write a book about Weil's ignorance of
Grosse Pointe, Michigan, and US culture in general.

I see. Apparently, Arnold can't move outside his immediate community.
However, in the next sentence, he proves that this is a lie.

For openers, there can't be any strip malls in the city
where I live. They are simply illegal per the zoning laws.
There are no fast food drive-ins etc., same reason.

http://www.yourtownhost.com/thevillagegp/index.html

Secondly, the nicer strip malls contain shops like Barnes
and Nobles as well as Borders, who have fairly cosmopolitan
magazine stands including a goodly number of international
publications.

Hmmmm, so now he's been proven to be a liar. Apparently there ARE
strip malls in Grosse Pointe.

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

It's all that posting in a uk newsgroup and your name, Iain.

Well, YOU post in those newsgroups. Does that make YOU a resident of
the UK? Does your name indicate that you live in Hamburg?

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".

As compared to Weil whose resturant-employer trusts him so
much that he's forbidden to access the cash register. Weil
is so ashamed of where he works he won't mention its name on
Usenet.

I DON'T mention its name on Usenet because I don't have the right to
involve my co-workers' privacy in my commentary. Of course, you don't
mind posting your wife's work number on Usenet, so apparently, you
don't have a problem with it. That's your choice and you're welcome to
it. But my choice has nothing to do with being "ashamed". It's funny
though - you're the one always complaning about "mindreading" and here
you are doing it yet again.

But it's nice to know that you don't dispute the fact that you can't
read headers and that your 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.

Given that the Russians used to virtually own Finland, but
not the US or UK that's understandable.

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:-)

Only if you are afraid of girls... ;-)

"RickH" wrote in message
oups.com...


dave weil wrote:
options to fill your need. Obviously, you don't have any use for a
review-type magazine, which is cool.

I do read the ranting letters to the editor in it though. I think any
magazine that even mentions a tube is a good thing because it will
create a demand for quality current-production tubes, as NOS wont last
forever. Stereophile just needs to dedicate at least one article a
month to the amateurs (in the classic definition), and not just
consumers in the form of all subjective reviews.


Now we are getting the-)

Iain

On 17 Jun 2005 12:31:29 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On 17 Jun 2005 11:50:26 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
talking about as built radios when you were growing up.

My best friend growing up was such a geek. His room always smelled
like solder. He was always building stuff and was always trying to
teach me about it and I learned a bit about it myself (yes, I built a
couple of kits in my time, mostly through his prodding). Yet, he was
about the only kid I knew who was into breadboarding. If anyone else
was into that sort of thing, it was regarding cars, not amplifiers.

That's the same philosophy, though. Go to your local hotrod shop,
and you'll see a lot of bolt-on gewgaws and not many kids actually
making engine modifications.

That's because the manufacturers have made it either difficult or
unnecessary. Most of the stuff that kids do now is rechipping, chaning
bolt-on exhaust systems, tweaking intake systems and the like. Some
adventurous ones are swapping out cams and boring out cylinders, but
they're in the minority. Engines are already pretty efficient these
days.

It's another symptom of the same disease.

IT'S NOT A DISEASE. It's a reflection on the state of refinement
already present. One would think that you'd be happy about this, since
it's the natural evolution of the work that you guys did in the 50s
and 60s.

For a long time, consumer electronics were expensive, and you could save
money with kits or homebrew gagets. That's no longer the case,

I think you're starting to get it.

and I think that has done a lot to take homebrewing out of the mainstream.
Heathkit sold a lot of kits to a lot of kids and a lot of adults who
were not as serious as your friend, but wanted to build something.

But there's little need now. And yet, people are still going into
engineering and developments are still being made. In the old days,
this breadboarding was the entree into the field. If the industry were
dying because of a lack of interest in the field due to the lack of
exposure to building kits, I'd sympathize with your position. But it
doesn't seem to be the case.

Frankly, and this is an aesthetic consideration, there isn't as much
fascinating about plugging in little black boxes into a socket as
there is building point-to-point wiring with sockets holding glowing
glass bottles. And it's not nearly as lucrative as geeking out in the
computer industry.

From my perspective, it's all the same thing.

Well, not everyone is excited about plugging in little black black
boxes.

And the computer world
is one of the OTHER places where homebrewing used to be popular and
no longer is.

That's because it's not necessary. Even overclocking isn't done very
much these days because commercial machines have made it not so
necessary.

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?

Because, the geeks have gone more toward the SOFTWARE side of things.
It's sexier and more lucrative, by a wide margin.

That's true, there is still a large homebrew software community. It's
not as mainstream a thing as it used to be either, though. Today you
buy a Windows machine and it comes with NO programming interface of any
sort. Not even a BASIC interpreter.

Once again, wouldn't you call this progress? Windows XP seems to be
pretty stable and even troubleshooting it is a fading source of
articles in the 'zines. Personally, I'm happy about that. I don't need
lots of 3rd party stuff and I don't have to spend a lot of time with
crashes. Perhaps this isn't good for the computer industry in general
because support programs don't seem to be as necessary, but there are
always needs to be met, and I'm sure that companies will adapt.

Absolutely. That was my point. but I think you're still overestimating
the number of people who were heavily involved in it in the 60s and
70s. I'd say the vast majority of people interested in the hobby were
STILL just end users for all intents and purposes.

That's fine. People building Heathkits are in a very different league
from people designing their own gear with surplus parts from hamfests,
but without one, you won't get the other.

And yet, new and improved gear seems to hit the market all the time.
There doesn't seem to be a surfeit of good engineers. Perhaps they're
designing themselves out of a job though g. They've certainly
engineered the "fun" out of the hobby that you miss though since
they've made it less and less necessary for hobbyists to need the
hands-on stuff.

Hey, it's guys like Ferstler that are probably loving the fact that
everything is black boxes these days. After all, how many of you guys
built toasters when you were growing up?

I made toast on an 833 tube once, does that count?

As much as me toasting a KT99A in one of my Dynaco MK3s.