I've been a Stereophile hater, then a Stereophile admirer, then a selective
critic of a magazine that many credit as a strong contributor to the growth
of the high end market. At the same time that I've bemoaned the flaws I've
seen, I have become an admirer of John Atkinson's technical reviews,
although they sometimes appear disconnected from the subjective review work.

With word that the magazine's circulation is declining, I have a regretful
feeling of portent, of what life might be like if one more hitching post
vanishes.

Stereophile has been attacked on a number of grounds. Among these
accusations a
1. Exclusion of equipment from review that is a better value than that which
receives reviews.
2. Favoritism.
3. Columnization about "tweaks" that some believe have zero, as opposed to
doubtful basis. Even by very liberal standards, it would appear that some
pseudoscience snuck into the magazine.

My own personal rant figures about #1. I am inclined to think that
Stereophile's exclusivity contributed, in the early 90's, to the
disappearance of some American-made, very utilitarian equipment from the
market. I regret the passing from the scene of the Hafler brick much more
than Swedish surgeon Forsell's dubious accomplishments in amplifier design.
The remarkable accomplishment of the Hafler DH-110 will never grace
Stereophile's pages, even though this all-discrete design is extremely
neutral

Likewise, Stereophile's extensive reviews of speaker wire never included a
comparison with triple runs of common zipcord.

But with all these possible facts in mind, the magazine, especially in it's
latter days when it was fat and well nourished, was a showcase of
technological innovation. Should Stereophile one day pass from the scene,
reproduction technology will lose it's most important venue.

In my opinion, Atkinson's mistake was to underestimate his influence. He
never really understood how pivotal his magazine became. If he had, he might
have taken more care in making the editorial venue available to a wider
group of contributors.

But with influence come options. Unbeknownst to him, Atkinson had the
ability to perturb the vector of history -- not throw it off course
completely, but make it take a turn. In my opinion, his great mistake was to
put "home theater" in it's own magazine, and dumb it down. While a separate,
"dumber" magazine was commercially viable, Atkinson could have also
gradually introduced cutting-edge multichannel into his magazine -- without
video.

There IS high end multichannel sound, but there are very few products for
it. In most cases, multichannel sound systems are kludged together from
common consumer equipment. Ambisonics, Ambiophonics, etc., are seldom
practical in the pure form advocated by their practitioners, but with
emphasis, practical hybrids might be devised. And with Stereophile's
emphasis on quality, surround components might be better than they are
today.

The strategy Atkinson followed had some of the flaws of the Detroit
automakers in the 70's and 80's. Seeking to preserve their aging customer
base, they made no concessions to the stylistic and performance innovations
of imports. Their adherents aged out of the marketplace, and Detroit was
faced with a market collapse, from which they have never completely
recovered.

Personally, I love variety. I derive pleasure from both two channel and
multichannel listening experiences. A magazine that embraced both would be
my cup of tea.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
I've been a Stereophile hater, then a Stereophile admirer, then a
selective
critic of a magazine that many credit as a strong contributor to the
growth
of the high end market. At the same time that I've bemoaned the flaws I've
seen, I have become an admirer of John Atkinson's technical reviews,
although they sometimes appear disconnected from the subjective review
work.

With word that the magazine's circulation is declining, I have a regretful
feeling of portent, of what life might be like if one more hitching post
vanishes.

Stereophile has been attacked on a number of grounds. Among these
accusations a
1. Exclusion of equipment from review that is a better value than that
which
receives reviews.
2. Favoritism.
3. Columnization about "tweaks" that some believe have zero, as opposed to
doubtful basis. Even by very liberal standards, it would appear that some
pseudoscience snuck into the magazine.

My own personal rant figures about #1. I am inclined to think that
Stereophile's exclusivity contributed, in the early 90's, to the
disappearance of some American-made, very utilitarian equipment from the
market. I regret the passing from the scene of the Hafler brick much more
than Swedish surgeon Forsell's dubious accomplishments in amplifier
design.
The remarkable accomplishment of the Hafler DH-110 will never grace
Stereophile's pages, even though this all-discrete design is extremely
neutral

Likewise, Stereophile's extensive reviews of speaker wire never included a
comparison with triple runs of common zipcord.

But with all these possible facts in mind, the magazine, especially in
it's
latter days when it was fat and well nourished, was a showcase of
technological innovation. Should Stereophile one day pass from the scene,
reproduction technology will lose it's most important venue.

In my opinion, Atkinson's mistake was to underestimate his influence. He
never really understood how pivotal his magazine became. If he had, he
might
have taken more care in making the editorial venue available to a wider
group of contributors.

But with influence come options. Unbeknownst to him, Atkinson had the
ability to perturb the vector of history -- not throw it off course
completely, but make it take a turn. In my opinion, his great mistake was
to
put "home theater" in it's own magazine, and dumb it down. While a
separate,
"dumber" magazine was commercially viable, Atkinson could have also
gradually introduced cutting-edge multichannel into his magazine --
without
video.

There IS high end multichannel sound, but there are very few products for
it. In most cases, multichannel sound systems are kludged together from
common consumer equipment. Ambisonics, Ambiophonics, etc., are seldom
practical in the pure form advocated by their practitioners, but with
emphasis, practical hybrids might be devised. And with Stereophile's
emphasis on quality, surround components might be better than they are
today.

The strategy Atkinson followed had some of the flaws of the Detroit
automakers in the 70's and 80's. Seeking to preserve their aging customer
base, they made no concessions to the stylistic and performance
innovations
of imports. Their adherents aged out of the marketplace, and Detroit was
faced with a market collapse, from which they have never completely
recovered.

Personally, I love variety. I derive pleasure from both two channel and
multichannel listening experiences. A magazine that embraced both would be
my cup of tea.












Bob i agree with many of your points and i think they are well made.
One point you do not make, and i think is important, is that the condition
of Stereophile, and of high end in general, is partly due to a turn in
attention by the public to other entertainments.

i certainly agree that home theatre is dumbed down, but it is also
expensive. Computers, sat. TV, and other home electronics now compete for
attention and funds.

it is easy to get 'acceptable' sound from modern equipment, and this
equipment doesn't require maintenance the way our older stereo systems did.
For example, nobody needs to shop for new cartridges, stylus etc. and there
are very few new components to buy for 2 channel audio.

The few that remain dedicated to 2 channel cannot support as many
publications or manufacturers. I hope that Stereophile stays around for a
good long time. I wish them success.

Carl

Robert Morein wrote:

Stereophile has been attacked on a number of grounds. Among these
accusations a
1. Exclusion of equipment from review that is a better value than that which
receives reviews.

Correct.

2. Favoritism.

Also unfortunately correct. If it advertizes, they never say anything
bad about it. Even Bose, when tested to +/-12 db accuracy for their
was given a glowing review.

3. Columnization about "tweaks" that some believe have zero, as opposed to
doubtful basis. Even by very liberal standards, it would appear that some
pseudoscience snuck into the magazine.

Unfortunately, when you run out of science, and have a deadline and articles
to write, you make things up. This is all too true of most magazines like
this.

Robert Morein a écrit :
I've been a Stereophile hater, then a Stereophile admirer, then a selective
critic of a magazine that many credit as a strong contributor to the growth
of the high end market. At the same time that I've bemoaned the flaws I've
seen, I have become an admirer of John Atkinson's technical reviews,
although they sometimes appear disconnected from the subjective review work.

With word that the magazine's circulation is declining, I have a regretful
feeling of portent, of what life might be like if one more hitching post
vanishes.

Stereophile has been attacked on a number of grounds. Among these
accusations a
1. Exclusion of equipment from review that is a better value than that which
receives reviews.
2. Favoritism.
3. Columnization about "tweaks" that some believe have zero, as opposed to
doubtful basis. Even by very liberal standards, it would appear that some
pseudoscience snuck into the magazine.

My own personal rant figures about #1. I am inclined to think that
Stereophile's exclusivity contributed, in the early 90's, to the
disappearance of some American-made, very utilitarian equipment from the
market. I regret the passing from the scene of the Hafler brick much more
than Swedish surgeon Forsell's dubious accomplishments in amplifier design.
The remarkable accomplishment of the Hafler DH-110 will never grace
Stereophile's pages, even though this all-discrete design is extremely
neutral

Likewise, Stereophile's extensive reviews of speaker wire never included a
comparison with triple runs of common zipcord.

But with all these possible facts in mind, the magazine, especially in it's
latter days when it was fat and well nourished, was a showcase of
technological innovation. Should Stereophile one day pass from the scene,
reproduction technology will lose it's most important venue.

In my opinion, Atkinson's mistake was to underestimate his influence. He
never really understood how pivotal his magazine became. If he had, he might
have taken more care in making the editorial venue available to a wider
group of contributors.

But with influence come options. Unbeknownst to him, Atkinson had the
ability to perturb the vector of history -- not throw it off course
completely, but make it take a turn. In my opinion, his great mistake was to
put "home theater" in it's own magazine, and dumb it down. While a separate,
"dumber" magazine was commercially viable, Atkinson could have also
gradually introduced cutting-edge multichannel into his magazine -- without
video.

There IS high end multichannel sound, but there are very few products for
it. In most cases, multichannel sound systems are kludged together from
common consumer equipment. Ambisonics, Ambiophonics, etc., are seldom
practical in the pure form advocated by their practitioners, but with
emphasis, practical hybrids might be devised. And with Stereophile's
emphasis on quality, surround components might be better than they are
today.

The strategy Atkinson followed had some of the flaws of the Detroit
automakers in the 70's and 80's. Seeking to preserve their aging customer
base, they made no concessions to the stylistic and performance innovations
of imports. Their adherents aged out of the marketplace, and Detroit was
faced with a market collapse, from which they have never completely
recovered.

Personally, I love variety. I derive pleasure from both two channel and
multichannel listening experiences. A magazine that embraced both would be
my cup of tea.


Coming from you Bob it's an other way to say "I'm getting old..."

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein a écrit :
I've been a Stereophile hater, then a Stereophile admirer, then a
selective
critic of a magazine that many credit as a strong contributor to the
growth
of the high end market. At the same time that I've bemoaned the flaws
I've
seen, I have become an admirer of John Atkinson's technical reviews,
although they sometimes appear disconnected from the subjective review
work.

With word that the magazine's circulation is declining, I have a
regretful
feeling of portent, of what life might be like if one more hitching post
vanishes.

Stereophile has been attacked on a number of grounds. Among these
accusations a
1. Exclusion of equipment from review that is a better value than that
which
receives reviews.
2. Favoritism.
3. Columnization about "tweaks" that some believe have zero, as opposed
to
doubtful basis. Even by very liberal standards, it would appear that
some
pseudoscience snuck into the magazine.

My own personal rant figures about #1. I am inclined to think that
Stereophile's exclusivity contributed, in the early 90's, to the
disappearance of some American-made, very utilitarian equipment from the
market. I regret the passing from the scene of the Hafler brick much
more
than Swedish surgeon Forsell's dubious accomplishments in amplifier
design.
The remarkable accomplishment of the Hafler DH-110 will never grace
Stereophile's pages, even though this all-discrete design is extremely
neutral

Likewise, Stereophile's extensive reviews of speaker wire never included
a
comparison with triple runs of common zipcord.

But with all these possible facts in mind, the magazine, especially in
it's
latter days when it was fat and well nourished, was a showcase of
technological innovation. Should Stereophile one day pass from the
scene,
reproduction technology will lose it's most important venue.

In my opinion, Atkinson's mistake was to underestimate his influence. He
never really understood how pivotal his magazine became. If he had, he
might
have taken more care in making the editorial venue available to a wider
group of contributors.

But with influence come options. Unbeknownst to him, Atkinson had the
ability to perturb the vector of history -- not throw it off course
completely, but make it take a turn. In my opinion, his great mistake
was to
put "home theater" in it's own magazine, and dumb it down. While a
separate,
"dumber" magazine was commercially viable, Atkinson could have also
gradually introduced cutting-edge multichannel into his magazine --
without
video.

There IS high end multichannel sound, but there are very few products
for
it. In most cases, multichannel sound systems are kludged together from
common consumer equipment. Ambisonics, Ambiophonics, etc., are seldom
practical in the pure form advocated by their practitioners, but with
emphasis, practical hybrids might be devised. And with Stereophile's
emphasis on quality, surround components might be better than they are
today.

The strategy Atkinson followed had some of the flaws of the Detroit
automakers in the 70's and 80's. Seeking to preserve their aging
customer
base, they made no concessions to the stylistic and performance
innovations
of imports. Their adherents aged out of the marketplace, and Detroit was
faced with a market collapse, from which they have never completely
recovered.

Personally, I love variety. I derive pleasure from both two channel and
multichannel listening experiences. A magazine that embraced both would
be
my cup of tea.


Coming from you Bob it's an other way to say "I'm getting old..."

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

"cwvalle" wrote in message
.com...

Bob i agree with many of your points and i think they are well made.
One point you do not make, and i think is important, is that the condition
of Stereophile, and of high end in general, is partly due to a turn in
attention by the public to other entertainments.

i certainly agree that home theatre is dumbed down, but it is also
expensive. Computers, sat. TV, and other home electronics now compete for
attention and funds.

This is all true, and it is so accepted as an explanation that one could
argue that there is nothing Atkinson can do. The inevitable tide of history,
one might say.

John may accept this, but I say, if there's a game to be played, play it to
the end.
As currently composed, Stereophile is as comforting as a brandy snifter, a
refuge from a hard day's work at a high paying but emotionally unrewarding
job. Doctors, executives, etc., have been the backbone of the circulation
(John, correct me here, if you wish); people with enough disposable income
to be tempted by the pricey offerings contained therein.

The magazine almost deliberately excludes those with the "active impulse";
the desire to tinker; even if it means somewhat less than picking up a
soldering iron. The only elements that appealed to the tinkerer were the
"tweaks", ie., retail-packaged items, frequently of dubious worth, designed
to satisfy the impulse, without doing much good or much harm.

Conflict is almost completely absent from the magazine, except in the
letters to the editor. It's very civilized. Ironically, this newsgroup may
be a competitor, because those of us who "perform" here are vociferously
noisy.

The image of a successful magazine is considered the mark of high talent. As
an enterprise, Stereophile rose remarkably high, and that is all due to
John's successful craft and maintenance of the image. He's probably saying
to himself, "Bob, you think you're so smart, but I did it, and you're just a
Monday morning quarterback!"

And he's right.

Robert Morein said to La Salope:

Personally, I love variety. I derive pleasure from both two channel and
multichannel listening experiences. A magazine that embraced both would be
my cup of tea.

Coming from you Bob it's an other way to say "I'm getting old..."

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

Lionella will get back to you after she finishes her Kroo-cum gargle.

Robert Morein said:

The image of a successful magazine is considered the mark of high talent. As
an enterprise, Stereophile rose remarkably high, and that is all due to
John's successful craft and maintenance of the image. He's probably saying
to himself, "Bob, you think you're so smart, but I did it, and you're just a
Monday morning quarterback!"

And he's right.

Now imagine JA reacting to Krooger's spew.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"cwvalle" wrote in message
.com...

Bob i agree with many of your points and i think they are well made.
One point you do not make, and i think is important, is that the
condition
of Stereophile, and of high end in general, is partly due to a turn in
attention by the public to other entertainments.

i certainly agree that home theatre is dumbed down, but it is also
expensive. Computers, sat. TV, and other home electronics now compete
for
attention and funds.

This is all true, and it is so accepted as an explanation that one could
argue that there is nothing Atkinson can do. The inevitable tide of
history,
one might say.

John may accept this, but I say, if there's a game to be played, play it
to
the end.
As currently composed, Stereophile is as comforting as a brandy snifter, a
refuge from a hard day's work at a high paying but emotionally unrewarding
job. Doctors, executives, etc., have been the backbone of the circulation
(John, correct me here, if you wish); people with enough disposable income
to be tempted by the pricey offerings contained therein.

The magazine almost deliberately excludes those with the "active impulse";
the desire to tinker; even if it means somewhat less than picking up a
soldering iron. The only elements that appealed to the tinkerer were the
"tweaks", ie., retail-packaged items, frequently of dubious worth,
designed
to satisfy the impulse, without doing much good or much harm.

Conflict is almost completely absent from the magazine, except in the
letters to the editor. It's very civilized. Ironically, this newsgroup may
be a competitor, because those of us who "perform" here are vociferously
noisy.

The image of a successful magazine is considered the mark of high talent.
As
an enterprise, Stereophile rose remarkably high, and that is all due to
John's successful craft and maintenance of the image. He's probably saying
to himself, "Bob, you think you're so smart, but I did it, and you're just
a
Monday morning quarterback!"

And he's right.




I think JA is beyond name calling and would consider your points, well made
as they are. You know we do get tired, and he is successful. Perhaps it is
that. But really, since all of this stuff became consumer grade toss out
junk (I am refering to the consumer lines), much energy has left the field.
I remember when you could build a knight kit or a dynaco and feel as though
you had done something, but i think those days are gone. Still, there are
some tube kits, and some not so kits available, and I suppose Stereophile
could cover that area.

Hey Mr. Atkinson! Would you like me to write a series of pieces on
alternatives to manufactured goods?

Carl

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein said to La Salope:

Personally, I love variety. I derive pleasure from both two channel
and
multichannel listening experiences. A magazine that embraced both
would be
my cup of tea.

Coming from you Bob it's an other way to say "I'm getting old..."

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

Lionella will get back to you after she finishes her Kroo-cum gargle.





Bite it off for christ's sake Lion

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...
Robert Morein wrote:

Stereophile has been attacked on a number of grounds. Among these
accusations a
1. Exclusion of equipment from review that is a better value than that
which
receives reviews.

Correct.

2. Favoritism.

Also unfortunately correct. If it advertizes, they never say anything
bad about it. Even Bose, when tested to +/-12 db accuracy for their
was given a glowing review.

Please bear in mind that I stated that this was an allegation, not a fact. I
have a suspicion that the evaluations "bend" a little, but it may be more on
the basis of personal loyalty than financial ties. Atkinson has repeatedly
given examples that contradict the notion that there is a tie-in between
advertising and evaluation.

My own personal experience was with an Adcom MOSFET preamp designed by
Nelson Pass. I had one on loan for six weeks. The Stereophile review
accurately measured the ouput impedance as rather high, around 2000 ohms,
but contained calming words to the effect of "not to worry", presumably
because the distortion did not rise under load. I had this preamp driving 12
feet of cable. Although the distortion didn't go up, it was obvious that a
preamp with a 2000 output impedance couldn't drive all that cable. In this
case, I can imagine a personally excruciating dilemma with respect to
cautions. Although this preamp has balanced outputs, it should not be used
to drive an amp at the other end of the room. Under those circumstances, I
demonstrated to myself, via a level-matched loop, that the preamp did color
the sound, though not unpleasantly.

Conversely, Dick Shahinian's speakers, considered remarkable by some, never
graced Stereophile's pages, except as a retrospective. Should Mr. Atkinson
have been swayed by Shahinian's personal characteristics as a loud,
antagonistic, abusive, prejudiced, and extremely obese individual? I think
not.

John may accept this, but I say, if there's a game to be played, play it
to
the end.
As currently composed, Stereophile is as comforting as a brandy snifter, a
refuge from a hard day's work at a high paying but emotionally unrewarding
job. Doctors, executives, etc., have been the backbone of the circulation
(John, correct me here, if you wish); people with enough disposable income
to be tempted by the pricey offerings contained therein.

I'm not a professional... I'm a technician. I love music and reading more
than anything. I also love Stereophile for many reasons, but I don't take it
seriously as many others seem to. I passed the point of wanting to buy more
stereo stuff quite awhile back, but I still love what I have. Would I like
more/better/etc? Sure... who wouldn't. But even though I probably will not
buy as much stuff as I used to, I still love reading about this... it's a
*hobby* for crying-out-loud! People that talk about this stuff so seriously
really need to consider their priorities. And I'm not just talking about
Stereophile, but *any* activity not vital for life. The fact that people
would cancel a $12.97 subscription because of something they didn't like in
the magazine, or some other nuance, really amazes me! Why would you not want
to be challenged or read about someone elses opinion if you're going to be
so threatened by it?

The magazine almost deliberately excludes those with the "active impulse";
the desire to tinker; even if it means somewhat less than picking up a
soldering iron. The only elements that appealed to the tinkerer were the
"tweaks", ie., retail-packaged items, frequently of dubious worth,
designed
to satisfy the impulse, without doing much good or much harm.

Most tinkerers such as myself have had to give up the desire to tweak quite
a long time ago. I would love dearly to build a Heathkit now that I can
afford them (smile). However, I have never been drawn towards 'tweaks' as a
means to assuage my tinkering spirit. I only tinker in the 'common-sense'
domain. But again, I don't mind reading about what others are up to,
regardless of whether it would be something I'd do or not. You can always
turn the page if you want to!

Conflict is almost completely absent from the magazine, except in the
letters to the editor. It's very civilized. Ironically, this newsgroup may
be a competitor, because those of us who "perform" here are vociferously
noisy.

I always enjoy reading the letters to the editor and am quite saddened that
the number printed each month is going down. I would also like to see more
'conflict' between the editors and more music coverage (another area
seemingly in decline).

John

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
I've been a Stereophile hater, then a Stereophile admirer, then a
selective
critic of a magazine that many credit as a strong contributor to the
growth
of the high end market. At the same time that I've bemoaned the flaws I've
seen, I have become an admirer of John Atkinson's technical reviews,
although they sometimes appear disconnected from the subjective review
work.

With word that the magazine's circulation is declining, I have a regretful
feeling of portent, of what life might be like if one more hitching post
vanishes.

Stereophile has been attacked on a number of grounds. Among these
accusations a
1. Exclusion of equipment from review that is a better value than that
which
receives reviews.
2. Favoritism.
3. Columnization about "tweaks" that some believe have zero, as opposed to
doubtful basis. Even by very liberal standards, it would appear that some
pseudoscience snuck into the magazine.

Snuk in??? Hell, they threw open the doors long ago and welcomed it with
open arms.

My own personal rant figures about #1. I am inclined to think that
Stereophile's exclusivity contributed, in the early 90's, to the
disappearance of some American-made, very utilitarian equipment from the
market.

The best hi-fi equipment is still made here.

I regret the passing from the scene of the Hafler brick much more
than Swedish surgeon Forsell's dubious accomplishments in amplifier
design.
The remarkable accomplishment of the Hafler DH-110 will never grace
Stereophile's pages, even though this all-discrete design is extremely
neutral

As is most decent equipment.

Likewise, Stereophile's extensive reviews of speaker wire never included a
comparison with triple runs of common zipcord.

Well, DUH! That would mean exposing themselves as the fools they are for
ever saying that wire isn't wire.

But with all these possible facts in mind, the magazine, especially in
it's
latter days when it was fat and well nourished, was a showcase of
technological innovation. Should Stereophile one day pass from the scene,
reproduction technology will lose it's most important venue.

Bull****?

In my opinion, Atkinson's mistake was to underestimate his influence. He
never really understood how pivotal his magazine became. If he had, he
might
have taken more care in making the editorial venue available to a wider
group of contributors.

But with influence come options. Unbeknownst to him, Atkinson had the
ability to perturb the vector of history -- not throw it off course
completely, but make it take a turn. In my opinion, his great mistake was
to
put "home theater" in it's own magazine, and dumb it down. While a
separate,
"dumber" magazine was commercially viable, Atkinson could have also
gradually introduced cutting-edge multichannel into his magazine --
without
video.

There IS high end multichannel sound, but there are very few products for
it. In most cases, multichannel sound systems are kludged together from
common consumer equipment. Ambisonics, Ambiophonics, etc., are seldom
practical in the pure form advocated by their practitioners, but with
emphasis, practical hybrids might be devised. And with Stereophile's
emphasis on quality, surround components might be better than they are
today.

The strategy Atkinson followed had some of the flaws of the Detroit
automakers in the 70's and 80's. Seeking to preserve their aging customer
base, they made no concessions to the stylistic and performance
innovations
of imports. Their adherents aged out of the marketplace, and Detroit was
faced with a market collapse, from which they have never completely
recovered.

Personally, I love variety. I derive pleasure from both two channel and
multichannel listening experiences. A magazine that embraced both would be
my cup of tea.


Warning, Warning! Bad scientist alert!!!!!

"Robert Morein" wrote in message ...
With word that the magazine's circulation is declining...

This "word" is a lie, Mr. Morein, circulated by a corrupt, deceitful loser.
Please see the thread "Magazine Statistics" (with the latter word spelled
in a rather more fanciful manner) for the hard data.

But thanks for the comments. I may respond to some of them later.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
m...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
With word that the magazine's circulation is declining...

This "word" is a lie, Mr. Morein, circulated by a corrupt, deceitful
loser.
Please see the thread "Magazine Statistics" (with the latter word spelled
in a rather more fanciful manner) for the hard data.

But thanks for the comments. I may respond to some of them later.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John, I didn't mean to tweak your nose by repeating a lie.

Robert Morein a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein a écrit :

I've been a Stereophile hater, then a Stereophile admirer, then a

selective

critic of a magazine that many credit as a strong contributor to the

growth

of the high end market. At the same time that I've bemoaned the flaws

I've

seen, I have become an admirer of John Atkinson's technical reviews,
although they sometimes appear disconnected from the subjective review

work.

With word that the magazine's circulation is declining, I have a

regretful

feeling of portent, of what life might be like if one more hitching post
vanishes.

Stereophile has been attacked on a number of grounds. Among these
accusations a
1. Exclusion of equipment from review that is a better value than that

which

receives reviews.
2. Favoritism.
3. Columnization about "tweaks" that some believe have zero, as opposed

to

doubtful basis. Even by very liberal standards, it would appear that

some

pseudoscience snuck into the magazine.

My own personal rant figures about #1. I am inclined to think that
Stereophile's exclusivity contributed, in the early 90's, to the
disappearance of some American-made, very utilitarian equipment from the
market. I regret the passing from the scene of the Hafler brick much

more

than Swedish surgeon Forsell's dubious accomplishments in amplifier

design.

The remarkable accomplishment of the Hafler DH-110 will never grace
Stereophile's pages, even though this all-discrete design is extremely
neutral

Likewise, Stereophile's extensive reviews of speaker wire never included

a

comparison with triple runs of common zipcord.

But with all these possible facts in mind, the magazine, especially in

it's

latter days when it was fat and well nourished, was a showcase of
technological innovation. Should Stereophile one day pass from the

scene,

reproduction technology will lose it's most important venue.

In my opinion, Atkinson's mistake was to underestimate his influence. He
never really understood how pivotal his magazine became. If he had, he

might

have taken more care in making the editorial venue available to a wider
group of contributors.

But with influence come options. Unbeknownst to him, Atkinson had the
ability to perturb the vector of history -- not throw it off course
completely, but make it take a turn. In my opinion, his great mistake

was to

put "home theater" in it's own magazine, and dumb it down. While a

separate,

"dumber" magazine was commercially viable, Atkinson could have also
gradually introduced cutting-edge multichannel into his magazine --

without

video.

There IS high end multichannel sound, but there are very few products

for

it. In most cases, multichannel sound systems are kludged together from
common consumer equipment. Ambisonics, Ambiophonics, etc., are seldom
practical in the pure form advocated by their practitioners, but with
emphasis, practical hybrids might be devised. And with Stereophile's
emphasis on quality, surround components might be better than they are
today.

The strategy Atkinson followed had some of the flaws of the Detroit
automakers in the 70's and 80's. Seeking to preserve their aging

customer

base, they made no concessions to the stylistic and performance

innovations

of imports. Their adherents aged out of the marketplace, and Detroit was
faced with a market collapse, from which they have never completely
recovered.

Personally, I love variety. I derive pleasure from both two channel and
multichannel listening experiences. A magazine that embraced both would

be

my cup of tea.


Coming from you Bob it's an other way to say "I'm getting old..."


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


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

Joseph Oberlander wrote in
message hlink.net...
If it advertizes, they never say anything bad about it.

This is incorrect. As, for example, George Tice. Or Ricahrd Gray, or
any other number of advertisers...

Even Bose, when tested to +/-12 db accuracy for their
was given a glowing review.

As far as I am aware Bose has never advertised in Stereophile. The
last
Bose review in Stereophile was published in 1971 and is available in
the
free archives at www.stereophile.com.

A Bose speaker was reviewed a few years back in Stereophile Guide to
Home
Theater. The measurements were awful, the reviewer preferred a cheaper
PSB
system.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
m...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
With word that the magazine's circulation is declining...

This "word" is a lie, Mr. Morein, circulated by a corrupt, deceitful
loser.
Please see the thread "Magazine Statistics" (with the latter word spelled
in a rather more fanciful manner) for the hard data.

John, I didn't mean to tweak your nose by repeating a lie.

Not a problem. Yes, Stereophile's circ has declined slightly. With
the state of the economy over the past 3 years, the massive competition
for 2-channel audio from other leisure interests, the sucking sound as
flat-panel TVs use up people's disposable income in the past 9 months,
the lack of good new music, and even the fact that Americans work
longer hours now than they have for generations, are all factors that
a magazine like Stereophile has to cope with. It would be surprising
if Stereophile had not been affected.

But it does not mean that the magazine is about to go under, as Arny
Krueger has implied. BTW, I forgot to mention competition from the Web.
What is interesting in that respect is that www.stereophile.com now
has 200,000 unique visitors per month, many times that of the print
magazine. The demographics of those readers are also interesting, in
that they are younger than print readers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson a écrit :


the lack of good new music,

???????????????????????????????

John Atkinson a écrit :

But it does not mean that the magazine is about to go under, as Arny
Krueger has implied. BTW, I forgot to mention competition from the Web.
What is interesting in that respect is that www.stereophile.com now
has 200,000 unique visitors per month, many times that of the print
magazine. The demographics of those readers are also interesting, in
that they are younger than print readers.


I think that the web competition is the most important competition for
all magazines.
Your web readers are younger than print readers because young people are
turn to new media and older to traditional ones.

"cwvalle" wrote in message
m...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"cwvalle" wrote in message
.com...

Bob i agree with many of your points and i think they are well made.
One point you do not make, and i think is important, is that the
condition
of Stereophile, and of high end in general, is partly due to a turn in
attention by the public to other entertainments.

i certainly agree that home theatre is dumbed down, but it is also
expensive. Computers, sat. TV, and other home electronics now compete
for
attention and funds.

This is all true, and it is so accepted as an explanation that one could
argue that there is nothing Atkinson can do. The inevitable tide of
history,
one might say.

John may accept this, but I say, if there's a game to be played, play
it
to
the end.
As currently composed, Stereophile is as comforting as a brandy snifter,
a
refuge from a hard day's work at a high paying but emotionally
unrewarding
job. Doctors, executives, etc., have been the backbone of the
circulation
(John, correct me here, if you wish); people with enough disposable
income
to be tempted by the pricey offerings contained therein.

The magazine almost deliberately excludes those with the "active
impulse";
the desire to tinker; even if it means somewhat less than picking up a
soldering iron. The only elements that appealed to the tinkerer were the
"tweaks", ie., retail-packaged items, frequently of dubious worth,
designed
to satisfy the impulse, without doing much good or much harm.

Conflict is almost completely absent from the magazine, except in the
letters to the editor. It's very civilized. Ironically, this newsgroup
may
be a competitor, because those of us who "perform" here are vociferously
noisy.

The image of a successful magazine is considered the mark of high
talent.
As
an enterprise, Stereophile rose remarkably high, and that is all due to
John's successful craft and maintenance of the image. He's probably
saying
to himself, "Bob, you think you're so smart, but I did it, and you're
just
a
Monday morning quarterback!"

And he's right.




I think JA is beyond name calling and would consider your points, well
made
as they are. You know we do get tired, and he is successful. Perhaps it is
that. But really, since all of this stuff became consumer grade toss out
junk (I am refering to the consumer lines), much energy has left the
field.
I remember when you could build a knight kit or a dynaco and feel as
though
you had done something, but i think those days are gone. Still, there are
some tube kits, and some not so kits available, and I suppose Stereophile
could cover that area.

Hey Mr. Atkinson! Would you like me to write a series of pieces on
alternatives to manufactured goods?

Carl




sadly, both the magazines Byte and Wireless World, died in 1986........
they both left the scene of enquiring minds , and became Advertisers glossy
rags.
regards malcolm

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein a écrit :

I've been a Stereophile hater, then a Stereophile admirer, then a

selective

critic of a magazine that many credit as a strong contributor to the

growth

of the high end market. At the same time that I've bemoaned the flaws

I've

seen, I have become an admirer of John Atkinson's technical reviews,
although they sometimes appear disconnected from the subjective review

work.

With word that the magazine's circulation is declining, I have a

regretful

feeling of portent, of what life might be like if one more hitching
post
vanishes.

Stereophile has been attacked on a number of grounds. Among these
accusations a
1. Exclusion of equipment from review that is a better value than that

which

receives reviews.
2. Favoritism.
3. Columnization about "tweaks" that some believe have zero, as opposed

to

doubtful basis. Even by very liberal standards, it would appear that

some

pseudoscience snuck into the magazine.

My own personal rant figures about #1. I am inclined to think that
Stereophile's exclusivity contributed, in the early 90's, to the
disappearance of some American-made, very utilitarian equipment from
the
market. I regret the passing from the scene of the Hafler brick much

more

than Swedish surgeon Forsell's dubious accomplishments in amplifier

design.

The remarkable accomplishment of the Hafler DH-110 will never grace
Stereophile's pages, even though this all-discrete design is extremely
neutral

Likewise, Stereophile's extensive reviews of speaker wire never
included

a

comparison with triple runs of common zipcord.

But with all these possible facts in mind, the magazine, especially in

it's

latter days when it was fat and well nourished, was a showcase of
technological innovation. Should Stereophile one day pass from the

scene,

reproduction technology will lose it's most important venue.

In my opinion, Atkinson's mistake was to underestimate his influence.
He
never really understood how pivotal his magazine became. If he had, he

might

have taken more care in making the editorial venue available to a wider
group of contributors.

But with influence come options. Unbeknownst to him, Atkinson had the
ability to perturb the vector of history -- not throw it off course
completely, but make it take a turn. In my opinion, his great mistake

was to

put "home theater" in it's own magazine, and dumb it down. While a

separate,

"dumber" magazine was commercially viable, Atkinson could have also
gradually introduced cutting-edge multichannel into his magazine --

without

video.

There IS high end multichannel sound, but there are very few products

for

it. In most cases, multichannel sound systems are kludged together from
common consumer equipment. Ambisonics, Ambiophonics, etc., are seldom
practical in the pure form advocated by their practitioners, but with
emphasis, practical hybrids might be devised. And with Stereophile's
emphasis on quality, surround components might be better than they are
today.

The strategy Atkinson followed had some of the flaws of the Detroit
automakers in the 70's and 80's. Seeking to preserve their aging

customer

base, they made no concessions to the stylistic and performance

innovations

of imports. Their adherents aged out of the marketplace, and Detroit
was
faced with a market collapse, from which they have never completely
recovered.

Personally, I love variety. I derive pleasure from both two channel and
multichannel listening experiences. A magazine that embraced both would

be

my cup of tea.


Coming from you Bob it's an other way to say "I'm getting old..."


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


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

You speak French? I thought you were American .

"malcolm", YACA, said:

sadly, both the magazines Byte and Wireless World, died in 1986........
they both left the scene of enquiring minds , and became Advertisers glossy
rags.

Why aren't you kissing Krooger's ass about that?

John Atkinson wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote in
message hlink.net...

If it advertizes, they never say anything bad about it.


This is incorrect. As, for example, George Tice. Or Ricahrd Gray, or
any other number of advertisers...


A Bose speaker was reviewed a few years back in Stereophile Guide to
Home
Theater. The measurements were awful, the reviewer preferred a cheaper
PSB
system.

That's the review I was referring to. While they preferred the
other system, they hardly said ANYTHING bad about the glaring
problems with the Bose speakers. Typical of most magazines today.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


"malcolm", YACA, said:

sadly, both the magazines Byte and Wireless World, died in 1986........
they both left the scene of enquiring minds , and became Advertisers
glossy
rags.

Why aren't you kissing Krooger's ass about that?




that would leave nothing for you to do

Another escapee from the Hive's Special Ed ward reveals himself.

Why aren't you kissing Krooger's ass about that?

that would leave nothing for you to do

Get things backwards much, do you?







This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


"malcolm", YACA, said:

sadly, both the magazines Byte and Wireless World, died in 1986........
they both left the scene of enquiring minds , and became Advertisers
glossy
rags.

Why aren't you kissing Krooger's ass about that?




He has the courage to have a real name, website, and email addy,

not hide behind fake name and email.

always doubt somebody who hides in the shadows.........

"malcolm", YACA, said:

sadly, both the magazines Byte and Wireless World, died in 1986........
they both left the scene of enquiring minds , and became Advertisers glossy
rags.

Why aren't you kissing Krooger's ass about that?

He has the courage to have a real name, website, and email addy,
not hide behind fake name and email.

Oh, so you want to compare yourself to Krooger.

always doubt somebody who hides in the shadows.........

What is your name? Mine is George. Why do you imply your email address
is fake? It looks as real as mine.

The larger question, which you conveniently duck, is that the
universally accepted RAO touchstone is that Krooger is insane. The
corollary is -- and pay attention here -- anybody who gives aid and
comfort to Krooger is probably insane also. If not insane, there are a
few documented cases of individuals who believe that furthering their
side of some futile "audio debate" is so important, it doesn't matter
that they have to team up with ****-for-Brains.

So far those are the only two types of posters who don't recoil in
horror at the realization of what Krooger is. Which are you?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


"malcolm", YACA, said:

sadly, both the magazines Byte and Wireless World, died in
1986........
they both left the scene of enquiring minds , and became Advertisers
glossy
rags.

Why aren't you kissing Krooger's ass about that?

because I mentioned those publications first here, not him.

He has the courage to have a real name, website, and email addy,
not hide behind fake name and email.

Oh, so you want to compare yourself to Krooger.

I compare myself to myself, nobody else, ask the fools who used to fish with
me.


always doubt somebody who hides in the shadows.........

What is your name? Mine is George. Why do you imply your email address
is fake? It looks as real as mine.

malcolm as my properties says.

ditto for my email just delete the NOSPAM etc


The larger question, which you conveniently duck, is that the
universally accepted RAO touchstone is that Krooger is insane. The
corollary is -- and pay attention here -- anybody who gives aid and
comfort to Krooger is probably insane also. If not insane, there are a
few documented cases of individuals who believe that furthering their
side of some futile "audio debate" is so important, it doesn't matter
that they have to team up with ****-for-Brains.

can you prove that said individual is insane?
just because a person doesnt toe the party line, is that proof?
I suppose it was in the old Soviet Union, now the RAO

I havent seen any evidence so far,

just argued rational points from said person.


So far those are the only two types of posters who don't recoil in
horror at the realization of what Krooger is. Which are you?


somebody who doesnt care anyway, free speech is more important.

"as a wise person once said, an Amplfier is just a straght wire with gain,
and speaker leads can be damp salty string for all that it matters."

regards malcolm

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Another escapee from the Hive's Special Ed ward reveals himself.

Why aren't you kissing Krooger's ass about that?

that would leave nothing for you to do

Get things backwards much, do you?







This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

I think the UK and the USA meaning is slightly different to the phrase above

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message
thlink.net...
John Atkinson wrote:
A Bose speaker was reviewed a few years back in Stereophile Guide to
Home Theater. The measurements were awful, the reviewer preferred a
cheaper PSB system.

That's the review I was referring to.

So why, then, did you say that this review was in Stereophile, Mr.
Oberlander? Other than the name and common ownership, the two magazines
have nothing in common. They have different editors and different staffs.
Stereophile is published in new York, the Guide in Los Angeles. And while
I did perform the measurements to accompany the Guide's review of the
Bose speaker, I have no responsibility for what appears in the Guide
and vice versa.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

JA said:

the lack of good new music,

....or the lack of good new music reviewers... :-(

Boon

Marc Phillips said:

the lack of good new music,

...or the lack of good new music reviewers... :-(

"Hint, hint" chirped the grasshopper.... :-)

"malcolm" wrote in message
news:9%FJb.739415$Fm2.661942@attbi_s04...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


"malcolm", YACA, said:

sadly, both the magazines Byte and Wireless World, died in
1986........
they both left the scene of enquiring minds , and became Advertisers
glossy
rags.

Why aren't you kissing Krooger's ass about that?




He has the courage to have a real name, website, and email addy,

not hide behind fake name and email.

always doubt somebody who hides in the shadows.........



LOL!!!!
and your real name is.......?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said to RAO's latest Kroopologist:

LOL!!!!
and your real name is.......?

"Arnii Krooger", of course.

Marc Phillips a écrit :

JA said:


the lack of good new music,


...or the lack of good new music reviewers... :-(


Good one. :-)

George M. Middius a écrit :

The corollary is -- and pay attention here -- anybody who gives aid and
comfort to Krooger is probably insane also.

....The simple life of George M. Middius.
Dangerous ? Not for the moment, this kind of coward(*) needs a chief to
express "*correctly*" his binary conception of the life.

(*) George M. Middius still hide his little pink cheeks behind a
killfile... On RAO ! What an irony... ;-)

John,
I intended to be observational, rather than judgemental. While my
personal interests might be served more by an "active impulse", that does
not mean that Stereophile should incorporate such material. I have a good
friend as well as a "stereo buddy", whose proclivities mirror Stereophile to
the T. It's almost as if Atkinson knows him. Certainly, Atkinson has a fine
sense of what a lot of people want. Perhaps he decided that the "active
impulse" would disturb the reverie that engages many readers when they pick
up a copy. I know that at some point, I was fascinated by Stereophile. I
then had the fortune to sample a large array of equipment at length. The
mystical quality of the hobby receded, though I would be among those to
point out that mysteries still remain.

There is no right way to compose a magazine, except by the readership
numbers, and perhaps, in the editor's own engagement with the subject.
Certain principles apply, independent of the subject matter. This is the
game that we are not privy to. It resides in John Atkinson's mind, and I
don't think he would, or can be required to be completely transparent about
it. It's like directing a movie. There are lots of talkers, but very few
doers.



"John M." wrote in message
news:d3669$3ff606c7$43186241$13566@allthenewsgroup s.com...
John may accept this, but I say, if there's a game to be played, play
it
to
the end.
As currently composed, Stereophile is as comforting as a brandy snifter,
a
refuge from a hard day's work at a high paying but emotionally
unrewarding
job. Doctors, executives, etc., have been the backbone of the
circulation
(John, correct me here, if you wish); people with enough disposable
income
to be tempted by the pricey offerings contained therein.

I'm not a professional... I'm a technician. I love music and reading more
than anything. I also love Stereophile for many reasons, but I don't take
it
seriously as many others seem to. I passed the point of wanting to buy
more
stereo stuff quite awhile back, but I still love what I have. Would I like
more/better/etc? Sure... who wouldn't. But even though I probably will not
buy as much stuff as I used to, I still love reading about this... it's a
*hobby* for crying-out-loud! People that talk about this stuff so
seriously
really need to consider their priorities. And I'm not just talking about
Stereophile, but *any* activity not vital for life. The fact that people
would cancel a $12.97 subscription because of something they didn't like
in
the magazine, or some other nuance, really amazes me! Why would you not
want
to be challenged or read about someone elses opinion if you're going to be
so threatened by it?

The magazine almost deliberately excludes those with the "active
impulse";
the desire to tinker; even if it means somewhat less than picking up a
soldering iron. The only elements that appealed to the tinkerer were the
"tweaks", ie., retail-packaged items, frequently of dubious worth,
designed
to satisfy the impulse, without doing much good or much harm.

Most tinkerers such as myself have had to give up the desire to tweak
quite
a long time ago. I would love dearly to build a Heathkit now that I can
afford them (smile). However, I have never been drawn towards 'tweaks' as
a
means to assuage my tinkering spirit. I only tinker in the 'common-sense'
domain. But again, I don't mind reading about what others are up to,
regardless of whether it would be something I'd do or not. You can always
turn the page if you want to!

Conflict is almost completely absent from the magazine, except in the
letters to the editor. It's very civilized. Ironically, this newsgroup
may
be a competitor, because those of us who "perform" here are vociferously
noisy.

I always enjoy reading the letters to the editor and am quite saddened
that
the number printed each month is going down. I would also like to see more

'conflict' between the editors and more music coverage (another area
seemingly in decline).

John

Robert Morein a écrit :

I thought you were American .

Only when I feel sad. ;-)

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson a écrit :


the lack of good new music,

???????????????????????????????


I would agree with this query. There is still *tons* of great, new music out
there and ready for review. Why is the music section decreasing in size?
John