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.

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".

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".

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.

EddieM said:

If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as
subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging".

[snip mindless parroting]

You might want to get a flat screwdriver and have someone help you
unlocked the panel on top of your head.

Tinkering with his head might have caused Thing's current condition. A more
drastic remedy might be called for.

wrote:


George M. Middius wrote:

William Sommerwerck said:


Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".



If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".


Why? Because Hefner used to put stuff in Playboy to tell
rawboned farm kids who went to college after a stint in the Army,
(and went to work on Madison Avenue) which fork to use, what
clothes to buy and what hi-fi set to buy.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:

Why? Because Hefner used to put stuff in Playboy to tell
rawboned farm kids who went to college after a stint in the Army,
(and went to work on Madison Avenue) which fork to use, what
clothes to buy and what hi-fi set to buy.

He was more often accurate on the hi-fi recommendations than on the
clothing recommendations, anyway.

Oh, well.
--scott
(Now, do I eat the antepasto with the salad fork?)
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

George M. Middius wrote:

William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of
"high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded.
There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and
having an "expert" justify your purchase.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:

William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of
"high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded.
There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and
having an "expert" justify your purchase.


What? "Middius" asked: "If you value 'realistic' sound, do you need
some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it?". I asked
essentially the same question, but changed 'realistic' sound (the old
SP paradigm) to 'good' sound (the new SP paradigm). IOW, if you do not
need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "realistic", why would you need
a reviewer to tell you what sounds "good"? At least "realistic" sound
has some sort of objective standard, so you have an idea of where the
reviewer is coming from. "Good" sound is *completely* subjective. What
sounds "good" to you (or JA or someone else) may not sound "good" to
me.

William Sommerwerck said to Thing:

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded.
There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and
having an "expert" justify your purchase.

Good luck getting Thing's teeth marks off your shoes. :-(

On 6/18/05 7:56 AM, in article , "William
Sommerwerck" wrote:

You're missing the point

William, maybe we could get this back to the one or two pertinant
newsgroups? While a bit of this thread (like this post) is discussion,
bunches are just drivel and blowing that across a bunch of undesired NG's is
a pain that's politely easily fixed.
Thanks

"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.

"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

William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

I don't find it odd at all. Like most businesses, Stereophile tries to
appeal to the lowest common denominator.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction
of "if it
sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the
original
meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile
has no
"objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify
whatever
purchase a particular reader wishes to make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal
people make
their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you
need some
reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That
judgment is
as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging".

I don't find it odd at all. Like most businesses,
Stereophile tries to
appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Some common denominators can be so low as to be useless.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of
"high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

I don't find it odd at all. Like most businesses, Stereophile tries to
appeal to the lowest common denominator.



"At least" the lowest common denominator that wants to
spend $30,000 on an amplifier.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

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 ".

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.

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?

2: the magazine has no objective standards

Arguable. SP does do technical tests.

But when have they ever been correlated with what one "actually" (???)
hears? An "objective" test is objective only if it correlates with valid
subjective tests. Otherwise it's meaningless. To the best of my knowledge,
Stereophile has never performed listening tests that might provide this
correlation (or show there was none). Stereophile's technical tests are
largely window dressing.

20+ years ago, when JA introduced cumulative decay spectra as a speaker
measurement, I urged him to hold off for a year or so, to do additional
listening tests in the hope they would reveal correlations between the
measurements and specific subjective aspects of the speaker's sound. This,
like every other suggestion I made to JA, was instantly rejected.

It's worth noting that, when I reviewed the AKG K1000 ear speakers, I ran a
waterfall plot that correlated with the 'phones' extreme midrange "honking".
JA's reaction was to ask me whether I'd run the tests properly.

The following claims are not the same:
1: the magazine is beholden to advertisers
2: the magazine has no objective standards
3. justify whatever choice the reader wants to make

These have all been made as derogatory, but they are different.

No one ever said (or implied) they were equivalent (though #2 and #3 are at
least Velcro'ed at the hip).

"William Sommerwerck" said:
..

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".


What's wrong with that?

--

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

Sander deWaal wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" said:
.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's
there when there's no actual bass instrument playing.

If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'.

Graham

Pooh Bear said:


Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's
there when there's no actual bass instrument playing.


Those people usually don't care about how anything sounds, as long as
it provides a steady flow of non-silence.

Definition of a music system annum 2005: "A contraption that makes
noise in people's homes".


If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'.


Thank God.
My-Fi is my goal.

--

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

Sander deWaal wrote:

Pooh Bear said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's
there when there's no actual bass instrument playing.

Those people usually don't care about how anything sounds, as long as
it provides a steady flow of non-silence.

Definition of a music system annum 2005: "A contraption that makes
noise in people's homes".

If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'.

Thank God.
My-Fi is my goal.

Well Sander - you are one of the few who appreciate an accurate sound !

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" said:
.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

To be fair to JA, in the Measurements section he'll say, after a dire set
of numbers, "I don't know why he liked it".


What's wrong with that?

The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's
there when there's no actual bass instrument playing.

If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'.

*cough* Wavac 833 *cough*


Francois, speaking of dire.

Sander deWaal wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" said:
.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck
bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best
Wilson WAMM systems.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler said:


Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck
bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best
Wilson WAMM systems.


Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system?

BTW there are some very good sounding juke boxes (for a juke box) out
there.
All of them with tube amps ;-)

--

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

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:


Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction
of "if it
sounds good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck
bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best
Wilson WAMM systems.

Hear tell that the very best WAMM systems aren't all that
grand sounding, once the hype is stripped away.

Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system?

Ferstler did say red-neck, didn't he?

BTW there are some very good sounding juke boxes (for a
juke box) out
there.

All of them with tube amps ;-)

Thanks for substantiating my comments about tube and vinyl
bigots, Sander.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:35:27 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote:

Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system?

BTW there are some very good sounding juke boxes (for a juke box) out
there.
All of them with tube amps ;-)


I had an AMI F (1955) and an AMI J (1959) both had GE VRII magnetic
pickups, ported woofers, a decent tweeter, and ultralinear
output. Frankly, a lot better than the competition, which usually
had the woofer (or full range speaker) mounted on a baffle
board like a Fender guitar amp or a cheap EJ Korvette's Xam
console stereo. (to Korvette's credit, they also sold
Harmon-Kardon and Dynaco gear)

IIRC, both of those wound up in Holland, which as I understand it,
is the European mecca for discriminating jukebox collectors.

The main problems with jukeboxes are the same as ever, the source
material (all over the map) and the playback mechanism (back then,
rumbly offspeed 45 turntables, now cheap CD mechs).

--
Ned Carlson Triode Electronics Chicago,IL USA
www.triodeelectronics.com

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:27:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" said:
.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck
bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best
Wilson WAMM systems.

Howard Ferstler

They probably sound better than if the WAMMS were in the same bar.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
It would more correct to compare the magazine under JGH's management with
it
under JA's.

Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should
sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which
equipment most closely achieved this goal.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make.

I really agree with this! Thirty years ago, I valued each issue produced by
J. Gordon Holt. I dropped my subscription more than a decade ago. Based on
samples of the magazine since then, I don't regret it.

Ed Presson

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:36:57 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

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

It would more correct to compare the magazine under JGH's management with it
under JA's.

Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should
sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which
equipment most closely achieved this goal.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make.

Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing
recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what
hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition
of the utility of a piece of equipment.

Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should
sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which
equipment most closely achieved this goal.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing
recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what
hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition
of the utility of a piece of equipment.

It's not "too-narrow" a definition -- it's the only _valid_ definition.

If I were running an audiophile magazine, I would categorically bar reviews
of non-acoustic music, and reviewers would not be allowed to use such music
in judging equipment. But that wouldn't sell very many magazines.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 06:27:51 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should
sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which
equipment most closely achieved this goal.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing
recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what
hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition
of the utility of a piece of equipment.

It's not "too-narrow" a definition -- it's the only _valid_ definition.

So you say. But I disagree. With you AND Harry Pearson.

If I were running an audiophile magazine, I would categorically bar reviews
of non-acoustic music, and reviewers would not be allowed to use such music
in judging equipment. But that wouldn't sell very many magazines.

And it wouldn't be a very useful magazine either.

Please remember that there's not a system on the planet that can sound
exactly like a live performance. All systems are a series of
compromises and there's no system or component that offers an absolute
reference vis a vis live or "acoustic" music. Different components and
systems have strengths and weaknesses that can also be judged by
"non-acoustic" music, especially since there's precious little music
that hasn't been processed electronically in one way or another (and
I'm not *just* talking about the physical act of recording either,
which imposes its own "signature").

Please remember that there's not a system on the planet that can sound
exactly like a live performance. All systems are a series of
compromises and there's no system or component that offers an absolute
reference vis a vis live or "acoustic" music. Different components and
systems have strengths and weaknesses that can also be judged by
"non-acoustic" music, especially since there's precious little music
that hasn't been processed electronically in one way or another (and
I'm not *just* talking about the physical act of recording either,
which imposes its own "signature").

JA once made that point to me -- that if a recording reveals a difference
between two components, it's useful. I see the logic, except that we aren't
as much interested in differences as we are in which one (if either) is
closer to "correct".

William Sommerwerck wrote:


Compare music now and music then and you'll understand
why "comparing
recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition
of what
hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded
its
definition of the utility of a piece of equipment.

It's not "too-narrow" a definition -- it's the only
_valid_
definition.

If I were running an audiophile magazine, I would
categorically bar
reviews of non-acoustic music,

If you define non-acoustic music as music that was never
played into a performance space, then I would agree. If you
define non-acoustic music as music that not made with
traditional musical instruments and voices then I would not
agree.

If you define non-acoustic music as music that was never
played into a performance space, then I would agree. If you
define non-acoustic music as music that not made with
traditional musical instruments and voices then I would not
agree.

Rock music played over a huge PA system is not, to my mind, acoustic music.

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