New Stereophile format

It is ok, I suppose.

I just wish the content of Stereophile were better.
I used to subscribe to Stereophile back in the early '90s, and the magazine was by far, one of the best audio magazines published.
Now, it seems to be merely middle of the back, at best.

It seems to me that Stereophile has become the "Stereo Review" of the 21st century. (By that I mean, that all the reviews state ("insert name of whatever the piece of equipment being reviewed here") is very good to excellent, with most being "very good at the price point".) The only truly outstanding content of the magazine is that meaurements are really thought out and presented well. (Sort of like Stereo Review was.)

As long as I am griping, I also wish they would cut back on Michael Fermer's reviews. Have any of you actually counted the number of reviews by him? In the analog sections (turntables, arms, cartridges, etc...), it is about 75-80% and in the rest of the magazine it is probably about 20%. I almost think that they should rename the magazine "Fermer's Stereophile". (Btw, I have nothing against Fermer, I just like having different points of view. He seems to be dominating the magazine lately.)

My subscription is up soon, and I am honestly thinking of not resubscribing. I used to think that at $13/year, it was worth it for the ads alone. However, I am rethinking my original position.

My two cents worth anyway.

Btw, when I gave the statistics on the number of Fermer's reviews, I was looking at the semi-annual "recommended components" issues, the last year or so.

Complete honesty in content can make up for the worst layout possible. But to have to try to Sherlock 70% of the reviews content between the lines rather than simple direct statements that this is BAD and this is GOOD and this aspect of the test piece is ok but not great and it is overpriced etc would go a long way to convince more and prior readers to subscribe. Ads may pay the freight but they should not lead to great prose to hide or coverup shortcomings or the reviewers true opinions on a piece of equipment. Having the opportunity to have known writers in other review fields and as having written it is a game that is played to appease both sides of the issue seller and buyer. It is an exercise in politically correct journalism and not factual testing except for parts of Mr.Atkinsons work.
Sgt. Friday said it best," The Facts and only the Facts."
The lawyers will twist them to fit their purposes.
Or the doctor who told his patient you have cancer, but look on the bright side you will experience the most and best upclose look at modern medicine in action.You will meet some great specialists and and staffs, see wonderous facilities and meet good people in your same condition and so much more.And remember we all have to die sometime. Of course the downside may the the pain and problems from treatment and the expense. But that is not the good part. Modern medicine must have patients and make money and pay me and all the other staffs and manufacturers so I am not goingto harp on the bad only the good and lets keep the ball rolling.

Kurt tank you spent $13 a year so you could read advertisements? I know the reviews are just advertisements but I never would have imagined that someone would subscribe to read the ads. Send me $20 a year and I'll send you a bunch of ads. Happy reading.

What's the point of the vertical line between the first and second column of copy? . . . makes me think it's a different article.
Not much there in content, but certainly a buck's worth an issue . . . like who cares what stereo some celebrity has? Save it for People.
Lot of copy, though, on the self-produced CD's . . . ought to sell a few discs . . .