Sean,
Thank you for the link to AA. I read the discussion involving Michael Fremer and John Marks, among others, and found it interesting. Although, I have to admit that I did not see anything too controversial or enlightening there. I also didn't feel you were being piled on. I've seen much worse in these parts.
One observation I do have is that in these audio forums, the Stereophile personnel do seem to have a chip on their shoulder. I am not sure the reason, one would have to believe that they are as chipper in real life as any of us. But, they tend to come off with a mean spiritidness that I don't fully understand. It could be a defensiveness borne out of so many in the forums taking shots at them in particular, and the magazine in general.
Another trend I see is that often they quote a previous poster's words, and expound on that to an extreme. No one did that more than J10 in that thread here a few months ago. I got more e - mail about that thread than any other I have been involved in, including the controversial "TRELJA in New York" reports on the 2001 and 2002 Stereophile NYC HiFI Shows. The consensus was almost universal that people found Scull to be psychotic and maybe his personality was the reason for him no longer being affiliated with the magazine.
Conversely, I find that most of us here on Audiogon make an honest effort to share their own insight into an issue, rather than focusing on what has been previously stated. Of course, we do have our run - ins and we are also guilty of this on occasion.
What has been developing in me over the course of the past few months is the feeling that there is certainly something special at work here on Audiogon. Perhaps this being a hobby for us and not a job factors into things. In a recent thread, I commented that despite my love of cooking, the ONLY hobby that competes with audio in my life, and the opportunity to pursue it as a career, I have never done so. The reason being I would never want a love tainted by work. Work has the potential to poison love. Money can have the same result.
I am left the feeling that most members honestly enjoy music, equipment, and the interaction with others who share the hobby. There is a genuineness in the discussion that goes on here. Could that be a reason that over the long term, honest friendships are forged?
I realize this post is going too far off on a self - congratulatory tone.
Back to Stereophile, I have never been of the opinion that the writers or reviews of the magazine have been a reflection of advertising. But clearly, in these times, many people do.
Perhaps the way the magazine is run these days factors into this. It may be more of a one man decision making process, whereas before it might have been a several person venture.
Thinking about all of this over this rainy weekend, I dug up an older issue of Stereophile. It was one of the Recommended Components issues of 1994. I wanted to see if I could discern any difference between now and then.
I think that I was most struck by the discourse in rating components. Recommended Components seems to be one of the major sore spots that most people have with Stereophile. The other is the preponderance of reviews of certain companies' products(the distributor of Triangle and others, Cary, Musical Fidelity, Harman International). Both things probably work hand in hand.
In 1994, there seemed to be more opinions involved in rating a component. Actual disagreement took place. My observation of today gives me the impression that far fewer people and discussion are involved the process. I could be wrong...
I also do not think it's a stretch to say that the components are rated higher. Class C was a larger category previously, and represented real world equipment. Today, it seems to be more of a knock. Class B was what most of us who stretched for equipment wanted to achieve. And, Class A was equipment that only the very rich or hard, hard core bought. I doubt a $2000 power amplifier could ever attain a Class A rating then, even if money was cheaper then.
Class A+ has always made me uncomfortable, but that's just me.
As a subscriber, I appreciate the low price of the magazine. No, it could not be done without advertising. But, is there any more advertising now then there used to be? No, in fact, I believe there is less now. And, since I am under the impression that Stereophile has a 1:1 correlation between pages of advertising and pages of print, that would explain why the magazine is so much smaller than it was 10 years ago.
Reading the AA thread, I agree with many of the points you raise, Sean. The person who bench tests the equipment should not be the one who reviews it, more opinions should be polled before a rating is given, etc.
Again, I do feel that Art Dudley has ratcheted up the magazine since his inclusion.
Time will tell how the magazine fares over the next couple of years.
Thank you for the link to AA. I read the discussion involving Michael Fremer and John Marks, among others, and found it interesting. Although, I have to admit that I did not see anything too controversial or enlightening there. I also didn't feel you were being piled on. I've seen much worse in these parts.
One observation I do have is that in these audio forums, the Stereophile personnel do seem to have a chip on their shoulder. I am not sure the reason, one would have to believe that they are as chipper in real life as any of us. But, they tend to come off with a mean spiritidness that I don't fully understand. It could be a defensiveness borne out of so many in the forums taking shots at them in particular, and the magazine in general.
Another trend I see is that often they quote a previous poster's words, and expound on that to an extreme. No one did that more than J10 in that thread here a few months ago. I got more e - mail about that thread than any other I have been involved in, including the controversial "TRELJA in New York" reports on the 2001 and 2002 Stereophile NYC HiFI Shows. The consensus was almost universal that people found Scull to be psychotic and maybe his personality was the reason for him no longer being affiliated with the magazine.
Conversely, I find that most of us here on Audiogon make an honest effort to share their own insight into an issue, rather than focusing on what has been previously stated. Of course, we do have our run - ins and we are also guilty of this on occasion.
What has been developing in me over the course of the past few months is the feeling that there is certainly something special at work here on Audiogon. Perhaps this being a hobby for us and not a job factors into things. In a recent thread, I commented that despite my love of cooking, the ONLY hobby that competes with audio in my life, and the opportunity to pursue it as a career, I have never done so. The reason being I would never want a love tainted by work. Work has the potential to poison love. Money can have the same result.
I am left the feeling that most members honestly enjoy music, equipment, and the interaction with others who share the hobby. There is a genuineness in the discussion that goes on here. Could that be a reason that over the long term, honest friendships are forged?
I realize this post is going too far off on a self - congratulatory tone.
Back to Stereophile, I have never been of the opinion that the writers or reviews of the magazine have been a reflection of advertising. But clearly, in these times, many people do.
Perhaps the way the magazine is run these days factors into this. It may be more of a one man decision making process, whereas before it might have been a several person venture.
Thinking about all of this over this rainy weekend, I dug up an older issue of Stereophile. It was one of the Recommended Components issues of 1994. I wanted to see if I could discern any difference between now and then.
I think that I was most struck by the discourse in rating components. Recommended Components seems to be one of the major sore spots that most people have with Stereophile. The other is the preponderance of reviews of certain companies' products(the distributor of Triangle and others, Cary, Musical Fidelity, Harman International). Both things probably work hand in hand.
In 1994, there seemed to be more opinions involved in rating a component. Actual disagreement took place. My observation of today gives me the impression that far fewer people and discussion are involved the process. I could be wrong...
I also do not think it's a stretch to say that the components are rated higher. Class C was a larger category previously, and represented real world equipment. Today, it seems to be more of a knock. Class B was what most of us who stretched for equipment wanted to achieve. And, Class A was equipment that only the very rich or hard, hard core bought. I doubt a $2000 power amplifier could ever attain a Class A rating then, even if money was cheaper then.
Class A+ has always made me uncomfortable, but that's just me.
As a subscriber, I appreciate the low price of the magazine. No, it could not be done without advertising. But, is there any more advertising now then there used to be? No, in fact, I believe there is less now. And, since I am under the impression that Stereophile has a 1:1 correlation between pages of advertising and pages of print, that would explain why the magazine is so much smaller than it was 10 years ago.
Reading the AA thread, I agree with many of the points you raise, Sean. The person who bench tests the equipment should not be the one who reviews it, more opinions should be polled before a rating is given, etc.
Again, I do feel that Art Dudley has ratcheted up the magazine since his inclusion.
Time will tell how the magazine fares over the next couple of years.