New Stereophile format

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 . . .

I started subscribing in the late 80's when it was a magazine (I prefered the smaller format, since it fit in a sportcoat pocket), when the format changed to the Mc Stereophile supersized, it was still a magazine, but in the last ten years it has shrunken to a pamphlet. I've gotten bigger tracts from street corner preachers telling me to repent.

I wish Stereophile would repent and start putting out a magazine again. There is nothing in it. I have never complained about overexposure of high or even obscenely priced gear, but I do complain that there are hardly any reviews left at all. Is it really that hard to come up with good content? There are people here on AudiogoN who have written reviews good enough to deserve publication somewhere. Or at least hanging up in a bathroom stall somewhere.

There are lot of people who cannot afford to buy a $14,000 amp new, who can buy the same amp for half price a couple of years later. So all of these reviews of expensive gear continue to have value for many years. People that whine about the reviews of high priced gear are simply shortsighted. Reviews of cheap gear might have a little value when the product is brand new, but not many people are interested in buying inexpensive gear used.

I liked the Audio Anarchist (for obvious reasons) a lot more than the ramblings of Sam Telligs vacations. Sam, get back to what you did best, I can listen to my wife rave about her Italian vacation.

I do like Mikies reviews, but I worry when there are no negetive reviews because I have a hard time believing they don't get any gear that does not sound good. I can understand that they worry about the destruction of a good company that employs honest hardworking American people, but there is enough gear out there that I do not consider worthy of purchase (MF in particular) and my level of exposure is far smaller than theirs.

Johnd, I think your point is excellent. After you brought it up, I realized that I also was getting lost in the too many columns.

Again, I like it overall. I think it feels more modern and slick. But, I would prefer a reduction in the number of columns and making it easier to follow are you pointed out.

Nrchy, I also agree with you. Stereophile has basically become the Dunkin' Donuts of audio. Dunkin' Donuts are actually mini doughnuts that a guy in the back pumps up with a bicycle pump to regulation size. After you've eaten one, you don't feel like you've eaten anything at all.

The writing is quite bland. Their coverage of their own show was less inspired than what was put forth by the Audiogon and Audio Asylum posters. Although, I read a good amount there, there was not much there there to quote Mr. Tellig. In my own lightweight show review, I felt we got to a much deeper level of discussion of sonics. And, as I pointed out, I purposely kept it very light.

Fremer is overdone these days. Sam is old and tired, probably just hanging on for the easy money, even if it isn't a lot, and all the gear being thrown his way to try. Art Dudley is the breath of fresh air, but the number of people who hate him and the niche gear he reviews should probably have a balance in an HP type who is commanding, demonstrative, and listens at 120 dB. I miss Chip Stern, as I felt he was the best "meat and potatoes" writer at Stereophile. Robert J. Reina's budget speaker reviews were fun for a while, but I am oh so tired of them now - they all read the same to me. Kal isn't as boring as he used to be, but I would predict he still hasn't gone on the motivational speaking tour and he doesn't review much gear these days. John Marks I appreciate. John Atkinson's reviews actually say something, but are too dry to keep me interested. This is too long a rant for one paragraph...