Now I watch YouTube Audio reviews and watch porn on my 65" at home ...lol ahhhhhh. Technology.
what's your opinion on the magazine 'stereo review'??
i started reading 'stereo review' back in the early 70's untill they retired. i used to buy their magazine every month. whatever i know about stereo equipment is what i've read in their magazine! any thoughts after all these years???
59 responses Add your response
SR and Hi-Fidelity were my mainstay mags in the mid/late-70s. Bought my first system (JVC 100/Kenwood KD-1003 turntable/Ohm Model E speakers) based on the equipment reviews at the time. Added in a Teac top-load tape deck to complete the ensemble. Eventually SR underwent an owership/staff change in the mid-80s as I recall and the overall quality slid down the trash chute. By that time I was reading Audio and the little mag called TAS |
I enjoyed Stereo Review and High Fidelity. I also enjoy Stereophile and Absolute Sound but I don't believe much they say.Here's a free magazine from Germany I like: https://stereo-magazine.com/ |
I think i remember that article in SR about speaker wire--would be distressing to know they lied. As to few negative reviews, i remember Hirsch and Holt both responding to that accusation by saying that the vast majority of equipment they review is pre-screened in order to decide what to review and they only wanted to review good products--so if you never saw a review for an item it might not have made the cut. Kind of makes sense as they obviously couldn't review everything. SR's philosophy seemed to be to review only products that were "affordable" which is why i enjoyed it back when i had no money--it always seemed to me that they were trying to tell you what the best affordable equipment was. S&V seems to have the same philosophy but i checked out of that rag when it became more V than S-or so it seemed. And then i discovered the crack that is Stereophile and TAS and my wallet got pounded pretty hard... |
Stereo Review was a fraud. Back in the late 70's SR commissioned Dr. Larry Greenhill and the Audiophile Society (of which I participated) of NY to test & compare A/B testing of speaker wire. There were 10 testers which most of us could determine which wire was being played. Some of us were 10 for 10 identifying what wire wad being played. The Stereo Review article said we as a group could not identify the difference in the wire, which we clearly did. |
For the record, Stereo Review morphed into Sound and Vision. Like many of us, I began reading Stereo Review at a young age when I wasn't quite sure what this hobby was all about. It did, if not always 100% accurate, always provide material that fed my appetite for this hobby and, quite frankly, I don't remember any other magazines that focused on consumer electronic even being in existence. For whatever it's worth, I have a collection of probably 15 or 20 years of back issues I kept for the hell of it. I can still remember reading articles and going to local stereo type stores to check out the equipment and to learn more about this hobby. Jullian Hirsch was the man back in those times just as others are highly respected today. It was a part of the overall interest in this hobby and I am glad I was able to read and follow it at the time. |
J. Gordon Holt was inspired to start Stereophile in the early 1960's ('62?) when, while employed at High Fidelity magazine as Technical Editor, he had a negative review of a product by an advertiser vetoed by the rag's publisher. Can't go bitin' the hand that's feedin' ya! Gordon was the single lone voice in "subjective" reviewing for over a decade, until The Absolute Sound appeared. After that, every Tom, Dick, & (heh) Harry thought his ears were golden enough to make him qualified to be a hi-fi critic. |
I gave up on Stereo Review many years ago when it became too obvious they never met or tried an advertiser's product they didn't like and/or recommend. Stereophile magazine seems to have gradually moved out of any possible meaningful range for me as I'm much more likely to drop $60K on a new Mercedes as I am on a pair of amps, and a 4 box CD player at $130K is something I just can't relate too, especially after hearing one in a hyper expensive system with unacceptable imaging. |
Several posted links to american radio history. This is a great site that has a downloadable library of SR, and High Fidelity, and Audio, and many other wonderful magazines. Take some time and go through the back issues, paying specific attention to the period of about 1956-1965. In the beginning, magazines were honest about reporting the actual quality of equipment under test. Prose was polite, but there was no doubt if a component was deemed good, bad or average. J Gordon Holt wrote for High Fidelity before starting Stereophile. He left HF after a wrote a bad (but accurate) review, and an advertiser pulled ad spending. Roy Allison was a frequent contributor to Audio magazine during this period. By 1959 or 60 all were publishing specs and test results to support what they wrote. Surprising how the test results often corresponded what we hear when listing to vintage components. EX: ABC integrated amp is rolled off in the bass- there it is on the FR graph- down 10db at 20hz. Or DEF receiver needs a few DB of bass/treble adjustment to measure and sound "flat". Back then, test results were used to confirm what was heard. By 1965 SS was all the rage, and SS equipment measured flat, with vanishing levels of distortion, and indeed all amps sounded more or less the same because differences were now at the margins. And that was enough for most listeners. Eyeballs and ad money determine profits, and writing for the person signing the check is an easy way to get paid. Hirsch was in interesting character. He started in the mid 50's an published the Audio League Journal. This publication pulled no punches when it came to reviewing ! He praised quality, and damned the turds. He actually heard differences between components ! With the formation of HH Labs, and their eventually becoming a contract test lab, they sought to serve their paymasters, and the rest is history. |
The only good thing about Stereo Review was the speaker reviews because they had to actually LISTEN to them. Everything else was based on measurements. If a $200 receiver measured the same as a $5,000 amp, they sounded the same. I guess they never bothered to conduct a listening test of hardware. Stupidity. |
I subscribed for 5-6 years starting in 1980. I had no money to speak of, so the equipment reviews were entertainment for me. I did like the music reviews. I liked Steve Simels in particular. When I could scrape the money together, I purchased a few of his recommendations, and I don’t remember being disappointed. He still has a music blog. |
I read SR back in the day and can't disagree too strongly with any of the posts. The record reviews were always a favorite. Getting out of the Navy in Fall 1974, I had saved enough money to buy a pair of AR 3a speakers and, along with the speakers, I ordered a pair of 50'AR speaker cables: they were gray-colored lamp cord! It took until the late 80's before my ears were "peeled back" via a pair of my brother's used Monster cables hooked to a pair of K-horns. ...ironically, those '78 model horns were internally wired with the same spec lamp cord! |
I think most if not all stereo magazines are paid by the manufacturers to review their equipment based on how much money they give to the magazine or to the person writing the reviews. They often will sell their gear at cost to the writer in order to receive a good review. Be curious to find out how much money they hand out for good reviews. My nephew wrote for Stereophile Magazine and Revel Harmon basically gave him the speakers he was reviewing. He paid a fraction of the cost for all of the equipment he owns as a result of writing an excellent review. Based on this, how many reviews are written to reveal the honest truth? |
I read Stereo Review religiously when I was a kid. Found the record reviews great, but found the equipment reviews too much like Consumer Reports. I don't think that Julian Hirsch had it in him to write disparaging copy on anyone, and that really cost me when as a 19 year old I followed Hirsch's recommendation and bought an AR Amp. What a horrible sounding POS, but a lesson learned. |
I subscribed from age 12 to age 16...it was like a gateway drug. Now I'm strung out on high end. If you're interested in perusing Stereo Review back issues: https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/HiFI-Stereo-Review.htm |
Before the internet, Stereo Review was THE source for audio information. I looked forward to every issue. I loved the music reviews, cartoon illustrations and reading about the latest equipment. When I was fifteen and after nearly 3-years of delivering newspapers, mowing lawns, raking leaves and shoveling snow...I bought the Pioneer SX 939 with a pair of BIC Formula 6 speakers from Stereo Corporation of America in Brooklyn, NY. I was thrilled beyond words when it finally arrived. Music in stereo...nothing like it. |
This site has links to copies of nearly all issues. https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/HiFI-Stereo-Review.htm |
Millercarbon...interesting points I won't dispute. At 16 in 1971 I read every month and thought I learned a lot as a start into hi-fi. Later sold stereo (yamaha, McIntosh, Ohm, B&O, other classic 70's) and have an aquaintance with Julian Hirsch's son. We are both musicians in bands and he was once just as opinionated as you say his dad was. But he did have the cleanest sounding PA system on our little circuit. He later ran a pro sound audio store. I will completely agree on their Rodriguez cartoons . Still applicable. For sure they are still applicable. So much so, look at a current thread, about audiophiles and divorce. I wonder if you recall the Rodriguez cartoon where this old guy is talking about his system- and its, "I have the Symphonic Bombastic MkII speakers with the Quad Series Crossovers, Nautilus 30.7 tube amp, not the regular the S series with 8 KT88's and 4 NOS Electrolux 6SN7's per channel, the Andromeda 7 speaker cables with the Malarkey MkIII optional shielding, and no wait that was that was with my first wife, what's her name..." OMG! USED its $88! These are hilarious! Look at the cover! https://www.amazon.com/Total-harmonic-distortion-Cartoons-Stereo/dp/B00072OXXQ Surely the best of Stereo Review. |
*s* Would leaf through some....subscribed to none.... Let my ears and budget 'do the walking', and let the equipment bought speak for itself. I taught myself to listen carefully and learn what I enjoyed hearing, and How.....became Picky. "Bang for the buck" beat 'opinion' and pretty pics...'specs', whether for audio, vehicles, or any of the other 'distractions' of the previous decades could be balanced by detail, skill, or 'nuance' ; esp.with regard to distractions'....;) "Audio Porn"....how apt.... |
Millercarbon...interesting points I won't dispute. At 16 in 1971 I read every month and thought I learned a lot as a start into hi-fi. Later sold stereo (yamaha, McIntosh, Ohm, B&O, other classic 70's) and have an aquaintance with Julian Hirsch's son. We are both musicians in bands and he was once just as opinionated as you say his dad was. But he did have the cleanest sounding PA system on our little circuit. He later ran a pro sound audio store. I will completely agree on their Rodriguez cartoons . Still applicable. |
What a blast from the past. I had subscriptions to High Fidelity, Stereo Review, and Audio way back when and enjoyed reading each one of them when they arrived. That's how I learned what little I know about stereo equipment. The record reviews were always fun to read too. One of the reviewers, PhyI Garland, I actually had as a college instructor. She turned me onto to Coltrane and jazz for which I'll be forever indebted. It's a shame those mags are long gone. A couple of years ago after lugging back issues around the country for decades I finally threw out all my piles of them after realizing I never reread them and probably never would. Maybe I should get a new subscription or two. Which of the newer mags would anyone recommend to take their place? Mike |
My first encounter with SR, was after being hired at Audio Lab, Indian School Rd, Phoenix AZ. I was hired to sell audio gear for the store. Took home back issues of SR and Audio Etc. Read them cover to cover, including the ads. As the new and only salesperson in the store, I needed to get up to speed. Not just the products, the jargon, specs. Edward Tatnall Canby classic reviews got me into classic music. +1 rok2id |
Great Magazine with wonderful reviews of gear and music. I can still see in my mind the pages that contained the reviews of many of my albums / CDs. Then along came 'high end audio', the folks with many dollars and not so much knowledge. So, in order to make the millions, sitting there ready for the taking, they first, had to discredit mags like stereo review. And so they did. Destroyed the reputations, or tried to, of many of the great pioneers in audio, in favor of a bunch of charlatans whose research and evidence was: Specs don't matter, (unless they help us), it's what I hear that counts. Now everyone was an expert. Took surprisingly little to conquer and dominate the herd. Stereo Review and other mags help build the industry, the so-called ''audiophiles' have just about destroyed it. Cheers |
I enjoyed "Stereo Review" back in the 70s, and it certainly piqued my interest in newer/better equipment as well as gave reviewers' perspective on artists or albums of interest. I always took reviewers' opinions as just that, and make my own buying and listening decisions. As for the "Specs are everything" principle, I never bought that. Published specs are sensitive to test & measurement method and represent what is thought to be most important, not everything that actually is. Marantz used to point this out in their literature, saying in effect "Our specs may not be the most impressive, but we sound better." That of course is a matter of opinion and taste, but my experience bore it out in comparison with friends' gear. Design decisions on the inside, such as the resonant frequency of a tank circuit, filter characteristics, or the precision of resistors may or may not be reflected in output specifications, but they all play a part in making the sound. |
HiFi News and Record Review -- Yeah! I ran across it one evening while cruising a newsstand near where I lived. Superb, subjective reviews of both classical LPs and hardware. Loved Ken Kessler. Not much later, I became buddies with Kevin Conklin, a regular customer at the classical records department where I worked at the time. Kevin turned me on to The Absolute Sound. Later, of course, he started writing for Harry Pearson's rag. |
| Post removed |
