Stereophile "coverage"

I can't help but think that a lot of the problem is that there is a kind of doldrums going on now in equipment-land. Noone knows if any of the new formats will succeed - there's little indication that any will - but the uncertainty has the effect of chilling the existing format. Add to that a cooling economy , the fairly lame state of 'popular' (read: dominated by huge multinational companies) music, the huge success of MP3 and home theater. So what's a poor magazine like Stereophile to do? I agree this issue was about a 10 minute read, but it seems to me that if your premise is that 2 channel is just fine, you're left with a hell of a lot of gear that's been out for a while which does the job beautifully (no news there) and the sad but moot discussion of SACD vs. DVDaudio (moot because neither will likely succeed). I think that better information on these issues (1.what equipment, old and new, works best and has the most value? and 2.are the new products any good?) can be found in discussion forums like this or audioasylum, taking things with a great many grains of salt of course (look out for contributors with an ulterior motive).

Well said Musicslug.

I liked the coverage of the Denon receiver, the computer speakers, and especially the sound cards - I had no real interest in purchasing the first two, and only a modest interest in the last one, but I was very interested to see how experienced reviewers compared these to the usual fare, since they don't usually get coverage in a way that they can be compared to the higher-end stuff.

When they put the Denon receiver on the cover and took all the heat for it (not from me), they said they wanted to grab more people's eyes, draw them into picking up and hopefully buying / reading the magazine - extend the reach of the hobby. Great, makes sense, I'm all for it. Now you've got some interested newcomers and you shift into your alter-ego and produce an issue with nothing reviewed under $8K. I'm still reading because I was already reading, but anybody who you happened to snag with your coverage of the Denon is scratching their head and re-confirming that audiophiles are completely out of touch. Sam's space was filled with a rant about how terrible it is that anyone would even consider surround sound (something you might have wanted the Denon for), but more importantly was NOT filled with the usual coverage of something considerably more affordable along with his obvious enjoyment of same. Fremer's column was coverage of the show, which necessarily meant brief coverage of very high-priced analog gear so, again, nothing a newcomer would immediately relate to.

Maybe they're just searching, trying new things and seeing what is well received, what isn't, etc. I'm sure it's tough times to be an audio magazine and I'm glad to see them trying different things. But I also think they're aware of what they're doing and the type of reaction they're going to get, and given the number of instances they provide of things they have to know are going to draw criticism, I have to assume they enjoy it. -Kirk

I have no problem with Stereophile reviewing $37500 speakers or $500 speakers but I do have a problem when a $37500 speaker that won't go much below 40hz gets a favorable review with the mention of the necessity to purchase the yet un-priced huge 450lb subwoofer to go with these lame duck speakers plus the need to play at over 100 db to sound right, probably to blast the sound past the rubber band grille. I'm sure if these speakers were made by a new unheard of company that didn't advertise in their magazine they would not even be reviewed, and if they were reviewed they would be severely trashed. The speakers may not suck but for the price ratio I'd say they do. Krell advertising dollars at work here.

I've heard that emap is selling out and took a large loss on their purchase of Stereophile. "See Audioasylum for John Atkinson's posts." I can't help but feel that most of the complaints about the size of the magazine, what's on the cover and products reviewed over the last year are to a large extent the doings of emap. I don't think John would admit this though.

My first feeling about this issue was "wow", this is thin and must be due to the transition in ownership. After reading it I still felt it was way thin, but enjoyed what was there.

Even though Sam and Mike did not review any equipment their articles were fine. And, I thought the debate concerning 5.1 vs 2 was great. I believe Steve won that battle! And, I'm glad that the Stereophile writers are voicing their opinions, whether I agree or not!

I would rather have Stereophile review "statement" products and high end equipment than cheap department store crap. A few good budget products are helpful in all the catagories, but I like that kept to a minimum. I don't have millions to spend either. I believe that this is what they have been in the past and I want that to continue.

I think that the complaints about not enough cheap recievers and $500 speakers is like me going into a BMW dealership and damning them for not having enough $12,000 cars. It's not their market and I don't believe it will ever be.

There are enough mass-market review rags for the extreme budget minded to read. Lets not try to make BMW sell Yugo.

"I know this is a polar example and I'm using it to make a point."