Audiphile Press: Am I jaded, experienced, or has it declined?

I've been tinkering playing collecting restoring selling trying vintage audio gear for 20 years. I'm 37, Recapped my first HH Scott at 17. 

I have bought new gear, 80-90% I have been disappointed Macintosh, Marantz, PS audio etc.  

Restored HH Scott, Fisher, Pilot, Mcintosh. Only held on to Pilot AA-901 pair from 1952, Saul Marantz gear and Harmon Kardon tube and really upgraded citation 16 

I have read old magazines articles from the 50's-early 90's reviews. 

 main systems USA made Marantz transistor & tube

Harmon Kardon Transister and tube 

1950's Pilot 

Only new company Schit audio current dac. 

Stereophile does not interest me, I've bought and tried new systems for fun in the past. My vintage gear sounds better! Has it been upgraded, Yes but not with fancy power cords or crazy speaker wire. 

spending 40k on speakers or turntable is crazy. I'm not your average audiophile, not afraid take an iron to something. 

Stereophile needs to review more affordable gear. There is really good gear out there, Made in the USA under 2k. 

Not that I can't afford some of the gear Stereophile reviews in the past. Now i can't lol Quit my high stress job.

Chose to pay off my house vs having toys, nice cars. Vintage gear wont loose its value and can be passed down. 

Way back at the top of this discussion, someone asked, “Is paper better than the internet?” As far as magazines go, paper wins by a knockout. The internet destroyed the magazine industry and gave us very little in return. 

Go to a newsstand, if you can find one. Pick up a magazine, any magazine. Chances are that it feels more like a pamphlet. Even one-time blockbusters like Vogue have been reduced to nothing. 

I was a writer and editor for magazines in the financial press. Between 2005-10, it was ruined. Absolutely destroyed. Forbes, Fortune, BusinessWeek, the list goes on. Editorial staff, ad sales, and pages dropped by more than half across the industry. Many, many publications, starting with Newsweek, the rock of ages, closed their doors.
 

And what replaced them? Nothing. Well, Bloomberg bought BusinessWeek. But Bloomberg, as it would readily admit, is dedicated to journalism with a half life that can be measured in minutes. It makes no attempt to do longer form pieces with literary value. 
 

In the audio world, we got a few blogs like Positive Feedback and SoundStage. I like PF. But it publishes one review per month of some very difficult to find and insanely expensive component. Lots of Von Schweikert, lots of CH Precision. I’m sure that stuff sounds great. Never heard any of it, never even seen any of it, but I’m sure that it sounds great. 

Given the industry standard, Stereophile is a wonder. Still thick enough to merit perfect binding (where the pages are glued to make a flat spine, not stapled), still packed with writing and packed with ads. Niche publications are the only such magazines that are still doing well but, even in the niche world, Stereophile has done better than most. 

I never read it back in the day, so I can’t compare today’s version against one from 20 years ago, or any other relevant time. And I don’t think this is the place for a stand-alone review of the magazine. But I can’t resist from adding that mine would not be kind. Recently, Stereophile published a show note of a $100,000 bookshelf speaker that “no exaggeration, no hyperbole” caused the writer to weep. The only thing worse than being sold apocryphal nonsense is the possibility that it’s true. 

“Is paper better than the internet?” As far as magazines go, paper wins by a knockout. The internet destroyed the magazine industry and gave us very little in return.

TBC, the monopolization of ad revenue by Meta and Google destroyed online publishing. While this has been broadly felt it was particularly hard on local journalism and has had a terrible effect on political journalism and what the public knows / doesn’t know about it’s governments (Federal to local).

My point is that the Internet allowed journalism and publishing to continue, but the monopolization and outsize influence of a handful of players is what really led to the collapse of the press online. 

I sort of get the glad handing of reviewers and manufacturers, the money thing.  

As a years long viewer of "Top Gear", I loved it when they would wholly thrash a European supercar for its inability to simply fit through the streets of its home country.  Or, point out that the talent of a large displacement Detroit engine was simply to turn petrol into noise.  It was brilliant.  I always felt that style of review could find an audience in the American culture.

"The essence of these large floor standers seems more of a Feng Sheu  architectural room divider than that of a respectable acoustical transducer of music".

"The robust design of the amplifier leaned more towards an industrial door stop than the intended conveyance of meaningful enjoyable musical amplification".

If you want to build a top notch system cost effectively, the old school niche audiophile magazines can be ignored totally these days. The winning products for both sound and value get a lot of coverage in other places.

Stereophile does at least often publish measurements, which can be of value if used correctly.

If it’s the more esoteric boutique products that are of interest then a different story. Nothing wrong with liking that stuff. It’s just that the average Joe will be poorly served thinking they have to go ballistic in order to get good sound. No longer the case. Happy days!