Historical

Bigger & better?

Editor: Just when I thought I was well into a rut, along comes a new Stereophile, bigger and better than life! The new size is definitely impressive, the new weight will take some getting used to (like the new Krell). But what really took me by storm was Larry Archibald's response in "Final Word" to the other audiophile publications attacking Stereophile. Yes, Stereophile is excellent: well researched and well edited. If the other guys can't follow suit, it's time for them to find new careers. Stereophile attacking other publications would be a waste of time.

Now all you need to do is get Corey Greenberg to pose for the centerfold. HAHAHA!—David A. VanSickle, Aurora, CO

A higher standard?

Editor: The January Stereophile is a great issue, both in terms of format and contents. Some readers will have a great time reading and rereading all the Krell reviews—this makes up for many postponed opportunities...I also enjoyed RL's reviews of women in rock (redeeming his quick'n'dirty job on Metheny's Secret Story in December 1992) and the Jarrett reprint—KJ, now tell us about your current system!

There is much more to say about this landmark issue, but the bottom line is that Stereophile's new concept reaches new heights in terms of breadth and depth...My only fear is that you guys may have a hard time keeping up the high standard of the January issue with subsequent issues.—Jean-Francois Vignal, Belloy, France

Thank you

Editor: Thank you for the new size Stereophile. I don't need glasses anymore to read the text or to see the pictures in the advertisements.—Raul Villavicencio, Davie, FL

Slick but readable

Editor: Yes, it's as slick as Stereo Review, but the new size makes Stereophile readable again. No more peering at odd angles to read print in the center fold or seeing the magazine snap shut when it's laid down. You should have done this a long time ago...—Carl E. Miller West Worthington, OH

Kick that chair

Editor: I love Stereophile's new size. I noticed on the front cover that you've also raised the price a couple of bucks, not to mention sticking it to the advertisers. Real good on higher rates.

Perhaps you can take some of your newfound profits and buy a new rope to tie around Corey Greenberg's neck. This "old goat" would be glad to kick the chair out from under his boots.—Maron Horonzak, Webster Groves, MD

Foot shots

Editor: Wow! What a magazine! Congratulations on your first issue in the new format.

I particularly enjoyed your humorous choice in publishing the entire letter from the worthy gentleman who suggested that your prices for advertising should go down, not up, for increased size (January, p.9). After all, he is well-known for setting his products' price points so that they are easily affordable to the widest sector of the audiophile market!

Can you please endeavor to find out what caliber of bullet Mr. Sandy Berlin recommends for foot shots?—David Manley, Manley Labs

A vote for

Editor: I thoroughly absorbed the new, big-format Stereophile today. Liked it a lot. I vote for never going back to the small format!!!

High points for me were Jack English's "R.I.P. High-End Audio" article—an excellent synopsis of high-end shortsightedness; JS's Forsell opus—one of the biggest reviews ever; and JA's summary of why he doesn't want to deal with tube amps if he can help it—so much like my reasons it's uncanny. Great work, guys.

I do have one criticism: the price range of the hardware reviewed. How could the Equipment Reports section look like this in the same issue as Jack English's R.I.P. article? A $1000+ FM tuner; $20,000+ turntable; big-buck Krell amp and preamp; $7500 Cary 25W amps; $12,000+ MFA preamp; big-buck Krell transport and D/A; $10,000+ speakers—man oh man oh man...aside from the $880 NHT satellite/sub system [and the HeadRoom headphone amplifier—Ed.], where were the components real people can buy? Okay, Sam Tellig devoted some space to a $400 CD player—that was it.

More $500-$3000 stuff please!—Doug Blackburn, Honeoye Falls, NY