music in the round is irrelevant to me... i cannot think of one instance in which I read it.

other than that...i pretty much read it all..well, save for the classical/jazz reviews..have no interest in those as I don't listen to the stuff(classical anymore, Jazz ever)

AD's column gets read first, as you might have already figured out. Then I usually go to MF's column, then to the reviews, then to the rest of the columns followed by software reviews and interviews. Although I like Kal's column, I read it last or sometimes skip when it's too multi-channelly ... has more to do with my preferences than anything related to Kal's opinions/writing. A lot of times, I end up not reading the news part up front.

I read the entire publication, actually.

Then I eat it.

Quote:
Then I eat it.

Good source of fiber.

Stephen,
Usually(though not always) I read AWSI first. I read most of the rest in no particular order.
Generally, I'll just skim Analog corner & not read reviews about TT's & accessories. Not set in stone rule though. I don't have anything against TT's, I just don't own one.
Also, I only read about music &/or artists that interest me.
For example, this month I skipped the article about Sonic Youth.

Quote:
music in the round is irrelevant to me... i cannot think of one instance in which I read it.

Same here. It seems that I've heard it all before.

I go for AWSI and the equipment reviews. The rest eventually.

Kal

As We See It, gets first read. Then, it's Sam's Space. The rest gets bounced around depending on the reviews and topics. I usually look to see what Wes and JA are reviewing and read those afterwards.

I open the magazine at page 1 and read it until finished.

Like a Kid who never listened to his mother at the dinner table, I first absorb whatever suits my fancy.

Then I work my way though all of it. Leaving the broccoli for last, of course. I may never eat the broccoli, if I can get way with it. I might feed/sneak it to the dog, if I can put something on it to make it eat it. Then I can run off without having to finish.

Quote:
Stephen,
this month I skipped the article about Sonic Youth.

Sacrilege.

dont tell me you are one of those classical/jazz snobs? man, that stuff is so mundane..boring.

(and I say this as a singer(Opera/Oratorio(basso) )

Quote:

Quote:
music in the round is irrelevant to me... i cannot think of one instance in which I read it.

Same here. It seems that I've heard it all before.

I go for AWSI and the equipment reviews. The rest eventually.

Kal

was not a jab at your writing style, Kal.... you are an intelligent, cool guy.

I just have a deep seated hatred for m-ch.

Quote:
was not a jab at your writing style, Kal.... you are an intelligent, cool guy.

Thanks. I did not take any umbrage at your statement but was acknowledging that we, each and all of us, have preferences.

Quote:
I just have a deep seated hatred for m-ch.

Whoa! I just don't get "a deep seated hatred for" anything in audio. I have expressed my distastes for certain audio areas many times but I occasionally sample those areas at shows and showrooms hoping to understand what I am missing. Perhaps you just were using emphasis for effect but it continues to surprise me that any of us would have such virulent feelings for anything audio-relevant except for dishonesty and, perhaps, incompetence.

Kal

I am a cover to cover kind of a guy. Well, I skip past most of JA's tech stuff because I am electrically illiterate, but I read a couple of paragraphs of those too. And I skip some of the classical writesups and reviews because I am a barbarian.

Trey

Quote:
t except for dishonesty and, perhaps, incompetence.

Kal

Yes, hence my hating m-ch.

Quote:

Quote:
t except for dishonesty and, perhaps, incompetence.

Kal

Yes, hence my hating m-ch.

Thanks for the smiley.

I start with the music reviews.

AD is the last thing I read, after I've finished everything else. However, I admit that his political rhetoric has been toned down a lot in the year or so and I appreciate that very much. If I want political opinions I'll look for them elsewhere.

Dave

Quote:
What section of Stereophile do you turn to first each month? Are there parts that you don't read at all?
Just wondering. Thanks.

I read from the front but skip most reviews of gear costing over $20K as simply fantasy stuff having nothing to do with me, phono gear costing more than a grand, and the music reviews of obscure classical music, any music with sonics below 3 bars, and all rock and rap..I read the Jazz reviews. I like the dwindling letters section (this used to run for page after page and is now down to a bare minimum). I also like the reviews of gadgets...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
t except for dishonesty and, perhaps, incompetence.

Kal

Yes, hence my hating m-ch.

Thanks for the smiley.

the smiley was to indicate that my malice was not towards you..but I do feel that way, Kal.. m-ch is a gimmick, a bad joke that should have stayed dead when QUAD died.

the more speakers--the less coherent the source becomes... even the alleged"best" to me all sound like confused, mickey-mouse rubbish. a good friend of mine has a gajillion dollar multichannel system, and ive spent a fair time listening to it with him.. he and I both agree that stereo is much better.

hell, I actually prefer mono for many things!

Any reviews of modestly/middling priced equipment - so this month, fr'instance, I read the T + A, the Radioshack cables and the Peachtree first.

I always read Art & Sam.

I always read the music reviews.

I'm using JA's tech notes to teach myself about how to think about the measurable part of audio.

I always read the opener, usually right after I read the equipment reviews.

Kal next, and he's who I return to after I set the magazine aside. (I save mine.)

Music features - they're decent, but I want more analysis of the discography for the artists profiled. I own three or four Sonic Youth albums, and three or four Christian McBride albums, but I want someone to go deeper.

(If I like 'Kind of Brown' would I like 'Fingerpainting'? How does 'Live at Tonic' fit?)

Expensive equipment is last and often doesn't get read. Letters, close to last. Seldom read manufacturer comments.

Scott A.

Quote:
the smiley was to indicate that my malice was not towards you..but I do feel that way, Kal.. m-ch is a gimmick, a bad joke that should have stayed dead when QUAD died.

the more speakers--the less coherent the source becomes... even the alleged"best" to me all sound like confused, mickey-mouse rubbish. a good friend of mine has a gajillion dollar multichannel system, and ive spent a fair time listening to it with him.. he and I both agree that stereo is much better.

hell, I actually prefer mono for many things!

Most people who express your feelings do so based on one or more of the following:
1. A misunderstanding of how MCH actually is an advance in accuracy over stereo.
2. The exposure to poor MCH reproduction, cost being somewhat irrelevant.
3. The exposure to poor MCH recordings which subvert the advantages of MCH to flashy and irrelevent effects. Much of "Quad" suffered from this although it has its fans.
4. A preference for music/recordings which are synthetic in origin and, thus, cannot benefit from improved (spatial) accuracy since there is no unitary original event to be recreated.
ADDED IN EDIT: 5. A long inculcated adaptation to listening in two channels coupled with a lack of exposure to live music and an inability/unwillingness to re-adapt to anything different.

I have yet to fail to impress visitors with the felicities of MCH even if they say, afterward, that they cannot/will not accommodate the equipment or that they aren't really interested in the kind of music I choose. Let me suggest a read of Toole's Sound Reproduction. Although most of it has to do with general principles applicable to all music reproduction, it makes a strong argument for MCH.

OTOH, I do not hate stereo, mono, SETs, headphones, heavy metal, rap, Kenny G (well, mebbe), etc.. I just prefer something else (rather strongly).

Kal

I read AWSI and Letters first. Then I read Sam and Art for the sheer entertainment value.

I don't read Industry News, Music in the Round - no interest in multichannel and I don't read the Anal log corner. I don't read the music review section - I find it doesn't coincide with my tastes. I usually don't read the 5th element either, although I do skim through it sometimes.

Quote:
m-ch is a gimmick, a bad joke that should have stayed dead when QUAD died.

Well, I can agree that the speaker placement for Quad was just plain wrong, but can you explain the fact that Steinburg and Snow, and then Fletcher and Snow (chapter 13 of the reprint of Fletcher's works from the ASA) both show that the center loudspeaker is absolutely essential to achieving a good front soundstage is an experiment that still stands as solid evidence otherwise?

Quote:

the more speakers--the less coherent the source becomes...

Not so. I'm not sure why you would think that.

Quote:

even the alleged"best" to me all sound like confused, mickey-mouse rubbish. a good friend of mine has a gajillion dollar multichannel system, and ive spent a fair time listening to it with him.. he and I both agree that stereo is much better.

Multichannel production of the present leaves an enormous amount to be desired. That is not in doubt.

However, it is not that hard to produce very, very good, very realistic multichannel sound, especially of live music in a ventue.

Such production, however, violates "the rules" for multichannel that were originally created for cinema presentation, which is a completely different set of physical circumstances, and requiers methods completely inappropriate for home theatre or multichannel audio reproduction.

Quote:

hell, I actually prefer mono for many things!

"is the music good" really is rather, um, important, too, isn't it?

For a bit on the multichannel production aspect, http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm has a link to 'Home Theatre vs. Cinema ..." you might or might not like to read.

Quote:
people who express your feelings do so based on one or more of the following:
1. A misunderstanding of how MCH actually is an advance in accuracy over stereo.

I understand this in theory, but it does not work in practice.

Quote:

2. The exposure to poor MCH reproduction, cost being somewhat irrelevant.

Won't argue that, however, the 2L stuff is allegedly the "top of the heap"..(surely you would agree?), but clearly flawed. he has many other titles that are lauded(by you)... none of them has done a thing for me.

Quote:
.
4. A preference for music/recordings which are synthetic in origin and, thus, cannot benefit from improved (spatial) accuracy since there is no unitary original event to be recreated.

that one does not apply either.. I actually prefer the "live" , acoustic based music.

Quote:

ADDED IN EDIT: 5. A long inculcated adaptation to listening in two channels coupled with a lack of exposure to live music and an inability/unwillingness to re-adapt to anything different.

Yes, I do love 2 channels. We've no need for anything more.

I've been exposed to plenty of live music.. I've made my living as a singer for as long as I can remember...I see no need to adapt because Stereo is clearly superior.

Quote:
Yes, I do love 2 channels. We've no need for anything more.

You are welcome to love 2-channel reproduction, I'm listening to it right now, but the second part there, your assertion that "We've no need ..."

Could you explain? This runs exactly counter to both perceptual and physical evidence on the matter.

I accept your preference, but now you're speaking for all of us, and no, you don't get to do that without evidence.

First I read the Letters section, because I'm always amused by the cranky, indignant hysterics of the hopelessly self-important.

Then I read Kal's In The Round because I enjoyed my 3 channel Fisher tube integrated with center speaker mix in 1975 (along with an excellent triode powered QUAD 57 stereo array) and have been luxuriating in well-sorted, full range 5.1 hi-rez systems since 2000. Properly engineered DVD-A's and SACD's AND hi-rez 2 channels are a wonderful experience. Please don't tell me Elliot Scheiner and AIX don't know what they're doing.

Then I read Mikey's column because he writes so passionately for 2 channel analog/vinyl, which I also enjoy as much as any format, but especially because it's like a high performance vintage automobile that smokes the unwary rice rockets that are more show than go. I also get a kick out of his anti-surround comments.

Then I read all the rest in random fashion until I've finished the whole mag cover to cover. What's nice are the unexpected discoveries in areas that might not have seemed too interesting at first glance- kinda like songs on popular albums that weren't instant hits.

Even the super expensive unobtanium reviews are enjoyed because everything has its place, IMO.

Quote:

Quote:
Yes, I do love 2 channels. We've no need for anything more.

You are welcome to love 2-channel reproduction, I'm listening to it right now, but the second part there, your assertion that "We've no need ..."

Could you explain? This runs exactly counter to both perceptual and physical evidence on the matter.

I accept your preference, but now you're speaking for all of us, and no, you don't get to do that without evidence.

Explain? No thanks. Your condescending tone leaves much to be desired, to say nothing of the fact that you seem to enjoy being argumentative, borderline trolling....as a matter of fact, I am extremely suspicious of your being on this forum at all..... so no thanks, Johnston..
this thread was not about 2 ch vs m-ch at any rate.... Stephen Meijas, my apologies, likewise, Kal..

Quote:
I do not like your argumentative, baiting posting style...

Nice game, derail, then try to shut out a reply by pointing out the derail.

You've now made a factual claim. In particular, let's see your absolutely incontroverable evidence for "baiting", let's just see the facts.

As to "Stereophile Habit" you really don't want to know what the first picture that popped into my head was.

But the letters are always a hoot. Just always.

Quote:

Quote:
I do not like your argumentative, baiting posting style...

Nice game, derail, then try to shut out a reply by pointing out the derail.

Actually, I am the guilty party, at least as much as he, for derailing this thread.

Quote:
But the letters are always a hoot. Just always.

Indeed.

Kal

What I can tell you is how I used to read Stereophile when it had exceptional writers.

I started with Larry Archibald "Final Word" on the back page then invariably read Tom Norton review(s). I generally skipped J10 showy reviews. I thought that Fremer was a poor writer, still is. I liked Gordon Holt contrarian opinions. In those days John Atkinson would write full and well written reviews.

Today Stereophile is poorly written and I dearly miss Tom Norton's self deprecating and dry sense of humor (J10 was in love with himself by comparison).

It was a feast to read Stereophile back then. It was as fun as reading the New Yorker. I could not live without it.

I admit to being a front to back reader, with the exception of when an issue first arrives, I check the contents section to see who wrote the reviews...to make sure they didn't forget to include a Mu Fi piece!

Then, I sit around and kvetch about how much better Stereophile was back in the day.

I will bite on the M-CH derail. I go back and forth on it. Sometimes having the drums behind my back in annoying, some times it is really cool. My wife generally prefers surround while I go back and forth on it. For me, it depends on the mix.

Two of my favorites are the early Talking Heads stuff and some of the Doors material. And I REALLY like it with The Flaming Lips because it helps me keep that dense stuff straight. Having said all that, most of the time I go for the hidef over the surround.

Trey

I Can think of no instance in which having instruments behind me is appropriate.

i eventually read everything, but look for what seems most interesting to start with. usually the analog if he is reviewing any gear. not too interested in surround. i like john marks' writing even though he teased us with a promised follow up report on some luxman equipment and hasn't yet delivered. (admit it, you thought i had forgotten didn't you?)

Quote:
I Can think of no instance in which having instruments behind me is appropriate.

Well, I can think of only a very few and those are instances where the composer, not some knob-twirler, put them there.

Kal

Quote:
I Can think of no instance in which having instruments behind me is appropriate.

Well, the only examples I can think of off the top of my head would require that the sound of the instruments continue to recede as though I were walking away.

Like, for instance, the sound of bagpipes!

Band on the run should be listened behind you.

Appropriate, I don't know, amusing, sure! But I am not interested in classical music, so most of the stuff I listen to is a studio creation anyway. So it is not so far for me to stretch from the 20 foot piano on Herbi Hancock's Joni Mitchell record to a thunderstorm behind me on Riders On The Storm.

Still, most of the time, I prefer two channel.

Quote:
I Can think of no instance in which having instruments behind me is appropriate.

when you are playing lead or doing the Robert Plant thing. Then the Drums tend to be behind you.

Exception: You are filling in at a Motley Crue Concert. (some choking vomit death or whatever) Then the drums are overhead and upsidedown, pointing down at you...all on a giant rotating gimbal. If that is not the penultimate height of vintage '13 year old' guy 'tres-ultra sheik', I don't know what is. The Pam Fantasy being the #1 hit, of course.

I mean, I just know, NC, that you feel a stirring in your pants and your imagination goes wild, and your heart beats faster..every time you find yourself accidentally seeing a Crue video or one of their images. You dream, totally, dude--of being in that fabulous and talented band.

Quote:
I Can think of no instance in which having instruments behind me is appropriate.

Berlioz Requium?

Seriously, "instruments behind you" is not what one might wish to achieve, except in some of these rather unusual situations. (Recording St. John the Divine in NYC would also involve an entire organ to one side, and one in back, as well as one in front, btw)

Rather, what one captures and renders is the sensation of being in the original (or the synthesized) space, not some of this silliness of trombones into your ear from 105 degrees.

That stuff, at least in most cases, is just silly. Multichannel production is presently very kindly described as "primitive", I fear.

I scan the table of contents first. If nothing screams read me in the equipment reviews, I read industry news. Then the equipment reviews, followed by everything else. Music reviews are usually dead last.
A friend recently loaned me about 30 cds recommended by the two main mags. Said he would be surprised if I could listen to any of them more than once. He may win that bet! (no classical albums). Mostly a rock person. The 3 disc Bela Fleck album didn't make it past the first disc (thought Cosmic Hippo album was listenable). Don't get Wilco at all.
thanks
barondla

I don't always read Stereophile, but when I do, I read Art Dudley.

-the most interesting man in the world...

i Love Robert Baird's musical tastes..

actually...his columns are my favorite, music in the round being least..

I never read the measurements stuff either..

I, of course, ALWAYS read the measurement stuff. It's part (point # two) of the mental stereoscopic locational aspect of figuring out what a piece of gear is doing - on, to, and with that entirely human aspect. After all, as Spock's mom asked him after he answered all the funky mathematical and logical questions (a final fitness test for him), "yes, son..but how do you feel?"

In the final analysis (yuk yuk), none of this works -at all- without the human component being center stage.

I almost always start with As We See It. It's kind of random from there though. I will look at the TOC and see if there are any reviews that I want to check out immediately. If not, I'll usually start with Michael Fremer or Art Dudley.

Generally I'll wind up reading the whole magazine, but not sequentially.

I'll also add that I'm a relative newcomer to Stereophile: I first subscribed just under two years ago. I'm enjoying it immensely so I've just renewed for another two.

Quote:
I'll also add that I'm a relative newcomer to Stereophile: I first subscribed just under two years ago. I'm enjoying it immensely so I've just renewed for another two.

Awesome. Thanks so much, wgriel. I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the magazine.

And thanks to everyone who has responded here. I find this stuff all very interesting.

-Letters
-As We see It (if I like the topic)
-Analogue Corner
-Sam's Space or John Mark' column
-Major Reviews
...and then just whatever strikes my fancy.

I glance at Music in the Round, and honestly don't get a huge amount out of the music reviews, though I'm glad they are there. On average I read about 70-80% of the copy.

I have to admit that you are the last writer I read. You are possibly the worst audio writer that Stereophile ever had!

You should be happy there isn't a thread about the biggest jackass in the world. You'd take the cake. At least have some decency to age with grace, hag.

Quote:
I have to admit that you are the last writer I read. You are possibly the worst audio writer that Stereophile ever had!

Can you really read? Wow. Actually, I have never written an audio review for the print magazine, Grosse.

Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to admit that you are the last writer I read. You are possibly the worst audio writer that Stereophile ever had!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you really read? Wow. Actually, I have never written an audio review for the print magazine, Grosse.

Stephen's Mogwai review was one of the best album reviews I've ever read. I've been begging JA for years to put more Stephen in the magazine. I plan on continuing to beg. Stephen's blog is also one of my favorite things about Stereophile.