Both! (of course)

No brainer, live blog reports.

Is it me or does there seem to be a rapid increase in interest for horn speakers?

Enjoying the coverage, John. I wish I was there. Some good looking and [no doubt] good sounding gear at this show!

Both, because the delayed reports allow room for reflection and gives the experience time to settle in.

Jason's blogs have been terrific.

Superlative, even!

There does seem to be a wider array of horn speakers, but that may just be a reflection of the hobbyist nature of this show.

Either way, your reports really got my audio energy up!

Thank you, by the way.

Excellent coverage. I'll also be interested in Stereophile's coverage of some of the lesser known non mainstream exhibitors like GR Research, Dodd Audio, Salk Signature Sound, etc. Some of the best sound I heard at the show was from the Salk HT-3 speakers driven by Van Alstine electronics. Hope you didn't miss that one.

Quote:
Hope you didn't miss that one.

Alas, Fred, I did, and not because I was consciously sticking with major brands. If they were on one of the three floors I attempted to cover in their entirety, it may have been a case that, when I went to the room, so many people were talking over the music that I gave up and moved on. If I cover another of these shows, we'll have to find a way to connect so that I can get to some of these great sounding rooms.

jason victor serinus

A newspaper reports on breaking news, and reports the story as it unfolds..... often in little bits and pieces.

A magazine puts together / sumarises smaller stories and points out not only the trees but outlines the entire forest.

Stereophile is a magazine, not a daily paper.

It it wishes to provide a 'newspaper' pesrpective, this should ONLY be in ADDITION to its primary brief ... that of a magazine.

Quote:
Both, because the delayed reports allow room for reflection and gives the experience time to settle in.

Given my experience in magazine publishing, I highly doubt there's any time for reflection with a monthly; the printed cover date is misleading... those issues might go to press 2 or 3 months in advance and the reports would probably be submitted close to deadline.

I'm still gonna stick with "both."

Even at show's end, a reviewer has a better context from which to work...

Blogs during the show may have been done without the benefit of having heard everything that person was going to hear.

Even on the plane home, I've reflected on a show and had time to digest what I heard and make some mental notes that hadn't occurred to me in "real time" during the show.

Sometimes, even after a show, a thought will hit me about why I especially liked, or didn't like, a certain system.

Hindsight and perspective can happen relatively quickly, and a reviewer can look back and spot a trend or two the he hadn't noticed as he blogged.

Quote:
I'm still gonna stick with "both."

Appreciate your points, Buddha, which have much merit. The reason I asked the question is that by no longer publishing show reports and given the finite number of pages I have available in the paper magazine, I can get two more equipment reports into each of the issues where the reports would have appeared. I am thinking that that better serves our readers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

When you combine the assets of the web content with that of the dead tree issue, the page count constraints are certainly less of an issue. Particularly in those instances where content lends itself to be web blogged.

The show coverages are perfect examples of items that can be well served via the internet site and briefly mentioned in the printed issue.

I don't see a down side to this. It's not like the coverage suffers...if anything, it's enhanced.

I am in for both as well even if it does mean 2 less reviews. What would be nice might be a little more data on the show. Maybe every room and a quick rating - thumbs up or down?

I was at the show on 2 days and have to say that overall the rooms sounded MUCH better than last year. Most of the rooms last year were bass heavy - either due to set up or too much speaker. There were some bass heavy rooms this year. Oddly enough most of those were actually being used by some big $ vendors - and some even in rooms larger than average - shame they don't know any better.

One thing I tried to do was rate the best bang for the buck
The Mini Strata from Onix was just amazing for $1600 - even being run by their low $ ($500 I believe) Class D amps. (AV123.com)

My vote for best sound in show was the Wilson Beneesch room. the Litltle Curve being driven bySET's were jaw dropping. (soundsrealaudio.com)

I'm sort of on the fence on this, so both might be my answer. If pressed, I'd lean towards online only for show reports, with at least a mention of the shows in Industry Updates. It would seem negligent to not have any paper coverage in the magazine; it's doubtful all subscribers have web access, and this could exclude a large percentage of readers if show coverage were to be limited to online status. That said, I've often found the show reports in the magazine to be not much more than a laundry list of products along with some pics (and usually not of the things I wanted to see.) I'd rather get 2 more equipment reviews. The recent show coverage is a nice example of an effective use of the online version of the magazine. Wes, Jon, and Stephen gave many of us vicarious thrills with their blogging. Blogging the shows offers timeliness, and the ability to show lots of pictures. As someone noted regarding Jason's coverage, a brief description of the gear and listening impressions were given... something the paper version often seemed to have a paucity of (seemingly in order to squeeze in as many product names in those precious few pages.) The web content is almost limitless and can really be seen as a supplement to the magazine. The paper mag can have more meat and bang for the buck.

Quote:
I've often found the show reports in the magazine to be not much more than a laundry list of products along with some pics (and usually not of the things I wanted to see.) I'd rather get 2 more equipment reviews.

All great points, Jeff. This bit, in particular, about the show coverage becoming a laundry list, is exactly what we want to avoid. Within the print magazine, with its space limitations, I wonder if a laundry list becomes almost inevitable.

The blog, done properly as Jason did, on the other hand, makes it almost impossible for the show coverage to become a mere list.

Hmm, I think I smell an "As We See It."

Quote:

Quote:
I'm still gonna stick with "both."

Appreciate your points, Buddha, which have much merit. The reason I asked the question is that by no longer publishing show reports and given the finite number of pages I have available in the paper magazine, I can get two more equipment reports into each of the issues where the reports would have appeared. I am thinking that that better serves our readers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I would think that for any of us Web users little would be lost and much gained by the extra equipment reports. However for the general readership it comes down to determining what portion are frequent Web users? The loss of the (mag.) published show report coverage would be a loss to many I imagine.

I checked "delayed magazine reports" because the ones in the past involved multiple perspectives. The RMAF, on the other hand, involved just the one writer's exposure to the different exhibits. If, somehow, more than one writer attended a particular show, and reporting thus became less one-dimensional, perhaps the blogs would be better for me. I didn't feel the delayed magazine coverage was any more or less "laundry list"-like than the blogs. Also, print photos are more vivid and enjoyable than those posted on the web, but that is a minor thing for me. I would just like more varied perspectives on these shows, since different reviewers have different tastes and preferences.

I checked the box for magazine coverage because I think it is such a no-brainer to do the live blog coverage, and yet the magazine coverage serves the general readership in a more reliable way. It seems therefore that the two logical choices are blog with magazine coverage or blog without magazine coverage. I certainly understand the page limits in the magazine, but think giving up two equipment reviews for good show coverage in the magazine is a good tradeoff and adds some diversity to the magazine for that one issue. Moreover, for those who want a more in-depth article on the show, the magazine article can refer the reader to a web-only version that is more comprehensive. Jason's blog coverage of the show was wonderful, and every night after the show we got on our laptop and checked out his blog.

John, I want it all, but now that you have described the reality of limited magazine space, I vote for online coverage. Stereophile's online presence greatly expands the magazine's ability to provide more interesting and useful information than the printed page alone can provide, as we have seen with the Ezine. Perhaps a brief show summary in the magazine, covering only the best rooms, with a link to more complete coverage online.