mreise wrote:

My local hi-fi retailer has had the December issue since last Wednesday, but I'm still waiting for my digital issue.  I've seen this in many previous issues as well.  Is there really no way to release these together? 

response:

Stephen Mejias wrote:

The November issue's on-sale date is November 15th, and that's when digital editions are scheduled to post.  

December is 11/15; January 2012 is 12/20; February 2012 is 1/17.  Digital subscribers can expect their Zinio editions on those dates.  The arrival of the print issue is far less predictable.  We can't guarantee that both print and digital versions will arrive on the same day.  We can't arrange it so that the digital edition arrives before the print edition, however illogical that may seem.  The Zinio team arranges their schedule, which includes creating iPad and iPhone compatible editions, as well as working on other titles, so that they can release our issues on their official on-sale dates.

I know this issue has been mentioned in the past but it is truly amazing that the digital issue with no printing or mailing backlogs cannot be received ahead of the time frame you have most graciously listed.  Is the delay Stereophile's or Zinio's?

I can only base it on my 2 other digital subscriptions...The Absolute Sound and HiFi Plus.  I always get my digital issue 1-2 weeks (TAS) or 4-6 weeks (HiFi Plus) ahead of hard copy.  In the case of The Absolute Sound it is my understanding that the same printing or distribution company also handle Stereophile. 

Also I recently received an Ipad 2.  I keep my other digital issues in my Ibooks library for easy reference at a moments notice.  I can't do that with Stereophile.  Am I doing something wrong or is this an incompatibility with Zinio?  I thought I saw an article a coupl,e of months ago that Apple and Zinio were at odds about publishing/distribution of digital media.

It is frustrating to see the newest issue listed on this forum every month and not being able to read your great magazine for a couple of weekslater because the post office and my digital subscription arrive at the speed of snail.

P.S.  Stephen...keep up the great work as a reviewer.  I really like your column!

we will let you know if anything changes.

At the moment, both Zinio and ourselves have production schedules set more than a year ahead of time, and the release dates listed above will remain as such.

So the Zinio edition should be out tomorrow (assuming I read the posts in this thread correctly). So what am I supposed to do for the next few hours? Oh cruel cruel world!

Ajani wrote:

So the Zinio edition should be out tomorrow (assuming I read the posts in this thread correctly). So what am I supposed to do for the next few hours? Oh cruel cruel world!

I downloaded my December issue from Zinio yesterday, so I assume you got yours also?

I am surprised by the lack of response on the forum to this issue. I thought it one of our best in terms of the breadth of opinion on offer.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:

Ajani wrote:

So the Zinio edition should be out tomorrow (assuming I read the posts in this thread correctly). So what am I supposed to do for the next few hours? Oh cruel cruel world!

I downloaded my December issue from Zinio yesterday, so I assume you got yours also?

I am surprised by the lack of response on the forum to this issue. I thought it one of our best in terms of the breadth of opinion on offer.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Yes. I also received mine that day.

I haven't followed the feedback on these forums, but I have been involved in a debate on Audioreview over the conclusion from Michael Fremer's review of the Music Reference RM-200 Mk.11 power amplifier:

"It costs $4200. If that's your idea of "expensive", well, regardless of what you can afford, you're in the wrong hobby."

Some members have taken offense to the comment, while the rest of us don't really see what the big deal is:

http://forums.audioreview.com/general-audio/elitests-viewpoint-37435.html

I guess in the opinion of one Stereophile reviewer I'm in the wrong hobby.  As far as I'm concerned, there's expensive, and then there's really expensive, and then there's a level above that.

I had just read the reviewer's comment last night, but I figured it said more about the reviewer than it did about me.  I'll take a look at audioreview.com

Ajani wrote:

I haven't followed the feedback on these forums, but I have been involved in a debate on Audioreview over the conclusion from Michael Fremer's review of the Music Reference RM-200 Mk.11 power amplifier:

"It costs $4200. If that's your idea of "expensive", well, regardless of what you can afford, you're in the wrong hobby."

Some members have taken offense to the comment, while the rest of us don't really see what the big deal is:

http://forums.audioreview.com/general-audio/elitests-viewpoint-37435.html

I thought it obvious that Michael's comment was made in the context of the RM-200 competing with super-expensive amplifiers. But even so, I don't think $4200 for the Music Reference is "expensive," either in absolute terms or given the fact that the average Stereophile reader has around $15,000 invested in his system. Of course, the RM-200 could be available for around half its price were it to be made in China, but that is irrelevant to the review's findings.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

I have no issue that $4200 isn't expensive in absolute terms.  But I have a problem with Stereophile when I hear that I ought not to consider it expensive in personal terms because I have a system in the $15,000 range.  At this point I get a bit annoyed.

My system isn't worth $15k but even if it where, $4200 for any single component, (possibly excepting speakers), would be expensive.  As it happens, my system isn't worth $15k but I still enjoy the audiophile hobby.

And that's what PO'd me the most: Fremer's implication that I ought not to be in hobby -- SORRY, my inference is that I shouldn't be reading Stereophile.

Feanor wrote:

I have no issue that $4200 isn't expensive in absolute terms.  But I have a problem with Stereophile when I hear that I ought not to consider it expensive in personal terms because I have a system in the $15,000 range.  At this point I get a bit annoyed.

My apologies for the annoyance, Feanor. Perhaps I am a little slow on the uptake this morning, but I am not sure I understand your point. You agree with me that the $4200 price of the RM200 amplifier is not expensive in absolute term but you don't agree that it is not expensive in the context of a system costing $15,000, which is what the average Stereophile reader has invested in his system. Is that correct?

Feanor wrote:

My system isn't worth $15k but even if it where, $4200 for any single component, (possibly excepting speakers), would be expensive.  As it happens, my system isn't worth $15k but I still enjoy the audiophile hobby.

That's good to hear. My experience suggests that each major element of a system - source, amplification, loudpeakers - should costs around one-third the total price. The price of the RM200 seems to fit neatly into that paradigm. So what do think is the appropriate proportion of the total system price to spend on the amplifier?

Feanor wrote:

And that's what PO'd me the most: Fremer's implication that I ought not to be in hobby -- SORRY, my inference is that I shouldn't be reading Stereophile.

Again my apologies if you took that implication from Michael's words. As I explained above, I thought it clear Michael's comment was made in the context of amplifiers that cost very much more than $4200.

BTW, I note that you recently posted on another forum, in the context of my stating that the average Stereophile reader has $15,000 invested in his system:

Quote:

So if your system isn't in the $15k range you're not of much interest to Stereophile -- no real surprise.

I don't understand why you infer this from what I wrote, Feanor. If the average system cost is $15,000, there will, by definition, be many people with systems costing less than that and a smaller number with systems costing more than. At Stereophile, we write about components that will be appropriate for systems in all price ranges, for readers witha  wide range of disposable income they can devote to audio, as was pointed out by a poster in that other thread, using the November issue as an example:

1. Amtrans Passive Controller $2950
2. Epos Epic 2 speakers $695/pair
3. Haniwa Phono Pre $5000
4. Kimber Tonik Cables $80
5. Nordost Flatline Cables $157
6. Energy Connoisseur speakers $270/pair
7. Emotiva Power Amp $ 899
8. Resolution Audio CD/DAC $6000
9. Simaudio CD Player $8000
10. Leben Int Amp $3395
11. Leben Phono Pre $2695
12. Luxman Int Amp $5990
13. Quad Int. Amp $5999
14. Boston Acoustics A 25 speakers $300/pair

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

I accept your qualified apology.

Indeed, if your readers' average cost is $15k and given the nature of statistical distributions, substantially more than half you readers will have systems under average.  In turn it's likely most of those will consider $4k "expensive" and least subjectively.

So stick up for Michael Fremer or acknowledge that $4200 is probably expensive for a lot of your readers.

For the sake of discussion, I have recently downsized my system and presently it is quite low cost but provided amazing sound for the money, indeed for several multiples of the money:

• Magneplanar MG 1.6, $2000
• PSP Subsonic 5 subwoofer, $600
• Class D Audio SDS-258 amp, $600
• Jolida JD50A passive preamp, $250
• Wolfson-based DAC from eBay, $100
• Dedicated Vista computer running Foobar2000, $500
• Blue Jeans cables & interconnects, $150

Humm ... that's $4200 TOTAL.

"And that's what PO'd me the most: Fremer's implication that I ought not to be in hobby --SORRY, my inference is that I shouldn't be reading Stereophile." 

Cannot argue with that.  Mr. Fremer ALWAYS chooses to flatter the more expensive component. 

As if the most expensive is always the best - not.