The audio "hobby" market will never become a bigger market than it is now as long as magazines like Stereophile promote $100,000 speakers on the cover of the magazine. According to marketing reports the growth of the higher end audio market has come from "boomers" who had the money to invest in a good system.

The net worth of the average American household, adjusted for inflation, is lower now than it was in 2001. Yet consumers believed they were getting richer, because they received statements saying that their houses and stocks were appreciating in value faster than their debts were increasing. The surge in asset values had been an illusion

Man, if that stuff bugs you, then do not look at Road and Track (300,000 dollar two seat cars with poor mileage,) The Wine Spectator (30,000 dollar bottles of wine,) or Linn's Stamp news (5 million dollar stamps!)

People can buy perfectly good cheap cars, wine, and stamps, yet these publications insist on putting the pricey stuff on their covers.

I wonder why?

The ongoing dazzling success of Sensible Sound and Affordable Audio should be a hint for Stereophile, eh?

People seem to like reading about the 'ultra' part of the spectrum.

Quote:
Man, if that stuff bugs you, then do not look at Road and Track (300,000 dollar two seat cars with poor mileage,) The Wine Spectator (30,000 dollar bottles of wine,) or Linn's Stamp news (5 million dollar stamps!)

People can buy perfectly good cheap cars, wine, and stamps, yet these publications insist on putting the pricey stuff on their covers.

I wonder why?

The ongoing dazzling success of Sensible Sound and Affordable Audio should be a hint for Stereophile, eh?

People seem to like reading about the 'ultra' part of the spectrum.

Yeah, Buddha!

I demand only butt ugly women be in Hustler from now on.

Man, some of you guys don't miss a beat when it comes to any opportunity to espouse your views that this stuff is too expensive or elitist.

If I broke my toe by stubbing it on my amplifier you guys would post a diatribe about how manufacturers are overbuilding the amps so that they could charge exorbitant prices.

Back on topic. I believe that Stereophile is indeed in a golden age. It has never been more entertaining, informative, or better laid out. It is a wonderful gift in my mailbox every month.

Speaking of golden ages, however, there was a time when TAS was more 'robust' in its reviews and Stereophile, Audio, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, etc...all roamed the earth at the same time. For a while there was The Listener, Fi, a more vigourous Audiophile Voice...all in print format!

Aye, laddy, the past was slightly more golden, but Stereophile abides!

The end of the golden age began when Julian Hirsch caught Ethanitis and it was extinction after extinction after that. Sometimes I wonder if ol' Julian had enough people listen to him that it killed his publication!

I think Julian was the basis of the joke about reviews, "Of all the CD players I have reviewed, this is certainly one of them."

I gotta say, I do agree that the thread was another typical hijack move... I remember complaining about the same thing when Rich M did the same thing to one of the threads I started (to his credit, he was a total gentleman about it, and acknowledged his oversight.)

But despite the annoying thread hijack, I'll add my two cents here because I do think there is a relevance in Rich M's complaint in what we're talking about in audio journalism. But first: I don't know if this is the golden age of audio journalism or not because I haven't been around that long and this is the only age I know. Just knowing and learning the brief history of audio, it does seem like a kind of a flowering of audio technology, with new heights reached on both digital and analog fronts. The proliferation of the internet media and webzines, too, contributes to the wealth of reading material (granted, there are now more poorly written/edited/judged audio writing than ever in history, as well!)

Back to what Rich is saying, in my own context... no matter how much I love and enjoy reading audio magazines, etc., when I read them, I feel very much divorced from the real world. I feel insulated in a small world of audio mania. And a part of it has to do with the fact that most audio magazines seem to be too single-mindedly about gear and sound. There's not enough "world" in it, if that makes sense at all. The scope is too narrow. There's a crazy economic meltdown going on right now, with our friends and families losing jobs, but the audio magazines go on, barely reflecting the real world. When I pick up an audio mag or click on the site, my brain switches on a different gear.

So in a sense, I get what Rich M is saying, although I'm peeved as well about the way with which he keeps jacking up the discussion. If you read through the twelve past issues of most audio magazines, I'll bet that you won't really get the genuine picture of the world as it is, outside of the small commune. There are small quips and asides about the bad times, but almost always as sheepish segues or concessions to talk about more gear (okay, Rich M, most of them extravagantly expensive). Even more discouraging is the fact that more often than not, I tend to find that the music coverage in audio magazines - as AD himself bemoans in his column often - doesn't really reflect the evolution of the music scene as it's happening. The current Stereophile Vote on whether audiophiles listen to hip-hop says it all. I'd kind of understand this vote if it happened in 1995, but in 2009, when hip-hop is clearly on the wane, way less relevant...? And as the musical genres are miscegenating and taking on hybrid forms, audio zines would rather feature an audiophile pressing of Marc Cohn or something than feature so many of the artists and musicians who are actually taking chances, and are getting attention out there.

So is this the golden age of audio journalism? Yes, in a way, especially since many mags, especially Stereophile, are really doing it right. But for me, I think it'll be the golden age of audio journalism if the world I glimpse through audio zines reflects the world outside of them - both musical and social. Many of you might disagree and say that audio zine should just be about audio, that's it. But I find audio journalism most rewarding when the reality and opinions about the outside world and culture converge to inform and enliven the review. This is why I cherish AD's writing, and at times, ST's. I haven't found other writers in other mags do this on any consistent kind of basis, which is the reason why I enjoy Stereophile.

P.S. - I'll submit that audio zines in Korea and Japan are actually on a higher plane right now, having read them... especially when it comes to production quality. Mostly because I think they are better funded... but content-wise, it's pretty mind-boggling when you pick up an issue of Japan's Stereo Sound. Each issue is a beautiful tome. In the Autumn '08 issue, there is a review of Vivid Giya with crazy pics of the speakers, inside & out, and a pretty lively comparison between the Giya and the original Nautilus (the designer of Giya also designed B&W's original Nautilus... didn't know that.) Like I mentioned before, the reviewers over there seem to get their first impressions and reviews of products way earlier than the US & European counterparts... And there's a comparison of 19(!) budget phono cartridges... a compendium of 20 or so speaker reviews, etc. etc... when it comes to obsessiveness and fetishism, I think the Japanese have us soundly beaten.

I agree with Natal; the Golden Age of audiophile magazines was when they are subscription only, and there was no advertising in them. IMHO the reviews as a result were more candid, accurate, and truthful. I never read a review anymore that is not positive, even when the product may not be up to standards, or represent a meaningful value proposition. The entire reason that Stereophile and TAS were originally subscription-only was to create and establish the credibility that no conflict of interest was possible between products reviewed and manufacturers of those products buying advertising.

Interesting topic, StereoFanOregon.

I've moved Rich M's latest post to the March 2009 issue section.

This is definitely going to be the golden age of audio publications because in this economy, reading about this crap is all we're going to be able to afford.

You speak words of wisdom sir

Quote:

Many knock Stereo Review but I found it's music reviews in the 70s and 80s top notch. They had a large review section and were well-written and comprehensive.

Amen! Every month I couldn't wait to read Stereo Review's music reviews. Remember this?

It had everything to do with building my classical library. What a tremendous resource. And all it cost, if memory serves, was a buck or two and a self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Regards,
Bob

Quote:
You speak words of wisdom sir

Thanks, Rich. I find that most of my words of wisdom fall on deaf ears.

I think reading about it is all we can do applies to a lot of things like expensive cars and vacation homes. I look to audio publications to help me determine where I want to go next without having to mortgage my home but there seems to be a definite correlation between price and quality that I believe is not always valid. That is why I would like to see more audio pubs take a harsher look at products as if it was their money and grade products even though our ears should guide us.

I agree with you, Rich. The best example of this is the post a while ago about how this one guy bought a $15,000 headphone amplifier only find out that it was made like a $150 amp. I am beginning to think that most of hi-end audio is sort of like that where very little genuine engineering goes into the $50k amps. It's all done with smoke and mirrors.

I am beginning to lean towards pro audio equipment as something that delivers good sound, for reasonable cost and where most of the nonsense of audiophilia doesn't hold up. Designs are based on accepted engineering processes, rather than magic and secret formulas.

Quote:
I am beginning to lean towards pro audio equipment as something that delivers good sound, for reasonable cost and where most of the nonsense of audiophilia doesn't hold up. Designs are based on accepted engineering processes, rather than magic and secret formulas.

Ah geez Alex, now you're starting to sound like DUP.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Hi Stereofan,

Here are a couple of publications that are advertiser free.

http://www.audioperfectionist.com/
http://www.boundforsound.com

Hope this is what you might be thinking of.

Steve

Quote:

Quote:
I am beginning to lean towards pro audio equipment as something that delivers good sound, for reasonable cost and where most of the nonsense of audiophilia doesn't hold up. Designs are based on accepted engineering processes, rather than magic and secret formulas.

Ah geez Alex, now you're starting to sound like DUP.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

DUP demonstrated to me how great results can be achieved with relatively little money. Especially when it comes to electronics. His $1k Tascam player/recorder sounded really good and his little Korg that he carries around like a little baby is a nice piece of equipment as well. The AVA rebuilt Hafler amps are terrific by themselves and when you consider their price, they're indeed giant killers.

His EmmLabs DAC competed very successfully with Stew's DCS stack and his system sounded very impressive without using expensive cabling. So, there's definitely something to be said for DUP. Say what you will about him, but that dude had some really good ideas.

Quote:

His EmmLabs DAC competed very successfully with Stew's DCS stack

For $9,500 (http://www.emmlabs.com/html/contact/banner.html) I should hope so.

He picked it up for under $4k used. Whereas Stew's setup ran $15k used.

However, even forgetting the stratospherically priced components, his Tascam was a really good piece of equipment. Sounded fantastic.

Relatively little money?

15K for speakers and 4K for used digital is relatively little money?

DUP's total rig was over 25 grand!

Don't let the budget canaries here hear you say he managed anything with 'relatively' little money!

!

Quote:
Relatively little money?

15K for speakers and 4K for used digital is relatively little money?

DUP's total rig was over 25 grand!

Don't let the budget canaries here hear you say he managed anything with 'relatively' little money!

!

What I'm saying is that for 25 grand, he got the level of performance one would get by spending over 100k.

If he had spent under 10k, his level of performance would rival systems costing in the 30-40k range.

Quote:

Quote:
Relatively little money?

15K for speakers and 4K for used digital is relatively little money?

DUP's total rig was over 25 grand!

Don't let the budget canaries here hear you say he managed anything with 'relatively' little money!

!

What I'm saying is that for 25 grand, he got the level of performance one would get by spending over 100k.

If he had spent under 10k, his level of performance would rival systems costing in the 30-40k range.

AlexO, I know you're his friend, and I do trust that despite his rantishness, DUP knows what he's doing to get the kind of sound he wants. But that last statement, that if he spent under 10K, he'll get better than 30K systems, is purely a conjecture. Kind of unlike you to make a blind unqualified statement like that.

So much for a discussion of magazines.

Alex you hit the nail on the head: what I believe a LOT of people want is to be able to spend as little as possible and maximize their sound ! Audio pubs do a lot to help point us but I would like to see more of a ratings approach. I have also said that I would love to see a recommended systems for $5K, $8K an up. Granted that your ears have to guide you but I believe that a lot of people are scared off by the perception that you have to spend a lot of money to get great sound

Quote:

Quote:

What I'm saying is that for 25 grand, he got the level of performance one would get by spending over 100k.

If he had spent under 10k, his level of performance would rival systems costing in the 30-40k range.

AlexO, I know you're his friend, and I do trust that despite his rantishness, DUP knows what he's doing to get the kind of sound he wants. But that last statement, that if he spent under 10K, he'll get better than 30K systems, is purely a conjecture. Kind of unlike you to make a blind unqualified statement like that.

Not pure conjecture. I'm basing that statement on the following:

a) Getting the SAME components used

b) Using his Tascam CD player instead of the EmmLabs DAC

c) Not bi-amping his speakers

Such system would run under $10k, and would produce results one would be hard to pressed to achieve buying a $30 or $40k system.

I heard his Tascam player, and I heard what his speakers sound like running his amps full range (Stew has that setup)

Allow me to quantify that a bit:

This comes from a man who feels that turntables suck.

There will always be a demand for technology. Stereophile Magazine may be associated with an organization that is going down on one engine but the magazine should survive. But only because of the demand for the subject matter.

Quote:
He picked it up for under $4k used. Whereas Stew's setup ran $15k used.

Or just get that $200 M-Audio you bought and be done with it.

--Ethan
_____________________
Bring back DUP