Vote

I'd also like to see Stereophile sold to a wealthy audiophile who doesn't care about making money but who loves the hobby, and who prefers two-channel to multi-channel, prefers LP to CD, prefers CD to SACD and DVD-A, and prefers tubes to transistors. Does this answer your question?

More information about more ways to enjoy more music is more good.

Lets see, Mikey Fremer has been battling the New York times over how this garbage is not true hi-fi and then his own Rag betrays him..guess the credibilty issue shows its UGLY face

Let's face... it's the future. Better that we get our digs in and ensure that Hi-Rez gets accepted or succumb like the dinosaurs and the RIAA did.

Just out of curiosity, should I subscribe to PC Magazine for a review of the new Linn Unidisk?

You may feel you need to cover things like car sound systems and iPods to maintain or grow your readership with the younger crowd, but the more that those kind of things crowd out ligitimate high quality music listening equipment in your coverage the less time I will spend reading your magazine.

It's a good thing because we'll get a glimpse of Stereophiles' true colors. If the iPod ends up in Recommended Components and full page ads, then the link between review and ad revenue will become clear. This is a concern many subscribers have had of late.

The reviewing of a digital media player such as the iPod should be looked at in a good way. This is a time where the medium by which we recieve our music is changing, just like that of the change from LP to CD, we are in the process of going from CD to digital audio file. Although this may not be in the utmost audiophile standard. It cannot be ignored as a fad. But look at this as a chance to change the face and function of an upcoming viable format, that may not at this point in its evolution be of high enough quality to provide truly high definition playback. But then again did the original phonograph or CD provide truly high fidelity sound within the first 5 years of its life? I hope the audiophile community can embrace this new format, and change it so that eventually it becomes a truly accessable high fidelity format for the masses.

Actually I am not at all worked up about it, so no cancel my subscription letters and such. I guess it is a good move to acquire younger readers and maintain relevance and such. I will gladly skip by it and keep searching for info on sacd, tubes, vinyl, and stats. You know traditional hidebound two channel old warhorse stuff.

You guys are likely to give better reviews of such products.

As compressed and non-collectible music formats gain popularity, I'm ever more thankful to be out of the mainstream with my tangible music collection. What a pleasure it is to browse the collection searching for an appropriate choice while recollecting the memories that each album conjures up.

Please stop

There are other publications that can review this type of product. Stereophile has always had a reputation for presenting high end audio, which is why it's called Stereophile instead of computerphile or toasterphile or sewing machine phile.

It's all good. What's wrong with having yet another way to take your music with you?

It has nothing to do with music and hifi !!!! There are plenty good and bad computerlecture !

Much as some of Stereophile reader's would like it, the world advances, and covering new mass mediums for listening to music is attractive to people who loves to listen to music.

I know you need the money from the magazine's sales which might go up a little by those who buy an issue because of that review. But I consider STEREOPHILE a high end magazine - so why should you care about i-pods and the like?! Don't jump the bandwagon of mass gear in a magazine like STEREOPHILE, please!

Yawn

It's the future! We better get used to it!

The iPod is a new type of device, so how do we know where it fits on the scale unless someone does an assessment?

Who says that audiophile components need to sit on a rack?

I think it's a good thing, especially from the perspective of someone who travels a lot and listens to portable audio systems more than I do my "big rig" at home. I also think that it makes Stereophile a more relevant publication by tracking industry trends more closely. On the other hand, I think that Sterephile will be challenged to create reviewing framework such that iPod-type devices are not compared to traditional reference components.

The way Stereophile has "sunk" in the last few years, we should all be mourning its demise. The iPod is almost the final straw—I'm sure that you'll review something more assenine than that!

I travel six months out of the year and obviously can't sit in front of the big rig on the road. If I wanted to travel with an iPod-like device, I would want to know if it sounds at least halfway decent. I'm still using a portable CD player for my travel uses. I don't think it spells the end of high-end.

Why limit the future of audio to a physical format/medium? The future is, after all, virtual. The only reason to be suspicious, except for the presently awful compressed and limited format qualities, is the consequences/restrictions of DRM. With downloaded music, and programmable decoding and storage/playback devices, there are virtually no limits to the possible audio qualities, be they high-resolution, wide-bandwidth, or multiple channels. In fact I think this is the only commercially viable way to develop and distribute high-quality audio to the masses (including audiophiles). SACD and DVD-A were out of date even before they were launched, as far as Joe Six-pack is concerned they only offer an confusing array of options and not improved usability.

iPod is music on the go. Stereophile readers may have mobile music needs too. Critical listening can take place at home, give me portablility and few hassels when I'm lugging thru the airports. And yes, I do have a portable system with a headphone amp.

Hard drive based players are the future of audio. Both sound quality and storage capacity need to improve, but ultimately the convience of hard drive based players will prove irresistable. Hard drive based players will also doom any attempts at copy protection. Hackers can and will defeat all possible copy protection schemes to ensure their ability to load thier legally purchased music onto hard drive based players.

The iPod is a device designed to reproduce recorded music, and as such, it's fair game. In addition, it is a very popular product that has been generating a lot of buzz; it is helpful to know whether deficiencies in areas important to the readers, such as sound quality, should cause us to ignore the buzz or pay more attention to it.

Let's live in the real world for once-portable sound is here to stay so it's important to find the best products on the market. MP3's can't be beat for the flexibility and allow us to sample new artists before buying. If I like it, I'll buy the finished cd or preferably, LP.

I remain uninterested in using that type of audio, but I believe that to review purported high fidelity audio gear of any and every ilk is not simply appropriate, it's necessary. Computer-like devices such as iPod deserve a good going over by Stereophile and other audio mags. (Think: Maybe the Gen X or Y dude who learns to distinguish better computer sound from completely trashy computer sound now might, just might, later decide the same comparisons should be made regarding car, home stereo and home theater gear.)