wjm@whuxl.UUCP (MITCHELL) (08/17/84)
<munch> As I mentioned in a previous article, I'm very pleased with "The $ensible Sound". I am utterly disgusted with "Stereo Review's" new format - they are doing all the things that caused me to drop my subcription to "High Fidelity". They've gone to a terrible type face, which I find almost impossible to read (admittedly, I have very poor eyesight - one of the reasons I can't drive, but this type is unreal), dropped most of their record reviews (especially their "Recording of Special Merit" flag, which I found quite useful in marking records that were worth careful study at the store), and added a large video section. At least "Audio" hasn't sold out yet. Consumer Tip: Most of these magazines offer excellent subscription rates to new subscribers. However, their first renewal notice offers VERY unfavorable terms (usually the "list" subscription price published in the front of the magazine). Quite often the terms get better if you wait to renew. I would appreciate it if they would stop playing these games and have a standard subscription rate for everyone (like "Scientific American" does). You can get bettter deals on most magazine subscriptions if you're a college student - check for the flyers in your school bookstore. Bill Mitchell (whuxl!wjm)
mat@hou4b.UUCP (08/20/84)
I am now discontinuing my subcription to Stereo Review. When the subtitle
to an ordinary review (NOT a special equipment feature) is pure editorial
(``.. makes one HELL of a reciever'') I consider the review of questionable
value. The compression of type in the record reviews is abysmal.
I encourage everyone else on the net who subscribes to SR to do the same.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) hou5d!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*. (soon hou4b!mat)greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (08/20/84)
I've gotten flyers from "Sensible Sound" and been interested, but haven't subscribed yet. The problem has been not being able to find a copy around to see for myself, and I don't like subscribing to something that I've never even seen. Several local hi-fi dealers carry "Absolute Sound", so I was able to read a few issues before deciding to subscribe to that. While Anthony Cordesman was on the staff of "Absolute Sound", one was always assured that a certain effort was going to be made to include those of us who appreciate good sound but don't have megabucks to spend on equipment. I'm rather concerned about what's going to happen now that he's no longer there. I had a very cheap three-year subscription to Stereo Review which I don't plan to renew. I find their equipment and record reviews useless, and I'm offended by their cheap-shot attacks on the "high end" (which always generate equally adolescent retaliations by "Absolute Sound"). The saving grace, so far, are the cartoons. One thing I would like to see in magazines which review records is more info about the reviewers. It seems to me it would be a good idea, at least once a year, to give an "intro" to the critics on the staff with some rundown as to their background. Even more important, where the recorded sound is being reviewed, we should have some idea of what equipment is being used to judge the record. - Greg Paley
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (08/22/84)
<.^.>
Here I am, defending Stereo Review (even if only to an extent...)
Stereo Review is, admittedly, down on high-end equipment. This is
because (1) the specs (ahhh, yes, the specs *are* important at SR)
don't show that the high-end stuff is significantly better, and (2)
they can't *hear* the difference in their tests. Naturally, their
lack of hearing sparks great controversy (witness the recent Monster
Cable brouhaha). As I recall, Julian Hirsch has said that he does not
have `golden ears', but, then, neither do I. I know my hearing tapers
off at about 18.5 kHz, and I am perfectly happy with my $500/pair
speakers (cringe...). Oh, I'd *love* to have high-end stuff, but I
can't justify spending the money for a difference I'm not sure I can
hear. On the other hand, I can hear the difference between a
high-quality turntable and a cheapo CD player --- to *me*, the CD
player sounds considerably better. So, assuming I am in the majority
of SR readers, they are on the right track.
SR also reviews CD equipment, which is good by me, for reasons given
above.
Their reviews admittedly, range from quite good to amazingly
magnificently excellent. They don't print reviews of bad equipment,
and I can see a couple of reasons for this: (1) They don't want to be
sued by the manufacturers for poor testing and bad publicity, and (2)
[which is their official reason] they can only print so many reviews a
month (5 or 6), and they'd rather tell people what *is* a good buy
than what *isn't* a good buy. This reasoning, I assume, stems from
the fact that people generally don't want to buy something that's bad,
but, instead, would like to know what is good enough to buy. I
suppose they could print a list of equipment `tested, but not
reviewed', which would serve as a list of non-exceptional equipment...
I'l renew when the time comes...
Tom Haapanen
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
------
How about Pb-ears? Check mine out...rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (08/31/84)
> Stereo Review is, admittedly, down on high-end equipment. From what I've seen, they don't seem to be down on ANYTHING, at least in what they review specifically. >Their reviews admittedly, range from quite good to amazingly >magnificently excellent. They don't print reviews of bad equipment,... The first statement is correct--the Pollyanna attitude is common among the more popular hifi mags but more noticeable in Stereo Review. The second statement is questionable at best. They don't print bad reviews--you have to infer that a product is bad by finding a lack of exceptional goodness noted in the review. >...and I can see a couple of reasons for this: (1) They don't want to be >sued by the manufacturers for poor testing and bad publicity, and (2) >[which is their official reason] they can only print so many reviews a >month (5 or 6), and they'd rather tell people what *is* a good buy... Reason (1) comes closer to the mark, but still misses. I can see a much more obvious reason: They don't want to lose advertising money from the manufacturers. If you made equipment, would you advertise in a magazine that had panned your latest product? Don't get me wrong...this is a big problem with ALL the popular rags (the esoteric ones generally having different problems:-). For a superb example of another one, find the August '84 issue of Audio. The cover features "Accuphase Amp/Preamp: Stunning Cosmetics...Hot Performance". Now, if applying the phrase "stunning cosmetics" to a $7100 combination isn't damning by faint praise, I don't know what is. Moreover, if you read the report you find that they discovered some moderately serious misbehavior at high power--"mutual conduction" in the output stage. I suppose that gives "hot performance"??? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile.