hp soundings

[Bill Hart]

For what it's worth, and it may be little to nothing, I am a 'book' guy and resisted going to e-books until a couple years ago. I now rarely buy hard copy books and the kindle is terrific. I was even slower to adapt to web-zines, although I had quit buying or subscribing to most stereo and car magazines a while ago. I have gotten used to the formatting issues which seem to arise, at least on the iPad, with page turns, micro-sized print (until you expand the screen, but then you have to reduce to page turn), etc. The convenience of the web-based stuff is terrific. (I have boxes of old Absolute Sound, Stereophile, HiFiNews and Record Review, HiFi+ etc. that are probably close to worthless, but I keep them for some reason).
I think it's pretty tough to do a mainstream magazine that is appealing to the neophyte and has enough depth for the more technically inclined. I used to like Audio magazine back in the day- it seemed to strike a good balance. The print side is pretty tough these days. It's nice to hear that Tone Magazine can do well, perhaps it is because it started as web-based, and as Jeff and Myles both pointed out, doesn't have to carry the costs of print production and distribution. That said, I have to believe pulling together an issue is a pain, no matter how well run the operation is.

 

[Tonepub]

Post removed completely after further consideration. Lee

 

[Tonepub]

For what it's worth, and it may be little to nothing, I am a 'book' guy and resisted going to e-books until a couple years ago. I now rarely buy hard copy books and the kindle is terrific. I was even slower to adapt to web-zines, although I had quit buying or subscribing to most stereo and car magazines a while ago. I have gotten used to the formatting issues which seem to arise, at least on the iPad, with page turns, micro-sized print (until you expand the screen, but then you have to reduce to page turn), etc. The convenience of the web-based stuff is terrific. (I have boxes of old Absolute Sound, Stereophile, HiFiNews and Record Review, HiFi+ etc. that are probably close to worthless, but I keep them for some reason).
I think it's pretty tough to do a mainstream magazine that is appealing to the neophyte and has enough depth for the more technically inclined. I used to like Audio magazine back in the day- it seemed to strike a good balance. The print side is pretty tough these days. It's nice to hear that Tone Magazine can do well, perhaps it is because it started as web-based, and as Jeff and Myles both pointed out, doesn't have to carry the costs of print production and distribution. That said, I have to believe pulling together an issue is a pain, no matter how well run the operation is.

That's why after over 20 years of working in print, Jean and I decided to start paperless. We could have easily done a print magazine, (however doing it to the level of print QUALITY we wanted might have been cost prohibitive) but we didn't want to deal with the distribution headaches and we wanted to get the word out as fast as possible.

We also did not want to be predatory to TAS or Stereophile in terms of ad revenues. We wanted to be a different channel on the cable box, in an attempt to try and increase the awareness of our industry.

All of our fellow colleagues in the advertising industry had told us for a couple of years that they were trying to figure out how to "get out of print" as fast as possible, so we saw the writing on the wall so to speak.

Stereophile and TAS will exist in print form as long as their advertisers will support the cost of printing and shipping the paper. Not a minute longer.

And, last but not least, being tree hugging Northwesterners, we really didn't want to cut trees down for a consumer magazine, and I do not regret the choices that we've made.

 

[Gregadd]

To Jeffs credit he keeps things interesting by mixing up the mag with non-gear content.

 

[rbbert]

Although I have to say the music he (ToneAudio) reviews is not to my taste, unfortunately; but then again I'm an old fart...

 

[NorthStar]

-- Which, HP's music?

He's certainly not into this genre:

​

 

[jadis]

Imo, speakers or products under reviewed should be reviewed by at least 2-3 different reviewers , especially where there is no product testing taking place...

Stereophile used to do so many moons go , even while testing , not all the times but some products where listened to by more than one reviewer ...

I agree too. I recall even in the 80s when I started to read TAS, a certain product would be reviewed by X and below it, there will be comments by reviewer Y. And sometimes, there will be * on certain lines wherein HP would comment (sometimes contradict) another reviewer. This gave me an impression of a more 'open' field of opinions with regards to a certain audio gear. And what intrigues me is what would have happened had HP reviewed the top lines from Magico or Wilson and contradicts the findings of Valin or Harley?

 

[A.wayne]

+10

 

[A.wayne]

This post deleted for unnecessary attack. Previous post from Tonepub edited for content also. Get over it, guys.

Lee

 

[RBFC]

While it's OK to disagree about almost anything here, it's not OK to attack another member personally. The Terms of Service explains all this clearly.

Thanks,

Lee

 

[A.wayne]

1. I was referring to three reviewers.
2. Allowing one week for shipping and assuming UPS, Fedex or anything else of that ilk don't destroy what's being shipped (a 50-50 proposition).
3. Only a small percentage of reviewers are full time.
4. At last two+ months for review, probably a bit more for the first reviewer adding in time to break in the component.
5. Time to write-up.
6. Editing.
7. Different internet mags have different policies eg. posting twice a month vs. constantly (will depend in part on whether a full or part time endeavor.)
8. Print mags have a one month lag until publication-editing, layout and printing.

Are you still recieving products for review which requires burn in, that's hard to comprehend, who would send out product for review without first burning them in ... ?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Are you still recieving products for review which requires burn in, that's hard to comprehend, who would send out product for review without first burning them in ... ?

Still? Basically that's always been the situation since I started in the industry and it hasn't changed with a few exceptions.

To wit, very few cartridges come broken in.

 

[Bill Hart]

Are you still recieving products for review which requires burn in, that's hard to comprehend, who would send out product for review without first burning them in ... ?

I think a manufacturer runs a risk that by doing so, it is not furnishing the product in exactly the form that the customer would receive it and could be open to criticism for doing so. And, I suppose that some might question whether substantial burn-in time is really necessary.
I am a little baffled by ARC though, which, as I understand it, recommends that some of its electronics be burned in for 500 hours before they achieve full performance quality. Not sure what the tube life ratings are on their gear, but that's gotta eat into useful life, and then you start at square 1 and 1/2. (I guess this burn in is caps?)

 

[MylesBAstor]

I think a manufacturer runs a risk that by doing so, it is not furnishing the product in exactly the form that the customer would receive it and could be open to criticism for doing so. And, I suppose that some might question whether substantial burn-in time is really necessary.
I am a little baffled by ARC though, which, as I understand it, recommends that some of its electronics be burned in for 500 hours before they achieve full performance quality. Not sure what the tube life ratings are on their gear, but that's gotta eat into useful life, and then you start at square 1 and 1/2. (I guess this burn in is caps?)

How long does/did it take the LAMMs to settle in?

Part of the issue involves the use of the Teflon caps that take forever to sound their best. CJ recommends 300 hours (maybe a smidge less in the amps because of the voltages involved) and it takes every minute to get to the finish line.

 

[A.wayne]

I'm willing to wager most are not sending out units that were not burnt in some what, especially speakers .....?

 

[Bill Hart]

How long does/did it take the LAMMs to settle in?

Part of the issue involves the use of the Teflon caps that take forever to sound their best. CJ recommends 300 hours (maybe a smidge less in the amps because of the voltages involved) and it takes every minute to get to the finish line.

Bought the ML2's used from an authorized dealer, so I don't know. I had Vlad go over them after I bought them and he changed a few parts. I can safely say they are now fully burned in, they are a pretty low serial number.
They do take at least 45 minutes to come 'on song'- it is dramatic, but I guess that's true of most tube amps.
The Alllnic H3000 took 100 hours, probably closer to 150, before it really started to show its stuff. I know some owners have said it continues to improve up to 700 hours or so. I think the telephony tubes are rated for 10,000 hours.
The Veloce, according to Vytas, requires about 2 weeks of 'regular' play to get up to snuff. I don't use the system every day, but will manage some monster sessions, 12 plus hours (with breaks) and then some 4-5 hour ones. I did use a reverse RIAA device from KAB fed by a CD player to help burn in the Allnic, along with actual listening sessions.

 

[mep]

I think a manufacturer runs a risk that by doing so, it is not furnishing the product in exactly the form that the customer would receive it and could be open to criticism for doing so. And, I suppose that some might question whether substantial burn-in time is really necessary.
I am a little baffled by ARC though, which, as I understand it, recommends that some of its electronics be burned in for 500 hours before they achieve full performance quality. Not sure what the tube life ratings are on their gear, but that's gotta eat into useful life, and then you start at square 1 and 1/2. (I guess this burn in is caps?)

I do believe that ARC recommends that the output tubes be replaced after 2000 hours. Of course most people are going to listen to and enjoy their new amp for the first 500 hours that is burning in. So basically if what ARC says is true about the 500 hours, you will use up 25% of the ouput tube life before the amp is fully broken in and sounding its best.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I do believe that ARC recommends that the output tubes be replaced after 2000 hours. Of course most people are going to listen to and enjoy their new amp for the first 500 hours that is burning in. So basically if what ARC says is true about the 500 hours, you will use up 25% of the ouput tube life before the amp is fully broken in and sounding its best.

Yep

 

[NorthStar]

I'm willing to wager most are not sending out units that were not burnt in some what, especially speakers .....?

---- I'm sure it does happen.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I'm willing to wager most are not sending out units that were not burnt in some what, especially speakers .....?

You lose.