Your favorie audio magazine

[Randy Bessinger]

I liked it too and now Sound and Vision has morphed with/into Home Theater Magazine as of the most current issue.

 

[NorthStar]

FWIW I thought the old "AUDIO" magazine was the best. Didn't it morph into Sound and Vision?

I don't think so (no); totally different quality staff.
* Home Theater (the old one); many of the staff joined Sound & Vision.

I liked it too and now Sound and Vision has morphed with/into Home Theater Magazine as of the most current issue.

The other way around. :b ...Home Theater mag is now called Sound & Vision. ...Just the exact distinction.

The most annoying part of this, I see, is that any article or review done by the original S&V's staff takes much longer to download online than HTM's stuff! Also, Sound & Vision (original), used to have a forum; the worst forum I've ever seen!

Anyway, those two mags (now one the same) are for the masses mainly, for the advertisers (they should be free; advertising we shouldn't pay for that). They are both heavily biased towards their advertisers.

 

[jfrech]

I've been enjoying "The Audio Beat" lately...thoughtful reviews...seem to carefully listen and offer a few comparisons to other equipment in the review....

 

[Randy Bessinger]

I don't think so (no); totally different quality staff.
* Home Theater (the old one); many of the staff joined Sound & Vision.



The other way around. :b ...Home Theater mag is now called Sound & Vision. ...Just the exact distinction.

The most annoying part of this, I see, is that any article or review done by the original S&V's staff takes much longer to download online than HTM's stuff! Also, Sound & Vision (original), used to have a forum; the worst forum I've ever seen!

Anyway, those two mags (now one the same) are for the masses mainly, for the advertisers (they should be free; advertising we shouldn't pay for that). They are both heavily biased towards their advertisers.

According to the letter that accompanied the new Sound and Vision, the company that bought Sound and Vision (from its owner) owned Home Theater; however, the Sound and Vision name was retained. This may be because of some exclusives they get for new equipment review although I am guessing based on what Nousaine told me a few years ago. Sound and Vision probably also has a larger readership.

My recollection is that Audio merged or was bought by Stereo Review. There was then a side publication dealing with Video and then those merged together into Sound and Vision. Probably all leading to fewer and fewer print magazines.

Edit-From new website

"Readers who follow developments in audio/video electronics might have heard back in May that Home Theater's parent company, Source Interlink Media, acquired its chief competitor Sound & Vision. These were the two largest print magazines serving the A/V enthusiast."

 

[NorthStar]

According to the letter that accompanied the new Sound and Vision, the company that bought Sound and Vision (from its owner) owned Home Theater; however, the Sound and Vision name was retained. This may be because of some exclusives they get for new equipment review although I am guessing based on what Nousaine told me a few years ago. Sound and Vision probably also has a larger readership.

My recollection is that Audio merged or was bought by Stereo Review. There was then a side publication dealing with Video and then those merged together into Sound and Vision. Probably all leading to fewer and fewer print magazines.

Edit-From new website

"Readers who follow developments in audio/video electronics might have heard back in May that Home Theater's parent company, Source Interlink Media, acquired its chief competitor Sound & Vision. These were the two largest print magazines serving the A/V enthusiast."

Good morning Randy,

In the beginning there was Audio, with some of the usual suspects (writers & reviewers) still active today, and others dead. ...More technical audio mag.
And there was Stereo Review, them too with the usual suspects, and some staff still active and others dead. ...Mag for the masses.
And then Video Review, with similar staff as the one above but with the addition of the video equation of things (TVs, AV receivers, Camcorders, VCRs, DVD players, ...); that too was for the masses.

And then there was Sound & Vision (they have been around since the early 80s or so). ...Mag for the masses.
And then Stereophile Ultimate Home Theater, but at the beginning they were the video extension of Stereophile. ...For the masses, but with few lab tests.
Then it became just Home Theater, and some of the staff were brand new and from Sound & Vision. ...For the masses still, and few lab tests.
{Home Theater changed their editors quite often over the years; some got even fired!}

Sound & Vision is a mag for the advertisers because it has a larger audience, and consequently it's for the masses.
Home Theater is also for the masses and advertisers.

Now Sound and Vision is only one and it has that name because I believe it is more attractive for more of the masses.
**Home Theater is missing the audio aspect.} ...So the choice was obvious and makes sense. ...Besides there are still other home theater mags out there (most for the pictures, and some for the construction).

Audio/Video magazines are not any longer what they used to be because of the Internet with all the audio/video forums, and experts in all the fields, and who you can talk directly to and ask questions on the spot.
- AV mag's businesses are less and less viable just like CD/LP music stores and video stores.

Anyway, for true audiophiles the Internet it is, and same for true videophiles. ...There are a bunch of new and fresh experts out there, and it is much faster today than yesterday to constantly change and improve both your audio and video systems.

Some people live in the past, others in the future. ...But only the present truly counts.

=> And if you look at the poll right now, there is no clear winner, with Stereophile having 19% of the votes, along with Other.
*** If the Internet would have been included as a mag from this poll, perhaps it would have garnered 80%+ of all votes.

______________________

Now, for me personally, when you are a pro audio/video reviewer paid for your job by a certain mag, it has a financial motivation and not necessarily with full integrity.
Some reviewers are better than others; but they also have various readerships (audiences).

Thing is this though: With the Internet our access to more and better experts of the audio and video industries have got way more valuable and interesting.
And there too it's fun (and way more direct & efficient) to separate the charlatans (products biases with financial gains motivation) from the true givers (free spirit experts with good common sense knowledge).
...And all there is between. :b

 

[DonH50]

Audio was always my fav until it died. I also liked Audio Amateur (is it still around?) and a couple of "garage" magazines. I did subscribe to Stereophile and TAS for a while but have let them lapse. I like some of the Stereophile columns (Kal's among them, natch) and appreciate the test results but just don't seem to have time and interest these days.

 

[NorthStar]

Yes, same here: Audio was one of my favorites.
And Stereophile for Kal Rubinson's Music in the Round column of course. :b

 

[Randy Bessinger]

Good morning Randy,

In the beginning there was Audio, with some of the usual suspects (writers & reviewers) still active today, and others dead. ...More technical audio mag.
And there was Stereo Review, them too with the usual suspects, and some staff still active and others dead. ...Mag for the masses.
And then Video Review, with similar staff as the one above but with the addition of the video equation of things (TVs, AV receivers, Camcorders, VCRs, DVD players, ...); that too was for the masses.

And then there was Sound & Vision (they have been around since the early 80s or so). ...Mag for the masses.
And then Stereophile Ultimate Home Theater, but at the beginning they were the video extension of Stereophile. ...For the masses, but with few lab tests.
Then it became just Home Theater, and some of the staff were brand new and from Sound & Vision. ...For the masses still, and few lab tests.
{Home Theater changed their editors quite often over the years; some got even fired!}

Sound & Vision is a mag for the advertisers because it has a larger audience, and consequently it's for the masses.
Home Theater is also for the masses and advertisers.

Now Sound and Vision is only one and it has that name because I believe it is more attractive for more of the masses.
**Home Theater is missing the audio aspect.} ...So the choice was obvious and makes sense. ...Besides there are still other home theater mags out there (most for the pictures, and some for the construction).

Audio/Video magazines are not any longer what they used to be because of the Internet with all the audio/video forums, and experts in all the fields, and who you can talk directly to and ask questions on the spot.
- AV mag's businesses are less and less viable just like CD/LP music stores and video stores.

Anyway, for true audiophiles the Internet it is, and same for true videophiles. ...There are a bunch of new and fresh experts out there, and it is much faster today than yesterday to constantly change and improve both your audio and video systems.

Some people live in the past, others in the future. ...But only the present truly counts.

=> And if you look at the poll right now, there is no clear winner, with Stereophile having 19% of the votes, along with Other.
*** If the Internet would have been included as a mag from this poll, perhaps it would have garnered 80%+ of all votes.

______________________

Now, for me personally, when you are a pro audio/video reviewer paid for your job by a certain mag, it has a financial motivation and not necessarily with full integrity.
Some reviewers are better than others; but they also have various readerships (audiences).

Thing is this though: With the Internet our access to more and better experts of the audio and video industries have got way more valuable and interesting.
And there too it's fun (and way more direct & efficient) to separate the charlatans (products biases with financial gains motivation) from the true givers (free spirit experts with good common sense knowledge).
...And all there is between. :b

Thanks for the walk down memory lane. I was a subscriber to all of those magazines at one time or another. I agree internet is great but sometimes TOO much information or at least not enough vetted and peer reviewed information. Some of the online forum reviewers are subject to the same financial motivation and integrity issues as print. At least that is what I have heard

 

[NorthStar]

It's more fun and interactive on the Internet (online) than just reading audio mags.

And besides it is more helpful to distinguish integrity from charlatanism.

 

[Randy Bessinger]

It's more fun and interactive on the Internet (online) than just reading audio mags.

And besides it is more helpful to distinguish integrity from charlatanism.

I agree.

 

[Champ04]

The measurements are the only thing I find useful from Stereophile. Even they must be taken with a grain of salt.
And Jeff, at Soundstage, is the only writer I trust anymore.

Sometimes I'll read JV at TAS. But only for a good laugh. Or to use as an example of what's wrong with the audio press.

 

[microstrip]

Hifi critic is generally a good read IMHO.

I would even say a very good read. And, as WBF, it often presents views from opposing sides.

 

[NorthStar]

The measurements are the only thing I find useful from Stereophile. Even they must be taken with a grain of salt.
And Jeff, at Soundstage, is the only writer I trust anymore.

Sometimes I'll read JV at TAS. But only for a good laugh. Or to use as an example of what's wrong with the audio press.

The most important aspect of Stereophile (audience's popularity) is their list of Recommended Components, from those Spring and Fall issues, with all their Class ratings. ...Those two issues always sold more copies than any other one.

Two are their several loudspeaker's measurements, and from DACs and CD/SACD transport/players, amplifiers and preamps.
Three, a mix of dedicated columns by the usual suspects, equipment reports (reviews), articles, editorials, Mikey's analog section, and music section at the end.
- ...According to their readership (not me, or just a little bit of it).

* I like Jeffrey too.

** TAS; for the music section, and some of their reviews, by some of their reviewers, and articles too.

______________

Here's a fair question: Which audio Mag has the most fun/jovial writers and reviewers with a good/sharp sense of humor.
- Hint: That should be easy. :b

 

[cpp]

The most important aspect of Stereophile (audience's popularity) is their list of Recommended Components, from those Spring and Fall issues, with all their Class ratings. ...Those two issues always sold more copies than any other one.

Shame Stereophile omits those internet speaker companies that make a pretty good speakers, (Salk for instance), not to mention DAC builders like W4S but Stereophile has its review guidelines about internet companies and those companies must have 5 local dealers before JA or the magazine entertains a review. Anyway I like Stereophile for it's measurements and that's about it...

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Shame Stereophile omits those internet speaker companies that make a pretty good speakers, (Salk for instance), not to mention DAC builders like W4S but Stereophile has its review guidelines about internet companies and those companies must have 5 local dealers before JA or the magazine entertains a review. Anyway I like Stereophile for it's measurements and that's about it...

This is inaccurate. Internet speaker companies are not omitted or ignored. (There are examples.) Internet-direct companies, in general, are not ignored (I've reviewed products from some and a DAC review is in production) but the review guidelines are different for them and have nothing to do with the number of dealers since ID companies are not presumed to have any dealers.

An abiding issue is that the ID products, just as all other products, have to catch the interest of the editors and that is usually the result of a direct exposure to the product at a dealer or at a demo event or at an industry show. Clearly, ID products are at somewhat of a disadvantage in this regard.

 

[Andre Marc]

This is inaccurate. Internet speaker companies are not omitted or ignored. (There are examples.) Internet-direct companies, in general, are not ignored (I've reviewed products from some and a DAC review is in production) but the review guidelines are different for them and have nothing to do with the number of dealers since ID companies are not presumed to have any dealers.

An abiding issue is that the ID products, just as all other products, have to catch the interest of the editors and that is usually the result of a direct exposure to the product at a dealer or at a demo event or at an industry show. Clearly, ID products are at somewhat of a disadvantage in this regard.

Kal, clearly Stereophile reviews many products sold direct..the Schitt, Emotiva, and many more.

I don't know how anyone could get the notion they don't.

 

[Ronm1]

Kal, clearly Stereophile reviews many products sold direct..the Schitt, Emotiva, and many more.

Yes, Emotiva was reviewed as soon as they advertised. I suspect that caught the editors attention.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Yes, Emotiva was reviewed as soon as they advertised. I suspect that caught the editors attention.

Where's my knife???????? Ouch!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Yes, Emotiva was reviewed as soon as they advertised. I suspect that caught the editors attention.

Speaking as the editor who did Stereophile's first Emotiva review, I can say that your suspicion is misguided, at best. I requested the product at a CES demo without any knowledge about whether they had ever advertised (and that is because, frankly, I have no interest in the advertisements).

 

[cpp]

This is inaccurate. Internet speaker companies are not omitted or ignored. (There are examples.) Internet-direct companies, in general, are not ignored (I've reviewed products from some and a DAC review is in production) but the review guidelines are different for them and have nothing to do with the number of dealers since ID companies are not presumed to have any dealers.

An abiding issue is that the ID products, just as all other products, have to catch the interest of the editors and that is usually the result of a direct exposure to the product at a dealer or at a demo event or at an industry show. Clearly, ID products are at somewhat of a disadvantage in this regard.

Not trying to cause a fuse, just to understand how it works on a product review. I know there has been internet providers of DACS reviewed, but where are the reviews on speakers,like Salk, has there been reviews of Vapor, Von Schweikert. And what about W4S DACS ? I can understand Emotiva with it's major contribution to adds in the mag after all marketing and the sell of advertising allows for publishing. I see where Aperion Audio contacted a reviewer, could any other internet company do the same even if that provider didn't have a dealer network. I did read the policy JA published and it makes sense and makes it a little more clear on how products are selected for review. . http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/index.html