Critic's Corner

Posted by mkuller (R) on February 03, 2008 at 12:27:04

In Reply to: RE: My guess is that most audio writers have ruined a few napkins posted by John Marks on February 03, 2008 at 07:29:56

...to make a profit publishing a special interest magazine.

It takes an *average of 5* years for a new, successful magazine to become profitable. In recent history, Maxim was the exception to that rule and turned a profit in about 2 years.

Word has it that the current owners of TAS have not made a profit yet in 7+ years.

When I look back over the landscape from the late-1970s forward littered with failed audio publications, there were many that were well financed but failed nonetheless. Perhaps the owners didn't have the patience and fortitude to stick it out that long.

I can still recall those days in the late-1970s when I looked forward to receiving Stereophile, TAS and even the Audio Critic, but they were published so irregularly that sometimes it was 6 months or more between issues.

You named Stereo Review, Audio, Tom's Play, Listener and Myle's Ultimate Audio as some of the publications you miss - here are a few others that didn't make it:

The Audio Critic (went sideways after a 7 year break, now internet)
IAR (went internet)
Audio Horizons
Audio Alternatives
High Performance Review
Sounds Like
Fi

And still limping along:

Audiophile Voice (the editor told me he can survive on 5000 subscribers)
Sensible Sound

I'm sure there are others I've neglected to mention.

We should embrace Stereophile and TAS (such as it is) and enjoy them while we can.

When they're gone we'll look back on today fondly as 'the good old days' of audio review publications.

Edits: 02/03/08   02/03/08