|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.10.107.194
I haven't posted here in a very long time and feel that I must now.
For the past 20 years, I have been an avid reader of Stereophile. As a member of the press, I understand deadlines and I understand alot of the corporate issues that can come up when it comes to treatment of employees. And that is as much a positive than negative phenomenon.
The departures of Sam Tellig and Wes Phillips from the magazine is regrettable at best and infuriating at worst if said journalists were not treated with the respect that they deserve. Knowing John Atkinson that is not the case from him as an individual and more that remains private may have happened at other levels. A expletive member decided to take a very low road on this subject and he has no right to be here and I don't think he is. It is not what you say, it is how you say it. And that person compelled me to respond here.
The journalist anchors of Stereophile, along with the audio society that I belong to, are among the greatest mentors that I have ever had and I publicly thank Sam and Wes for their passion and especially for solidifying my love of Musical Fidelity and Thiel Speakers. Priceless parts of the manufacturing fraternity in our hobby.
John Atkinson is a class act. Period. The compromises and decisions that he has made, in the spirit of J. Gordon Holt as best as humanely possible, I defend completely and passionately. You cannot sell a magazine without advertising or an incredible influx of angel investor capital. And the latter is rare these days for anything outside of extremist publications or Public Radio.
The nauseating accusations from so many that the reviews submitted by journalists at Stereophile must automatically be shilled or compromised due to the advertising is ludicrous at worst. Yes, we are all human, and I am not so naive as to not believe that the occasional grey area happens in life. When it comes to this publication it is nil as far as I am concerned. I have been a journalist for 25 years and just becomes someone runs spots, doesn't mean they are "on the take".
It is my hope, for all that work there, that the hedge fund who will take the high road like Unilever with Ben & Jerry's and allow Stereophile and it's reporters to operate in the guise that they have with greater investment capital to finally pay these great journalists, and yes, Mr. Atkinson, a fair and just full time salaried wage for their work and not be just freelance reporters after Sam's example of 32 years. Wishful thinking that I have always wanted for so many who work there.
We are audiophiles. This is a complex fraternity and both respect and solidarity in these "dwindling hobby times" are needed and warranted.
Ian M. Gordon
CT Audio Society
Follow Ups:
I think that most of us who were privy to the inner workings of Fortune 500 companies might be dismayed at the inner workings of the people who work there and manage the company. The fact that Stereophile is more transparent seems to be a bother to many, but not me. Personalities clash on this planet now more than ever, our current political climate a prime example of how character is becoming a lost art. There is a conspiracy around ever corner these days.
I don't see that here and am just glad when the next issue shows up and covers a wide range of products from lower to high priced. I don't fret about what I can't own and glad that someone else can. There are more roster changes on my favorite baseball team than here, and they still haven't won a World Series since 1908. And in the overall scheme of things that doesn't really matter much as both are a diversion from life's trials. If it becomes to troublesome to me I will just stop reading it. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Jim Tavegia
> I don't see that here and am just glad when the next issue shows up and
> covers a wide range of products from lower to high priced...If it becomes
> to troublesome to me I will just stop reading it. I don't see that
> happening any time soon.
Thanks, Jim.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/19/15
His JFK rant sadly seems to be missing. :-(
I wanted the whole town burned to the ground (with due credit to Blues Traveler).
jm
How is product selected for review , on the up and up that is....
Anyone.?
Chirp, Chirp, ...... ?
...back in the olden days, when I was reviewing there were two ways:
1. The editor assigned it (usually a request which was usually accepted) and had it sent to me.
2. I heard something that sounded interesting at a show or a dealer's and requested to review it. If the editor was interested the manufacturer was contacted and if he was interested one was sent to me.
You won't get a meaningful answer from me because I am a columnist and if you read the fine print, those of us who from advanced age have risen to the eminence of "columnist" get to choose for themselves what they cover.
So I have no idea on what basis JA hands out review assignments to other writers, but I must assume that it is on the basis of, "The readers might want to know about this or, regardless, they should know about this." I assume that NAD's DAC/integrated amp made it to the cover because it was a significant improvement in nearly every way over its storied ancestor.
Sam Tellig has recently admitted in these portals that his (French accent alert) penchant for covering Musical Fidelity was because they were always ready to send him stuff.
I prefer to be a little pig in the forest and go hunting for my own Truffles.
Case in point, I often visit Parsons Audio's annual pro-audio gear fest, which is where I first encountered Bricasti's DAC. When I put one of my own recordings into the CD player that was attached to it, I knew that Bricasti's M1 DAC was special. My column coverage of it led to JA's listening to it and to his giving it a full review and in due course it was placed on the cover.
Through a Boston pro-audio contact I learned about the consumer speakers, Direct Acoustics' Silent Speaker II, designed by AR 4 co-designer Winslow Burhoe. It turned out to be a stellar bargain I still recommend.
Through a NYC pro audio chum I learned of Grace Design's headphone amp/DAC and later linestage, which I have covered the updates of going on 10 years.
It's really rather boring: I look for great audio at a fair price. Whether they buy ads never crosses my mind.
I have written for Stereophile for 14 years. Feel free to examine everything I have written under a magnifying glass. If you find anything you think smells fishy, let's have at it.
JM
JM, MKuller, Apreciate the response ....
...Stereophile continues to be the best of the audiophile publications including the ezines.
JA has integrity and is doing an excellent job explaining issues here to keep our trust.
Tom/Sam on the other hand with his posts brings to mind the Smothers Brothers bit, "Mom always liked you best."
Maybe JA didn't give him enough attention.
You are obviously a very perceptive person, Ian, especially when I look at your system on your profile.
Pretty much a win by default.
This thread?
Priceless!
What can not be argued is that Stereophile exists to serve the industry because ads, not subscriptions, pay the bills. We need no further proof of this when JA explains "it is widely known in the audio industry" that his wife is in charge of ad sales.
He did NOT say that it was widely known to his readers.
Not that I find anything wrong with with the fact that he's married to the person in charge of ad sales.
The larger problem, and it's not MY problem, is that the 'audio industry' to which he refers is very small and magazines like Stereophile are dependent on that industry for their economic survival. To deny that this dependency does not, in some small way, influence editorial tone is to deny reality.
Is the ridiculuously bloated Recommended Components list.
Virtually everything that gets reviewed gets on the list at some level of recommendation. Are all these components really capable of making a good sounding system?? I think not...
If this isn't pandering to the industry I am not sure what is. Nearly every advertiser can claim that they are a Stereophile "recommended component". Well, all it took was actually getting a component to them for review. Failing that I guess you don't get a recommendation.
The issue of the recommended components even touts the number of components that are recommended...as if the number of recommended components is somehow a relevant factor in any way, shape or form.
The dilution of the importance of the recommended component list is so severe that I don't even bother with it anymore and I suspect many other readers also don't bother but to give it a quick glance. A way needs to be found to sort the wheat from the chaff or the list is nothing more than a, "this is what STereophile has reviewed in the last few years" list.
This doesn't make any sense Cab, Stereophile has to rate the equipment they review, if you are critiquing their class-a category as being overblown and full of Hyperbole, then something can be said of that, everything cant be class-A and actually there are not, but JA may want to reconsider their class-A list, expanding Class-B and C and being a bit more stringent on their Class-A rating.
Personally i find most of the monthly stuff boring , from everyone really! there is so much new and unknown in the market place for eg, is a 20.7 better than sound lab, analysis, et al, who makes the best panel speaker or are they all a lateral move, what about the very overpriced, are the new comers better than the original over priced, The Gen1.1, Are magico ,rockport, wilson on that level or Better? what about all the new comers only show goer's get to hear..?
Sad how boring this has become .....
Any serious article entertaining this type of conversation would drive more readership than current blah, blah ,blah, I had 2 yrs of sub to Stereophile and cant recall more than a glance at one, Fremer being the exception.
C'mon John, is a dartzeel up against Boulder, Is the JC-1 as much for less, where's the worth... ?
Regards...
It makes perfect sense...the system is called "Recommended Components" not, "Here is a rating system from A++ to F". By putting a component in a category you are RECOMMENDING this component or else the name is false advertising.
A component that is not recommended would therefore not show up on the list.
I agree though that much more head to head of what is perceived to be the best might reveal more than a few "Emperor's new Clothes" components.
For my own part, when I was reviewing for Positive Feedback, I tried to get groups of gear together for head to head shootouts. I was really only successful for preamps, being logistically easier to deal with, but would have loved to get all the great amps I have heard together for a massive shootout.
Preamps were easier as well because I didn't have to worry about speaker matching. My amp at the time had a sufficiently high input impedance (over 20Kohm) so matching was theoretically not an issue. I managed to get several top end preamps for two shootouts. You can look it up in the archives.
I like how Hifi Choice still does the six-way shootouts but they do it usually with boring mid-fi gear. Even the winner I couldn't care less about. The top high end companies don't really want to be critically reviewed (I had darTZeel refuse to give me an amp to review...even after I went to visit them near Geneva. I told them that I cannot guarantee a positive review and they got scared I think).
The thing is there doesnt have to be a "winner" , there never is with Audio, the best and IMO the most accurate way to describe the Best, is through their capabilities, which is what "recommended components" try to do in some sort of way.With current upgrades and changes, the CLass-A list has to reflect this, yet it does not, there is not even a discussion as to the best of the best.
An article on the collective class-A equipment would go along way in removing the smoke and mirrors, a kind of synapsis on the list so to speak and actually something to read.
No technical articles anymore, Bascom too Bizzy ?
As to Dartzeel , you may have to take the method favored by the original Audio Critic, buy , test and sell or Borrow test and run.I'm sure one of your soon to be not friends after the review could lend you one ..:)
Edits: 03/18/15
Yeah, a shootout amongst the Class A, king wannabes, would be enlightening...with the clear mandate that all but the top 3 lose their Class A mandate and fall to B or worse upon review.
There doesn't have to be one best but only a very few would be appropriate from what I have heard out there.
Don't have the money to follow the catch and release policy...would probably take too big a hit these days in the resale.
As you know, my friends and I do fairly often informal testing sessions where we bring our high end gear together. Sometimes its preamps, sometimes DACs, sometimes amps (more complicated due to the size and weight of some of our beasts).
We still stay friends, although sometimes I am sure some people leave a bit dissatisfied.
I know what you mean, I think Class-A would have a bit more than 3 contenders thou. Heard a WA X1 /Krell with sub and upgrades last week, It still have the shouty middle, haven't heard the XLF to see if it is still there thou.
A pity none of the mags even hint at giving the public something, but since you are already doing shootouts, you have material .
Edits: 03/18/15
I have a friend who used to have the WA X1 (series 1) and it sounded GREAT with a 30 watt KR audio VA350i. I mean really amazing and up to that point I hadn't heard WA sound anything like I would want to own. Keep in mind the original was 95db/watt and a pretty easy load as well. We were playing Kodo drums loud enough to feel it in the gut!
There is a good reason WA demos a lot with LAMM...tubes and WA big speakers work. Only the Watt/Puppy was not such a good match because it has a wonky and low impedance that made it tough on some tube amps (stil the best I heard from that speakers was a W/P 7 with Lamm ML1.1 90 watt push/pull triode amps).
Did a bit of a shootout today. A fried of mine came over with his KR VA350i (was mine...sold it to protect the baby) and we compared it to my NAT Symbiosis on my Odeons. Well, the KR is the superior of the two amps on that we both agreed. More low level resolution, more space between instruments and more 3d imaging. Nicer highs and nicer bass too. Breathed more. However, listening in isolation we agreed that both amps sound excellent and do most things right...just the KR was more right. Put the two amps on a more difficult speaker it might reverse...but I doubt it as I put that KR on everything and it just delivers. Then NAT also needs like 2 hours of playing to "get there" and the KR is full on by 30 minutes. Sigh...
Nat get good reviews so does KR, well from Owners and shows. As to the WA, i was going to say i can understand them working with toobs, the upper mid shout would be tamed by softer tooby output in the top end. Those Krells dont sound like that on the ribbons, so i know its not the amplifiers, that metal dome tweeter really need taming, i can see such a symbiotic relationship with X1's and tubes working ...If you have them in a small to mid size room you can get them up pretty loud i bet..
Stereophile did test the KR, but i cant recall seeing any NATAUDIO ...
Edits: 03/19/15
NAT was reviewed a couple of times in Hifi News and Record Review. They looked at the NAT SE1 MK2 and the NAT Transmitter. Both by Ken Kessler I think. The same mag also reviewed KR Audio Kronzilla SXi and said it was one of the best they had heard.
THat stereophile review is for an old, no longer made amp that predates the current Kronzilla models. However, these older models, which still go used for quite a bit of money, are supposed to sound extremely good as well (particularly the VT800 Mk).
NAT's biggest problems seems to be long term reliability. They run very hot and at very high voltages (like 1200V for their 211 based amps) and seem to have parts failures after some years. Since mine is a hybrid with SS output it doesn't get as hot nor have all that high voltage running around. So, I HOPE it lasts longer without issues.
The KRs are very reliable in my experience.
Other than good old head to head stuff
Edits: 03/18/15
Once upon a time they were not afraid to declare a winner. I know that there are simply a LOT more components out there nowadays (especially now coming from the Far East and Eastern Europe) so it is harder to declare the best of the best...but someone should step up and try.
I am particularly impressed with what is coming out of Eastern Europe at the moment. Their tube amps and hybrid amps are just damned good. There are a lot of old tube engineers who really know this stuff and did truly innovative things with tubes after a 40 year break from tube innovation. Many of my current and previous amps were from Czech, Slovakia or Serbia.
I wanted to suggest that Stereophile's obligation to manufacturers is at least as important as its obligation to readers -- maybe more so.
This did not accord with JA's view and he cut me off.
I was not suggesting there is anything WRONG with putting manufacturers first. I find this "dependency" neither compromising nor corrupting.
The baloney that Stereophile exists primarily for readers is just that -- baloney.
Manufacturers come first -- and SHOULD. It's they who keep "the industry" alive. Not the magazines and the critics. The true heroes of hi-fi are the likes of Bill Conrad, Lew Johnson, Mike Sanders, John DeVore, and so on -- not Sam Tellig, not John Atkinson.
Now ... making craven excuses when manufacturers or importers send defective review samples is quite another matter.
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
"The baloney that Stereophile exists primarily for readers is just that -- baloney."
Baloney!
"Manufacturers come first -- and SHOULD. It's they who keep "the industry" alive."
No what keeps the industry alive is the consumer. Without consumers there is no industry, no need for heroes and certainly no need for magazines or reviewers.
It is clear many in this thread have no idea how markets work. Many of them cannot see the forest because of all those trees.
I guess you have missed supply and demand. To make things no one wants is not a good business model...i.e the Edsel. People want and need things and the market exists and is filled by manufacturers. Without audiophiles the high end would not exist, thus no manufacturers. The magazines exist to let those interested know what is out there so you might be enticed to buy their product over something else. it is now about choice, not about creating a market. Edison created a new demand and over time learning to play an instrument for music entertainment was replaced by turning the radio on.
The markets shifts in terms of portability has certainly changed and will continue to. Audio over USB was a game changer, as before, digital outs from our computers was mostly an afterthought. Not any more.
If there was no us, there would be no Stereophile. Just think of how many brick and motar stores there would be if there was no internet.
Jim Tavegia
...readers have to come first.
The duty an audio review publication has to a manufacturer is to be thorough, ethical and fair in their assessment and treatment.
flatfooted.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
It seems to this reader that Mr Atkinson is coming out of all this quite nicely, actually. It seems that the worst that can be said of him is not all that bad.
Daniel
was referring to his comment tied with Sam's statement.
While John Atkinson was more personable through his writings 20 years ago {and the magazine was far more fresh}, the magazine has changed greatly.
There can be do doubt that it WAS patently impossible for Stereophile to grow and maintain the integrity of JGH's standard of NO advertisements... even Audio tried 30 years ago in striving to attract advertisers NOT in the Audio business... the business model IS dead... sadly, print IS dying.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
> There can be do doubt that it WAS patently impossible for Stereophile to
> grow and maintain the integrity of JGH's standard of NO advertisements...
J. Gordon Holt started publishing adverts in Vol.3 No.3, published in 1972
(see the article linked below). The ads in this issue were all from dealers;
the first issue to publish ads from manufacturer was Vol.4 No.1, published
in December 1977. This was long before I joined Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Audio was the best "Audio mag" heeeevar, they took ads and they are gone, errr just saying.
Really? And how about when manufacturers supply a complete turn key mega buck reference system to your editor and senior reviewer...like at TAS..can they serve two masters...lol
...Harley and Valin since HP is not here to defend himself as you have been reminded before.
If you don't like what the magazines do then don't read them.
Which is probably the case - the ones who complain the loudest usually have no skin in the game.
Naysayers...
What are you talking about?
Manufacturers/Advertisers are CLIENTS of both publications. Any firm that does not serve their clients goes bankrupt.
Subscribers and readers are NOT customers. As John Atkinson has pointed out, subscription revenue is a pittance. It does not even cover the cost of producing one issue.
So logic ensues. You server your CLIENTS first.
The assertion that readers come first is comical.
And specifics? HP was furnished with systems he did not pay a nickel for for decades, and Harley and Valin have followed suit.
Are you playing dumb or in a bubble?
Magazines serve their clients (mfg'ers and advertisers) best, by properly serving the needs of everybody's client, their readers..
Without readers, there is no publication.
How does a publication best serve its readers? Well, that's a whole nuther topic.
But it starts with intellectual honesty and leadership. Leadership as in having enough expertise to lead a good percentage of its readers to superior levels of musicality. Not the type of leadership that tries to dazzle the masses with their intellect or get down in the gutter practicing mental masturbation with the masses when they themselves cannot produce a system that sounds any better than the majority.
IMO, that's been the biggest problem and performance-limiting governor since day one.
Nothing to disagree with here stehno.
In a perfect world, you would be right on the money.
But Stereophile writers and editors don't socialize and attend parties with readers. They don't personal relationships with readers. Case in point. Stereophile writers regularly attended social functions at the Devore factory, and yet still write about the speakers. There is no separation, and we know damn well who butters the bread.
Not just stereophile, the whole hi-end industry and their little lunchBox closed circle, Easy to spot , no one gets in unless you pay or get invited, so dont take it personal, The public is just that, the internet is prying away alot of the control they had in the past, Hey Tellig may spill everything.
Brrrrewwwwhaaaa
Edits: 03/04/15
Every industry has its inner circle and cliquey relationships. I have no issues with that.
Just don't feed me a line of horseshit that the readers come first. No company ever survived intact for long not servicing its customers first.
You can read Stereophile for free, but you can't advertise in Stereophile for free.
> Just don't feed me a line of horseshit that the readers come first.
"Horseshit?" Why is it that people like you, who know nothing of the
publishing industry, always claim to have valid opinions? This is what my
mentor, the late John Crabbe, editor of Hi-Fi News from 1965 to 1982,
had to say on this subject, extracted from the essay at the link below:"If you tell the truth about components you review, there will always be
a small percentage of companies at any one time who are not advertising
in your pages. But if you publish the truth, you will have a good
magazine. And if you have a good magazine, you will have readers. And as
long as you have readers, disgruntled advertisers will eventually return.
But if you don't tell the truth, you won't have a good magazine. And if
you don't have a good magazine, you won't have readers, at least not for
long. And if you don't have readers, you won't have advertisers."> No company ever survived intact for long not servicing its customers first.
An editor's customers are the magazine's readers.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/06/15
"An editor's customers are the magazine's readers."This is the only place we would disagree. You yourself have state that subscriptions won't even pay the electricity bill. Advertising revenues fund your payroll, rent, and production costs.
Now WHO are you are customers again?
And let me clarify this. I have never made any claims here that reviews in Stereophile are in ANY way inaccurate, misleading, or intentionally slanted. I do have issues with methodology and format which I personally consider antiquated. But that is just me.
What we do have, is human nature, which is to be just a bit kinder to our friends. The clients we socialize with. The clients that write us checks.
Before you think I am going in a certain direction..UNLIKE some of the posters here, I don't think you are doing ANYTHING the least bit unethical, or inappropriate. There, I said it.
The magazine is run like any other business, as it SHOULD BE, and it is ultimately well done entertainment with some product information thrown in. Your writers, and NO audio writers a really journalists, they are not uncovering NSA spying or are on fact finding missions to Syria. All good. They are columnists by definition.
I have gone on record with my position, if anyone actually cares.
Edits: 03/06/15 03/06/15
"This is the only place we would disagree. You yourself have state that subscriptions won't even pay the electricity bill. Advertising revenues fund your payroll, rent, and production costs.
Now WHO are you are customers again?"
If an editor says that their readers come first, there is no reason to surmise that they're being disingenuous or naive. There is no challenging, dismantling, or putting a fresh spin on longstanding ethics.
It's either black or white and grey is not good.
> If an editor says that their readers come first, there is no reason to
> surmise that they're being disingenuous or naive.It's also easier for me to say than to practice. Over the years, I have been
pressured by a succession of publishers to abandon my commitment to
putting readers first. Those publishers make much the same arguments that
Sprezza Tura has expressed in this thread. I have successfully resisted that
pressure, but not without stress and conflict.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/07/15
I want to commend you on your post. Nobody who lives in the real world would ever think it was an easy task to hold steady under intense pressure.
You said in one response I don't understand publishing. Actually I do. I spent ten years in publishing. There basically two models, high subscription and low volume, or ad supported and high volume/distribution.
I stand by what I said, your customers are the ones that keep the lights on, and those are manufacturers. That does NOT mean, or imply you can't produce a good product.
I think audiophiles need to have a bucket of cold water poured on their fantasy of the review journal locked away from all outside influences, that refuses to accept advertising, and yet is widely available for a low price. As I said, Stereophile is a business, and it is run like one, and that is exactly what should be.
Posters here seem to think it is some sacred journal that will expose all those crappy sounding "over priced" components and speakers and uncover every "giant killer" bargain.
When compared to the financial, political, and scientific press, who have totally abdicated their responsibility to the public, stereo mags are downright golden. :)
"I think audiophiles need to have a bucket of cold water poured on their fantasy of the review journal..."
This is wrong thinking.
> You said in one response I don't understand publishing. Actually I do. I
> spent ten years in publishing.In which case I apologize for saying you didn't know what you were
talking about.> I stand by what I said, your customers are the ones that keep the lights
> on, and those are manufacturers.And as I said, some of the publishers for whom I have reported to over
the years have agreed with you and have tried to force me to put those
manufacturers' interests ahead of those of my readers. I have always
resisted that pressure, sometimes to the point of job-threatening
insubordination.> That does NOT mean, or imply you can't produce a good product.
And as I said, if an ad-supported magazine puts the interests of its
advertisers before those of its readers, it will ultimately fail. The
audio publishing landscape is littered with their corpses while Stereophile
remains in rude good health.> I think audiophiles need to have a bucket of cold water poured on their
> fantasy of the review journal locked away from all outside influences,
> that refuses to accept advertising, and yet is widely available for a
> low price. As I said, Stereophile is a business, and it is run like one,
> and that is exactly what should be.And we are back to someone who has no connection with how Stereophile
is run refusing to accept that he is incorrect. :-(
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/08/15 03/08/15 03/08/15 03/08/15
The rest of this thread has been deleted by the moderators. But there was
something I had written in a now-deleted posting that had elaborated on
what I wrote in the posting above. I hope that it is okay for me to repost
it. Sprezza Tura had asked:> how am I incorrect that stereophile is run like business? Is it a
> charity or a non profit?Of course Stereophile is run as a business. But I strongly believe that
though some ad revenue is inevitably left on the table (which is why I
have had some conflicts with various publishers over the years), putting
the interests of a publication's readers over those of its advertisers is
the only business strategy that is successful in the long term. And as
someone who will be celebrating 40 years in the magazine business next
year and has been editor-in-chief of 2 very successful audio magazines in
those 4 decades - HiFi News and Stereophile - the long term is what
concerns me.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/10/15
Thanks for reposting.
Which begs the question..why were posts deleted? I saw nothing offensive or inappropriate, simply on going discussions.
Unacceptable moderating.
> Thanks for reposting.
You're welcome.> Which begs the question...why were posts deleted?
I have no idea, but the moderators have every right to delete posts that
they feel are in appropriate.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/11/15
I did not imply you knew why..
Yes, the moderaters have the "right" to what ever the hell they want.
And I have the right to call them spineless.
You don't seem to be too unhappy about it either.
> You don't seem to be too unhappy about it either.
There's no point in fighting battles you can't win. :-)
I reposted the text I felt important to keep in circulation, which I assume
was not the text that had led to the moderators taking action.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Can't argue with that.
As stated, but to quote Jack White, it bears repeating, this is a private forum, and mods can do what ever pleases them, but if preventing open and honest discussions from evolving is one of their manifestos, that is rather sad.
synergistic relationships , you cant have ying without yang , readership is the product, reviews are the product ...
Key to note, there's no product without readership ..........
Edits: 03/06/15
...if the magazine does not serve its readers, it will have no subscribers - then no one will place ads, so no revenue.Serve the manufacturers first and it becomes a big infomercial with no critical content.
Every single review now is critical.
Get a clue.
Edits: 02/25/15
.....and reality.
From chicken/egg to circle jerk perspectives. I've come to learn that 'reality' is not the last word in 'Reality Shows'.
Ouch. How rude of you, as a fellow former TAS writer to burst his bubble. POP!As someone who was there I am sure you can tell us the pecking order.
Edits: 02/25/15
My apologies to Mike if my comment came across as being rude. I have always enjoyed his posts and respected his opinions.
While I had nothing to do with advertising at TAS, it always made me wonder when I heard complaints from small manufacturers about preferential treatment for larger manufacturers with megabuck advertising budgets. No proof of anything I suppose, but maybe I'm just suspicious in nature.
As for the readers, I've always felt the reviewer should be responsible for their loyally by being honest.
I think Mike is a great poster, and I agree with him most things, including politics. But his HP Halo is so over the top.
He also has a different perspective since he did not make a "career" out of reviewing like Harley, Valin, et al.
What color are the skies on your planet? here on earth they are blue..for now.
Tell us about the selection process, how does one get a review, how are the products selected...
Regards ..
"Tell us about the selection process, how does one get a review, how are the products selected..."
This is just mechanics. The necessary activities of ANY magazine.
Bottom line is any magazine that wishes to survive caters to the needs of its readers. Without readers there is no need for the magazine and how or if they do anything becomes irrelevant.
> The larger problem, and it's not MY problem, is that the 'audio industry' to which he refers is very small and magazines like Stereophile are dependent on that industry for their economic survival. To deny that this dependency does not, in some small way, influence editorial tone is to deny reality.>
Having actually written for an audio magazine rather than speculating from the sidelines, I can tell you that we were all audiophiles before we became reviewers.
As hobbyists, we find it exciting when a new product is innovative or does a better job of reproducing music - that creates the tone more than any conscious effort by the editors.
But never was I influenced by the editor or a manufacturer to slant a review one way or another.
Many well reviewed manufacturers don't advertise.
I would say the relationship, which you call dependency, works both ways so its more of a blind co-operative - where would the manufactures be without the magazines?
I saw HP ban manufacturers from the magazine for trying to influence a review.
The only thing Stereophile has to sell its magazines is its integrity, as JA points out.
Why would he want to compromise it?
Wholly smokes, using HP as some model of ethics is an utter joke.
This is guy who stole equipment from manufacturers. He was a thief. How much gear was shipped to him at great expense for a promised "review" which never appeared? How much gear did actually review where he outright refused to return it.
How many times did he threaten manufacturers?
Puhleaze.
"This is guy who stole equipment from manufacturers. He was a thief. How much gear was shipped to him at great expense for a promised "review" which never appeared? How much gear did actually review where he outright refused to return it."
That pretty much corroborates what a high-profile reviewer (who once worked for the guy), told me two years ago in a private email exchange. (I was curious about HP at the time.) And, yes, I take your point that it is more than a little ironic for MKULLER to suggest HP was a paragon of virtue. But let's give it a rest where HP is concerned. It's unseemly to beat up on a dead man who can't defend himself.
Mkuller has posted abut HP here for years through rose colored glasses.
Sorry, but kicking the bucket does not preclude the whole story being told.
...through my 15 years of personal experience and the experiences of other writers I know.
As I said, he was not perfect by any means but in my dealings with him he was always ethical and fair.
I live on the West Coast and was removed from the daily workings of the magazine.
I believe the whole story has been told here numerous times before and it all depends on who is telling it.
Like blind men describing an elephant - you appear to be on the tail end.
You don't know the man and can only repeat hearsay about someone who can't defend himself so you pick and chose what to repeat.
Glad you couldn't care less. Please try to.
...HP had his faults (I'm not sure about your claims, though) but letting manufacturers influence the reviews was not one of them.
"He had a large garage full of unreviewed equipment that was never returned. Or equipment would be returned having been seriously damaged by his cats. I was at the house more than once when Harry couldn't be bothered coming down from the home's upper level to greet manufacturers who sometimes traveled from overseas to bring and set up equipment for review.
I remember going upstairs and pleading with him to just come downstairs and say "hello" but for reasons known only to him he wouldn't, though in the evening he'd be happy to be taken out by that same manufacturer for an expensive meal where he'd order embarrassingly expensive wine regardless of the manufacturer's ability to afford it.
The once flush magazine's finances became dire over time as revenue dried up and Harry continued to feel entitled to live large and lavish while those in his employ were late getting paid."
Sounds like a pretty despicable human being to me. Actually sounds like the definition of a scumbag.
(nt)
I could not care less, but enough of the myth of HP. He was a miserable human being.
Guess you never spoke to a manufacturer who did not get there gear back. Or those that were threatened that if he did not get a premier or exclusive review he would "destroy" their reputation.
Yeh. Ok.
Thanks for finally saying exactly what I have heard from numerous manufacturers and others in this industry. I didnt know him personally but have never heard a good thing about him as a human being.
...never one he threatened.
Sounds to me like you care a lot more than you admit - you had to look up those comments you pasted.
You seem pretty angry about something - maybe somebody dumped in your cereal this morning.
In 15 years of working for him he never treated me poorly so I have the utmost respect for what the man accomplished.
Many of us would not be audiophiles if it weren't for him and TAS.
> > maybe somebody dumped in your cereal this morning.
LOL. He's like this every day!
FWIW, during my time at TAS (99-06), I also was never influenced by
any editor or a manufacturer to slant a review one way or another.
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
—Leonard Cohen
Why get involved? Unless the grumpy inmate violated some rule why pipe in? You shouldnt take sides nor should you poke fun at an inmate. Why even mention your time at TAS? As if there exists some sort of reviewers fraternity. The fact that reviewers spend so much time earning so little money makes me think they are pretty thick. There are easier ways than becoming a reviewer if you want to smoke for a discount.
> > nor should you poke fun at an inmate.
Says the guy who has had 20% of his posts deleted over his first six weeks at AA.
Also, I wasn't poking fun. I was making a valid assessment, which is easy to support based on specific observable behaviors.
BTW, you might be johns dad, but you're not mine.
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
—Leonard Cohen
...he has personal experience to discuss relevant to the thread.
Now you are being absurd. My father was purchasing tube amps, reel to reels, and Quad speakers in the 60s ten years before TAS ever exsisted and I can tell you he never read a single issue of TAS period. I became an audiophile through direct exposure.
To credit Pearson with spreading the gospel is a false halo.
Live in your fantasy world.
No anger here. I am on assignment where it is 75 degrees and sunny without a care in the world and I don't eat cereal. lol.
I live in your assignment ........ :)
"What can not be argued is that Stereophile exists to serve the industry because ads, not subscriptions, pay the bills."
I would argue that point. It puts the cart before the horse.
No one would advertise in Stereophile, or any magazine for that matter, if no one was reading, looking at thing.
Subscriptions whether they cover the costs or not is the driving force for ANY magazine. No readers no advertisers it is that simple.
JA does a great job serving his readers.
nt
nt
OK, I guess I don't remember any French restaurants in Peoria.
But there is now!
Link below:
nt
Lucky dog!
Hi Ian. Thank you for your comments. You raise several issues that I do not understand that well.
You say : "The nauseating accusations from so many that the reviews submitted by journalists at Stereophile must automatically be shilled or compromised due to the advertising is ludicrous at worst." Does the news that "his wife is the advertising manager" affect your judgment ?
"I have been a journalist for 25 years and just becomes someone runs spots, doesn't mean they are "on the take". I thought that this is what it means by being "on the take." Can you elaborate on what your thoughts are ?
"...the hedge fund who will take the high road like Unilever with Ben & Jerry's and allow Stereophile and it's reporters to operate in the guise that they have with greater investment capital to finally pay these great journalists, and yes, Mr. Atkinson, a fair and just full time salaried wage for their work and not be just freelance reporters after Sam's example of 32 years." But that is what Sam Tellig is saying is the problem, that it has all been about not paying compensation in order to improve the bottom line. Sam also says it as gotten worse, since Source Interlink became involved. Do you think this will change, or is it getting worse ?
Thanks again.
Thank you for your time and comments everyone. It means alot. I am going to elaborate on a few questions raised.
The fact that Mrs. Atkinson runs the advertising department, while very atypical, does not say to me that it is impossible to maintain separate and clear views on what needs to be done. Again there are no absolutes. Only the salient fact that people try. As stated before, I have been a cheerleader for the journalists of the magazine to be treated with respect and fairly paid in a very tough industry that is journalism. Sam's word I take at face value.
Large corporate ownership of a magazine like this is not an automatic death sentence. It is dependent on management and priority. Yet it has become clear that the publication's corporate ownership may not and probably will never see the importance of this niche in the consumer world as much as we do along with, artists, product designers, musicians and AES engineers.
The irony is that Audiophile technology invariably trickles down, albeit to a much cheaper degree, to the regular consumer. The behemoth example I cite is Sony with a visionary group that never gave up on this kind of quality. And they never will.
John Atkinson has, quoting another, "always taken the high road here", when he easily could go the other way. And that bolsters my prior assertion of his professional approach.
Being "on the take" in this instance means that advertisers on the publication itself have corrupted the editorial content for only their demands of what is written. If that were the case Stereophile and TAS would never have gained the level of industry reference and respect dating from decades ago; let alone the professorial reputations of both magazines writers and the influence that they, and reporters from other publications, have gained.
Commercial radio and magazines sell spots because the format attracts the advertiser and not the other way around most of the time. Said advertiser feels that the message and medium are ripe to sell what they offer. And I am not trying to sound patronizing here as this is my experience with the advertising process and have worked with that process for decades.
I concede that this hobby's relationship with advertising is much closer in intent and process than other businesses because so many of the business owners, are themselves, the passionate adherents to the niche itself. However that doesn't automatically, to my mind, create an absolute immovable corruption of the subject matter at hand.
Best:
Ian M. Gordon
CT Audio Society
> Large corporate ownership of a magazine like this is not an automatic
> death sentence. It is dependent on management and priority. Yet it has
> become clear that the publication's corporate ownership may not and
> probably will never see the importance of this niche in the consumer
> world as much as we do
You are correct when you say that the corporation is not interested in
Stereophile's subject niche. But this is not because of lack of respect
for the niche, but because this is a _publishing_ company; their area of
expertise is publishing. Management is agnostic when it comes to subject
matter. The Enthusiast Network's portfolio includes Motor Trend,
Automobile, Baseball Weekly, Recoil, Snowboarder, Skiing, Surfer,
Sound&Vision, Shutterbug, Hot Rod, and many other diverse titles in
addition to Stereophile. What matters to the corporate managers is that
all these magazines meet their revenue targets without costs exceeding
what has been budgeted.
As long as that is the case, management is completely disinterested in
any magazine's subject matter. As Stereophile is successful in publishing
terms, meeting its financial goals, and maintaining a stable circulation,
both of which it does, I am allowed a totally free hand in what I choose
to cover and how I choose to cover it. There is no pressure on me to seek
a wider, mass-market audience or to cater to just the ultra-wealthy or to
change Stereophile's product focus from audio to home theater, say,
because that is what is currently selling.
For almost 29 years, I have been allowed a free hand to make whatever
editorial decisions I feel appropriate and to set Stereophile's editorial
policies and strategies. If that ever changes, it will be because I am no
longer doing my job to the best of my abilities and the magazine's
financial health will be be suffering. And it will then be time for
someone else to take over the running of the magazine. But until that
time, the only person who decides what appears in Stereophile is me.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"Stereophile and TAS would never have gained the level of industry reference and respect dating from decades ago..."
Again, we see the word 'industry' used in place of market or reader.
The fact remains that magazines like Stereophile and ultimately even TAS will eventually evolve into serving one master above all others and that master is the audio 'industry', because 'industry' pays the bills.
That's is not necessarily a horrible thing because of competition within the 'industry' as well as the fact that the consumer is, to a greater or lesser extent, dependent on the 'industry' for new and innovative products.
My apology. You did indeed say essentially the same thing but it apparently didn't register. OMG, maybe I AM gettin' old...
I've been fascinated with home-audio since the 78 days but wasn't aware of the specialized magazines until I was was around 25 when one of the gals in our lab who was sort of an audiophile suggested that I check out 'Audio'. I subscribed and have been hooked on hobbiest magazines of that ilk ever since. Our company subscribed to the AES journal but I didn't find them especially interesting.
It's all part of the fun and I'm not too worried about the imminent demise of printed magazines. They are handy for multi-tasking in the bathroom but I've got a spare iPad... If the publishers would just publish an affordable complete archive on CD at the same time I could get rid of hundreds of pounds of back issues!
Regards, Rick
"The fact remains that magazines like Stereophile and ultimately even TAS will eventually evolve into serving one master above all others and that master is the audio 'industry', because 'industry' pays the bills."
Hogwash! Without the 'audio industry' there would be virtually no audiophiles. Without audiophiles there would be little "high-end" audio industry.
There are two aspects to "high-end": performance and price. Technically they are not all that tightly coupled but have come to be in many user's minds with the strong encouragement of the industry. It's just part of human nature to value more highly things which entail either greater sacrifice or provide better "bragging rights".
Fortunately it seems to work out pretty well with quite excellent sound available to those willing to invest time and effort in lieu of lot's of money and also for those wanting trophy's that also sound good. Pretty much the same deal as cars, clothes, optics, travel...
Works for me and an important part of that chain is the press in whatever form.
Rick
From my post above:
"That's is not necessarily a horrible thing because of competition within the 'industry' as well as the fact that the consumer is, to a greater or lesser extent, dependent on the 'industry' for new and innovative products."
Hogwash indeed! :-)
I have a high regard for John Atkinson, although he seems often slumming in a journal that "reviews" extremely expensive equipment with the expertise of audio dilettantes. I put "reviewer" in quotes because I doubt that any of them are technically qualified. (Proof? In almost every issue of The Stereophile you see high praise from the "reviewer" when John's quantitative testing shows that the product is a dog.)
Are TAS and ST "on the take"? Not overtly. But unfortunately, the high end is a micromarket where an incestuous relationship between advertiser and publication is inevitable. Both TAS and ST relinquished their editorial independence when they both (reluctantly) gave up their subscriber-supported business model and accepted advertising. There wasn't much choice: I think there were at least 10 audiophile publications that have bitten the dust in the past 30 years who tried to stay independent and failed.
RonLev
Philly
Ronlev
Philly
Dan- Thanks! for sharing.
I got on-board w/ both TAS & Stereophile back in 1993. I still maintain subscriptions today. While the rag is not quite the same today vs yesteryear, it is still a good read. The advent of the web totally changed print publications, unfortunately.
> We are audiophiles. This is a complex fraternity and both respect and
> solidarity in these "dwindling hobby times" are needed and warranted.
Amen to that thought, Ian. Thank you for your post.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
You take a good punch John, any ties with Bricktop ........ ?
This isn't "Consumer Reports", after all. But it's a hell of a lot more transparent than all of the other "gear" mags i am familiar with, be it computers, racing bikes or climbing gear.
My only problem is that it caters almost exclusively to solid state equipment, with an occasional nod to tube PP amps, but only ever so rarely to DHT SET gear.
But that is an understandable business decision, based on the preferences of its largely US buyer audience and a business model that doesn't include suicide.
Observe, before you think. Think before you open your yap. Act on the basis of experience.
I worked for them for years. Writing direct mail ad copy.
Would you believe that several of the people there are (or were) audio buffs?
They don't test luxury watches or Ferraris, either.
every time they cover a product that I know something about, they don't know what they are talking about. So, not dishonest, but not useful either.
But before I buy a dishwasher or a vacuum cleaner I check them out.
This is off topic, but Consumer Reports recommended a Kenmore vacuum cleaner as their top choice for several years that was a piece of junk and broke repeatedly. So I don't trust them on vacuum cleaners (or audio).
So at least at one time, they were doing SOMETHING right!
When I worked for Radio Shack in the late 70's CR rated their piece of shit TAD15 answering system that was $99 as high as a great Record a Call dual cassette that was $299. It had a piece of tape looped inside for the outgoing message and were always a problem with a very high repair and refund rate as well.
They also rated Mach One's too high as well. I never trusted them for electronics after that.
E
T
That was my point, an icon of transparency and objectivity.
Observe, before you think. Think before you open your yap. Act on the basis of experience.
JA may or maynot be a class act,:) but he is all i got, so i will keep supporting the mag until one of us is gone.Chinese wall and all ..
Regards..
Edits: 02/24/15
How is this for a "grey area".
The esteemed editor, Mr Atkinson claims a "Chinese Wall" between advertising and editorial, yet while he edits the content, his wife is the advertising manager, a fact they do their best to keep under the rug.
Ah the conspiracy theorists. Why is it if something isn't exactly the way they want it must be nefarious? The world is much better giving the benefit of the doubt before assuming it's bad.
Sorry,I think it takes more than linking two facts (or alleged facts) to get into the realm of conspiracy theories.
I have nothing negative to say about Mr. Atkinson as he is not afraid to respond and is always polite and cogent in what he puts forth.
Looking at the magazine stands over these last few years it is not difficult to predict that the exit of print magazines such as Stereophile is a question of a relatively short period of time.
To put the magazine, its management and staff out of the way of criticism because one is afraid to lose a magazine in the same way one is afraid of losing a trusted friend is wishful thinking.
Poetic...but too bad it is bullshit.A magazine that lives and dies by the notion it evaluated products independently and for the good of the consumer relies on the trust and good will of its readers, which should never be given blindly.
To quote Ronnie, Trust, But Verify.
Edits: 02/24/15 02/24/15
> The esteemed editor, Mr Atkinson claims a "Chinese Wall" between
> advertising and editorial, yet while he edits the content, his wife is the
> advertising manager, a fact they do their best to keep under the rug.
Yes, this is unusual, but far from this being "kept under the rug," it is
widely known in the audio industry. I have always answered directly when
asked about our relationship - it was the subject of discussion at one of
the "Ask the Editors" sessions at a Stereophile show, for example. Laura
and I are publishing professionals and keep that aspect of our lives
compartmentalized. I don't talk to her about editorial - like the other ad
reps, she doesn't know what is going in any issue of Stereophile until
after the issue has shipped to the printer - and she doesn't discuss her
ad sales with me. As the late Ken Nelson used to say "without editorial
integrity I'd have nothing to sell."Laura was the ad sales person who led Audio magazine's efforts into
high-end audio in the early 1980s and we first met when our magazines had
adjacent booths at the 1986 Chicago CES. Ironically, she is one of the
better writers I have published in Stereophile - see her tribute to the
late Ken Nelson at the link below.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 02/24/15 02/24/15
Pathetic practice and an even more pathetic explanation. Truly a good thing that your fanboys hold you, your staff and your magazine to such a low standard.
My Boss, the Director of Engineering for the firm I work at, and his wife, Head of Purchasing, keep it strictly professional here (and just about anywhere they are seen during the "work day".
There are no special favors for the Engineering Department when we are trying to get parts for prototypes and E.C.O.s- we have to go through "the channels" just like everybody else.
I'm sure it is a different story after 5pm, but that is none of my business...
Cheers,
Dman
Analog Junkie
So you don't go for "perception is reality" much?
Unusual? That is the understatement of the year so far.
Hiring your wife to sell ads for Sphile is by NO means proof anything unethical is going on, and I will be the first to say that, but is sure shows questionable judgement.
Hardly the "chinese wall" between editorial and advertising you so boldly proclaimed exists.
If a company even cared a modicum for appearances, it is clearly "unusual".
> Hiring your wife to sell ads for Sphile is by NO means proof anything
> unethical is going on, and I will be the first to say that, but is sure
> shows questionable judgement.
Just to be accurate, I didn't "hire my wife." As explained in the essay to
which I linked, she joined the late Ken Nelson's firm, an independent rep
company. When Ken Nelson resigned the Stereophile account in 1999, Laura
was taken on as a contractor by then-publisher Jackie Augustine. There
has never been any kind of reporting relationship between us and I have
never gotten involved in any way between her and the various publishers
for whom she has worked over the years.
Note, BTW, that my wife isn't in charge of advertising at Stereophile, as
others have claimed in this thread. She is one of 3 ad reps who report to
the division's general manager, Keith Pray, who also sells ads. The 4 of
them handle ad sales for Sound&Vision, InnerFidelity.com,
AudioStream.com, and AnalogPlanet.com, in addition to Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Ok. Thank you for taking the time to clarify. It should be noted she is not the general manager of advertising, and if that was suggested, you are right to correct it. But she DOES sell ads.
"Laura was taken on as a contractor by then-publisher Jackie Augustine."
The ship has sailed, but was this the best decision? She could not have sold ads for another publication? Rhetorical question, too much time has passed.
An agreement that knows its station--to be commended
Des
It doesn't get much better than this!
JM
Quaint indeed...thanks for the vid..one of my very favorite singers.
Time really fucks us up though as it certainly waits for no one.
I always get a bit disconsolate looking at pictures or videos with a "before and after" skew in my mind's eye.
Well still a good thing that older artists are still alive and performing, excepting geezer rock I guess.
Sorry.
jm
He won a national competition, singing "An Silvia."
And was studying Orchestration when his first royalty check arrived for Peter Paul & Mary's cover of "Early Morning Rain."
At his worst he could be a whiny male banging his spoon on the high-chair tray of love (no, I have not been drinking), but at his best, he wrote songs that have and I think will stand the test of time.
JM
Early Morming Rain is one of his most beloved and covered songs...I am partial to Ian And Syvlia's beautiful version...it was also a regular part of Elvis Presley's set for most of the 70's.
Then it here is a Dylan version, and covers by Judy Collins, and just last year Neil Young.
Blessed be his name.
Tell us more.
He was unceremoniously dumped after the first ownership change.
He gave advertisers sage advice, too -- like get a few dealers BEFORE you start advertising.
(nt)
"his wife is the advertising manager, a fact they do their best to keep under the rug."
In the 13 years I've been visiting this venue I've never come across that tidbit. How did you come by this information?
nt
Look on the masthead.
Laura J. LoVecchio is Mrs. John Atkinson.
I would have hired her just on the basis of that great name!
How abou Maksim the cat?
Or is JA Mr. Laura J. Lo Vecchio?
Age 66, going on 67.
right about now, certain people at Stereophile wish they had done the decent thing and paid you on a timely basis?
> certain people at Stereophile wish they had done the decent thing and
> paid you on a timely basis?
Yes, as I explained, the November 2014 issue payments were more than 2
weeks late. However, the payments for the December 2014 issue of
Stereophile - the final issue to which Sam Tellig contributed - were made
on October 30, 2014, more than a week early. And yes, while there were
some occasional late payments to writers prior to the November 2014 issue,
I estimate that 98% of checks to writers were mailed in a timely manner
over the previous decades.
My routine has always been the same: the day after each issue has shipped
to the printer, I prepare payment advice letters that are mailed to the
writers, and a copy of each is submitted to the company's finance
department. As it takes about the same time for the issue to be printed
and mailed as it does for the finance department to do their thing, the
writers almost always receive a check around the same time the issue
reaches subscribers.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I’ll preface my remarks by noting that this is becoming a huge embarrassment for your magazine. I hope you and Sam can bury the hatchet sooner rather than later.
That said, Sam says late payments were a habitual practice over the course of several years. You say payments were made on time 98 percent of the time. Obviously one of you is gravely mistaken (to put it nicely). And on those occasions when payments were late I hope you went to bat for your writers and didn’t delegate that task to someone else as Sam has suggested.
Concerning your wife’s position at the magazine: as the media are always reminding us, it’s “the appearance of impropriety” that oftentimes does one in, and is therefore is to be avoided. It’s as if Barack Obama were to appoint Michelle as his Attorney General.
You have stated right here, on more than one occasion, that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Yet in all the years you have discussed Stereophile’s policies at this venue, I don’t recall you ever volunteering this information about your wife’s position. Perhaps I was on vacation that week.
I have heaped a fair amount of praise on you at this venue over the past 13 years regarding your integrity and professionalism. And because of that fact I find it disappointing that it took your feud with Sam to bring this new information to light concerning your wife’s duties at Sterophile.
...and as much as I appreciate transparency, I really don't think it does yourself or the magazine any benefit in letting the board know how you guys make the sausage. It's really none of our business how you conduct payroll.
That said, as others have noted, the appearance of impropriety in having your wife selling ads while you are editor of the same magazine is obvious on it's face. For myself, this is a more serious and relevant issue that actually is "our business".
Best post thus far!
> ..and as much as I appreciate transparency, I really don't think it does
> yourself or the magazine any benefit in letting the board know how you
> guys make the sausage. It's really none of our business how you conduct
> payroll.
I agree. But once the subject has been made the subject of public debate,
I think it necessary to put the record straight, even if that is seen as
inappropriate.
> That said, as others have noted, the appearance of impropriety in having
> your wife selling ads while you are editor of the same magazine is obvious
> on its face. For myself, this is a more serious and relevant issue that
> actually is "our business".
Again I agree. As I said this subject has occasionally been raised and I
have always addressed it. But the appearance is not the same as the
reality. When we decided to get married in 1987, Laura resigned from Audio
magazine and applied to run Stereophile's circulation department. But both
Ken Nelson and Stereophile's publisher Larry Archibald didn't want her to
do that. So we discussed what the ground rules would be and 27 years
later, we still adhere to those ground rules. As I said, our relationship
has never been a secret and you are welcome to ask anyone in the audio
industry if they know of any impropriety that has resulted from our
relationship.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Would Stereophile have hired my wife, Marina, to sell ads?
It just looks bad -- even though, JA runs Stereophile on the up-and-up. I think it compromises his Gravitas.
Hiring our cat to sell ads is a brilliant idea.
(By the way, I didn't bring this up. "Sprezza Tura" did.)
How do you know he runs this mag. on the up and up? He didnt even show you the respect to pay you in a timely manner. It certainly appears to me that the only people that really know what goes on at Stereophile are Atkinson and his wife.
"...you are welcome to ask anyone in the audio industry if they know of any impropriety that has resulted from our relationship."Well, as the 'audio industry' is where the advertisers are, of course they are not likely to object when the person they are buying ads from has a close relationship with the editor!
It's the READER who might have a question or two.
That said, I have no problem because I never gave two hoots about the mythological 'Chinese Wall' between the advertizing side and the editorial side, because both work for the publisher, and publishing has NEVER been as pure as it likes to pretend to be.
Look a the hubbub at the NYT over the recent firing of its Executive Editor Jill Abramson. Among her many problems, she had conflict with Chief Executive Mark Thompson over 'native advertising'. Which in its worst form is advertising that is hidden within or disguised as editorial content.
Party may be close to over for print publications, but it ain't the fault of Stereophile and who the Editor is married to.
Edits: 02/25/15 02/25/15
Does the Editor have a duty to his readers to disclose such information? A disclosure, indicates transparency of organization and yields higher legitimacy and trust in the reviews and in editorial decisions the magazine.; JA passed up a solid opportunity.
But those are 'industry people' who both submit product to himself and his writers for review and buy ads from his wife.
Them's his folks!
And it seems his folks ain't us folks.
Hey you seem to have great neuroplasticity!
Lumosity?
OTH maybe its just ethicoplasticity?
It's how they continually humiliated other non-salaried writers, too, who may be afraid for their careers. (Mine is over.)
Who precisely is "they"?
Are you trying to tell me that the pittance you guys are paid is enough of a motivation to keep the rookies in line?
a higher standard for humiliation. If this is your standard then you have led a very sheltered life.
(nt)
As long as JA does enuff bench testing to show the flaws, I'm good, No need to read the opinion fluff ..
Regards...
what I'd like to see from JA is a series of articles on how to read and understand his equipment tests. I feel it will take several issues, and a good bit of time. Yet I also feel it will bring a lot of new folks deeper into the fold.
I made a post yesterday regarding record reviews. One thing I miss from the old Audio Magazine (yes I'm that old) is the surface quality and surface noise of records, plus how good the sleeves are. This could be covered in about two or three sentences during a review.
Gary
have been reading Stereophile since the late 1980's (maybe longer), and also read TAS. Both are pretty good rags, but of course never perfect. With the exception of a couple writers in Stereophile, I've always found their staff first rate. Yet I'll miss Sam, as he was always a warm spot with the average reader. JA, as good as he is, does get a little too technical for me. Yet JA has always responded to questions asked, and has been there to answer questions. So I wouldn't knock him, but be glad we got him.
Talking with a multitude of listeners, one hears a lot. One of the major gripes is simply the equipment reviews. How many folks run out and buy a $125K turntable or a $25K phono stage? Or a $50K monoblock amp? Myself, I wouldn't bother to read about how fantastic somebody's $100K speaker is, because I cannot associate with it. There's a place for this equipment for sure, but is also far remote from most everybody on this forum alone. Now one of the first things I look at in these two mags is the record reviews. TAS is by far the better, and it's not great. Yet I've watched Stereophile go into a seemingly terminal slide with regards to reviews of recordings. One guy there is on the automatic ignore list (yes he's that bad). Yet a couple others are top of the line.
gary
Gary
Come on, share your ignore list!
Yes, of course, Stereophile does cover expensive items. But it seems that that is the only thing discussed in threads such as these. I come from a working-class background and I have never stopped covering affordable gear.
How affordable? How about TASCAM's excellent, robust, broadcast-quality CD player/transport, available from Amazon itself for under $225 with free shipping?
http://www.stereophile.com/content/fifth-element-86
Audio-Technica's M50 headphones, under $300 all day any day anywhere?
http://www.stereophile.com/content/cas-bas-first-baptist-church-america (I can't find the column coverage quickly)
For ten years, I have been recommended Grace Design's m903 and its predecessors (all under $1900) as superb HPA/DAC/linestages; JA's measurements have always supported my praise, and last year the m903 was Stereophile's Headphone Product of the Year.
In my December column I recommended Rega Research's RP1 turntable ($499) and Parasound Zphono stage ($199).
Also: Dynaudio Professional BM Compact mkIII powered speakers: $1260/pair.
A couple of years back I was AFAIK the first mainstream audio journalist to recommend Winslow Burhoe's Silent Speaker II (under $1000/pr.); I think it is fair to say that JA was very impressed by his audition of it, and, as far as I am concerned the in-room measurements comparison to JA's vintage BBC LS3/5As made the Silent Speaker II look as good as it sounds.
So, will everybody please judge the magazine as a whole and not just by what some people find annoying? I hear from readers all the time who are delighted with things I have recommended, and most of the actual purchases have been at the affordable end of the scale.
Cheerio,
John
Not only JM.
But Bob Deutsch, Larry Greeenhill, Art Dudley
and, of course, Bob Reina for his superb work with affordable loudspeakers.
None of them appear to be impressed by hideously expensive gear. But these voices of sanity tend to get drowned out.
I read Michael Lavorgna with great interest, too.
Curious about the Dynaudios, I found this on line:
"CONS: Fatiguing high end. Understated midrange. Pillowy bass reproduction. No gain pot on Compact mkIII. Remote cable is unreasonably short. Short warranty period for buyers outside the EU. - See more at: http://www.mixonline.com/news/monitors/dynaudio-professional-bm-compact-mkiii/423310#sthash.3FwKGvww.dpuf"
Sure makes one take pause no?
At times what you wrote makes no sense.
Dear Mr. Gordon:
Splendid sentiments.
"A expletive member decided to take a very low road on this subject and he has no right to be here and I don't think he is. It is not what you say, it is how you say it. And that person compelled me to respond here."
That is both vague and cryptic. Please elaborate.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: