In Reply to: Re: Another Inquisition begins :-( posted by Avocat on March 21, 2007 at 12:33:46:
>my original note in this section discussed five or six areas
>in which I suggested possible improvements in SF. - You seem
>to be interested only in the blind testing issue, for some
>reason. What about the other suggestions?
I did note them. Some we already do, as Kal Rubinson
pointed out. Some are possibilities, some are impractical.
Any magazine continually evolves in response to market changes
and to reader's changing needs, so maybe you might see some
movement in the directions you describe. Or not.
>Because your readers have been exposed to SF
>anti-blind-test propaganda over the years, I doubt that
>these discussions/letters/surveys are very significant.
There are times when I just need to laugh out loud.
Your arrogamce astonishes me, Jim. So _your_ opinion
carries weight but those of other Stereophile readers
doesn't? I respectfully suggest you think again about
what you have just said, sir.
>Sales figures (reflecting newstand purchases by
>non-subscribers unfamiliar with the issue) don't seem
>very significant.
And again, I continue to be amazed by how much more
those without any publishing experience or hard information
know about my business than I do. :-)
>>shouldn't you be the one answering these questions?
>>For example, when you stated that you "think that most
>>readers would like to see at least some reports of blind
>>testing...,"
>
>John, get a grip on yourself. - This happens to be an
>online discussion group, and, in fact, it's the "Critics
>Corner" secion of AA in which various opinions,
>questions, and viewpoints are supposedly welcomed. From
>the comments about my initial note, there does seem to
>be quite a lot of interest in these issues. Regarding
>blind testing, there obvioiusly are differences of
>opinion. But I'm certainly not the only one with such
>views.
No you are not, but my experience has been that those
vociferously asking for a blind test regime in Stereophile
are a minority of readers and, to a large extent, aren't
even readers at all. I am curious, therefore, why you
feel that "most readers" of Stereophile share your
viewpoint? Why do you think that? Please stop avoiding the
question.
>John, you have done a good job of keeping up the
>circulation of the mag over the years. ( Along with the
>editors of the Enquirer, Star, Sun, Playboy, etc.)
Ah, time to reach for my can of "Troll-B-Gone," I see. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 08:03:58 03/22/07 (32)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - imispgh@yahoo.com 11:06:26 03/22/07 (31)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 04:15:49 03/23/07 (30)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - theaudiohobby 18:31:54 03/24/07 (29)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 04:31:07 03/25/07 (28)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - theaudiohobby 10:43:35 03/25/07 (27)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 15:56:20 03/25/07 (26)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - theaudiohobby 01:34:45 03/26/07 (25)
- So, what conclusion can you draw - E-Stat 05:07:26 03/26/07 (24)
- Re: That question has been answered. - theaudiohobby 05:28:15 03/26/07 (23)
- What makes you think that Mr. Atkinson's - E-Stat 05:41:22 03/26/07 (22)
- Re: What makes you think that Mr. Atkinson's - theaudiohobby 07:35:55 03/26/07 (21)
- Re: What makes you think that Mr. Atkinson's - John Atkinson 11:14:34 03/26/07 (13)
- Re: It does not work that way... - theaudiohobby 03:35:12 03/27/07 (12)
- Re: It does not work that way... - John Atkinson 03:55:56 03/27/07 (11)
- C'mon, John - E-Stat 07:16:27 03/27/07 (7)
- Re: C'mon, John - theaudiohobby 11:39:05 03/27/07 (5)
- I didn't have any questions for Mr. Atkinson - E-Stat 17:35:12 03/27/07 (4)
- Re: I didn't have any questions for Mr. Atkinson - theaudiohobby 18:59:11 03/27/07 (3)
- I would say facetious, not malicious. - robert young 15:51:36 03/29/07 (2)
- Thank you - E-Stat 16:21:49 03/29/07 (1)
- You're welcome. - robert young 18:54:40 03/29/07 (0)
- Re: C'mon, John - kerr 07:36:55 03/27/07 (0)
- Re: It does not work that way... - theaudiohobby 04:42:55 03/27/07 (2)
- Re: It does not work that way... - John Atkinson 13:14:34 03/27/07 (1)
- Re: It does not work that way... - Avocat 15:18:43 04/01/07 (0)
- The answer being - E-Stat 07:40:54 03/26/07 (6)
- Re: The answer being - theaudiohobby 09:07:46 03/26/07 (5)
- So which is it - answer the question... - mkuller 14:14:02 03/26/07 (4)
- On a related topic... - E-Stat 16:12:37 03/26/07 (3)
- Re: On a related topic... - kerr 04:52:15 03/27/07 (2)
- Yes, Ms. Loken is a fine example - E-Stat 06:04:57 03/27/07 (1)
- A. Slim and None - kerr 06:35:17 03/27/07 (0)