|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.158.5.96
In Reply to: RE: Stereophile Has New Art Direction. posted by russ69 on December 16, 2011 at 21:55:09
I find the new stereophile much more difficult to read. It seems the print is smaller and the color combonations don't help either. Of course I am now 70 years old so my vision is not as good as it used to be
Alan
Follow Ups:
> I find the new stereophile much more difficult to read. It seems the print is
> smaller...
This comment has been made by others - it puzzles me as the type face and
size are the same as they were before. It should even be a little easier to
read, as the change to a "ragged right" column eliminates the cramped
kerning (word and letter space) issues that a justified column occasionally
produces.
What we have made smaller are the graphs in the measurements sections in
order to free up space for more more photos of the components being
reviewed. I felt this a justifiable trade-off as the graphs can still be viewed at
full size in our Web review reprints. But if the type were larger, this would
force us to publish less photos, which we felt a step in the wrong direction..
My thanks to those who expressed posiive comments about the new look
for Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I like it... and I LOVE Erick Lichte!
JS
Yes, on the first, a definite No on the second.
> What we have made smaller are the graphs in the measurements sections in
> order to free up space for more more photos of the components being
> reviewed.
The measurement section and graphs are Stereophile's defining characteristics, that differentiates you from the rest of the pack. Why would you go reduce the size of the graphs??!!
If I want pretty pictures, I read ToneAudio magazine.
I've only done a quick perusal . . . I really like the new layout for music reviews. I'm not fond, however, of the new look for reviews. The associated equipment panels are especially poor. With the dark background, the letters are blurred and difficult to read.
> The associated equipment panels are especially poor. With the dark
> background, the letters are blurred and difficult to read.
It seems to vary from review to review, which suggests that the printer is
having difficulty holding registration on our paper. (It looks fine on the
iPad.) We are looking at ways to make the sidebar text more robust in this
respect.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
spent more time . . . the problem with "associated equipment" is just with the Wiess review in my copy (also the specs). Other reviews it looks better. Overall, IMO, the new layout is a bit better. But those black backgrounds are tricky for your printer.
I any of the staff at Stereophile has inspected a copy, it is very easy to see that a significant no of pages has fuzzy or lighter print than the 'good' pages. You won't be surprised if you have acyually inspected a copy.
But no speling misteaks. ;-)
because it was delivered soaking wet !!! I suspect my mailwoman used my copy to keep the deluge of rain we had on Thursday off of her. The first 10 pages and the last 4 are all "damaged" ! I am seriously thinking of buying a newstand copy to replace this wet "rag"...
...and I have only perused the new issue which arrived yesterday, is the spec boxes below the reviews with their black backgrounds and whitish letters.
Seems like the letters don't print or show up well on the black so they are very hard to read.
its because we are all getting older and need reading glasses as we age. it only SEEMS like the print is getting smaller.
...regards...tr
Dear Sir:
I found the new layout refreshing. The only thing constant is change.
Stagnation kills. I applaud the risk taking in the new form factor.
FMF
I FIND THE TYPE HARDER TO READ,,,I HATE IT WHEN THE ZEENZ GET ARTSY FARTSY
> I FIND THE TYPE HARDER TO READAs I posted yesterday, the type face and size have not changed.All I can think
of is that some copies might be under-inked, which would reduce contrast.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 12/17/11
This exact problem is very noticeable in my issue. It's readable ( I don't need another copy ) but irritating just the same.
My only bitch, the size of graphics in the measurements sections, is addressed by your comments (but I STILL think they're too small.
Nice to see that fmak still hates you. The more things change, etc. :-)
"My thanks to those who expressed posiive comments about the new look
for Stereophile"It seems that Stereophile only responds to praise and not readers' problems or preferences.
I don't have a problem as I refused to email or fax my personal details and address for renewal.
Now I just read it in shops!
Edits: 12/17/11
> Now I just read it in shops!
But you still read it it, fmak, and ultimately that's what matters.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Yes. But does he pay for it or just skim through the store copy? Since subscriptions are generally much cheaper than purchasing individual copies at the newsstand, why would any regular reader do that?
Maggies, because you can never be too thin!
Mark
> Yes. But does he pay for it or just skim through the store copy?
From what he says, he just skims through without buying it. But he still
becomes part of the magazine's "mind share," which is what I feel to be
of primary importance.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I think that called stealing unless its a library copy. While he may resent your ads, or your marketing tactics, or editorials, he has a chance to protest by not purchasing and reading your product. To criticize it and continue to read it without paying for it is just plain wrong.
Maggies, because you can never be too thin!
Mark
Advertisers please note.
Even if you don't actually read those pesky ads, they are still working their evil wiles on you subliminally. Just seeing them builds brand recognition, among other things well known to marketing experts and repeated frequently by advertising agency account executives (a.k.a. salesmen).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Me, not ikely. Marlborough ads never had any effect.
You prefer Player's or Gallagher's? Or unfiltered Gauloise, perhaps? :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I once referred to this in a marketing seminar and the response was that such ads only affected a certain portion of recipents.
This business of sub-conscious (sublimal?) advertising is a bit like subjective response to SQ!
If the cost per 1000 is low enough then the effect may be profitable even if only a small fraction of customers are affected.
Your comment about subliminal effects is right on. In general the purveyors of advertising have more belief in this effect than the manufacturers planning their marketing budget.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
No one experienced in advertising expects a buying response by more than a small percentage of the ad's readership or listener/viewership. And the stuff about "subliminal" advertising is a hoot (I was in the ad/marketing/pr business for 40+ years). I do hope that fmak wasn't leading that seminar.
I'm sure they're hanging on your every word.
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: