Thread:

Posts: 107
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 next

Post by Jason Victor Serinus May 15, 2009 (21 of 107)
audioholik said:

you're mentioning some hi-end players here but as a reviewer you probably also review players in $500, $1000, or $1500 price ranges, what are your findings?

did you compare for example how
$500 CD player sounds compared to $500 SACD player or
$1000 CD player compared to $1000 SACD player or
$1500 CD player compared to $1500 SACD player?

Sorry. I have not had the opportunity to do this. Plus, the players would have to be from the same company to make the comparison valid, since quality at any given price range varies widely (if not wildly) from company to company.

jason

Post by audioholik May 15, 2009 (22 of 107)
tream said:

I have been disappointed in Stereophile's coverage of SACD for two reasons:

1. They decided to take a passive role in coverage of SACD

but how on earth can a magazine which calls itself "stereophile" take a passive role in coverage of an SACD format? very puzzling...

Post by audioholik May 15, 2009 (23 of 107)
Jason Victor Serinus said:

Sorry. I have not had the opportunity to do this.

too bad...

Post by canonical May 15, 2009 (24 of 107)
audioholik said:

If Stereophile wasn't anti-SACD we would be now reading articles about 10th year anniversary of most successful hi-rez format SACD, and not 1999-2009 RIP BS

That's a very good point.

SACD *is* THE dominant hi-rez format.

Post by Kal Rubinson May 15, 2009 (25 of 107)
canonical said:

That's a very good point.

SACD *is* THE dominant hi-rez format.

Yup. The very biggest fish in a very tiny pond.

Kal

Post by tream May 15, 2009 (26 of 107)
Arnaldo said:

Conspiracy has become a word often used to discredit any serious argument nowadays. And no time was wasted in using it to refute what are legitimate arguments about Stereophile's editorial policies. From a reader's point of view, the placement of the "audiophiles in the US continue to declare it a dead format" quote in the first paragraph, can be construed either as an attack on the format, or more likely, a lack of editorial supervision by the magazine. The same observation applies to the articles by Michael Fremer and Sam Tellig, as well as to the "slight distortion" of Kal Rubinson's review of the Sony unit on the May cover. No rational user of this site actually believes that there a hidden agenda against SACD by Stereophile. Instead, there's simply what reads like sloppy and careless editing. Contrary to general belief, an editor should indeed question a writer’s findings and arguments. That's his job. What the magazine really needs is a good old fashioned Ombudsman to address these issues.

Well said.

Post by canonical May 15, 2009 (27 of 107)
Kal Rubinson said:

Yup. The very biggest fish in a very tiny pond.

Pond? More like a stunning natural pool at a luxurious tropical island resort. Once you visit, you don't want to go back home.

Post by Stereo_Editor May 15, 2009 (28 of 107)
Arnaldo said:

Conspiracy has become a word often used to discredit any serious argument nowadays. And no time was wasted in using it to refute what are legitimate arguments about Stereophile's editorial policies. From a reader's point of view, the placement of the "audiophiles in the US continue to declare it a dead format" quote in the first paragraph, can be construed either as an attack on the format, or more likely, a lack of editorial supervision by the magazine. The same observation applies to the articles by Michael Fremer and Sam Tellig, as well as to the "slight distortion" of Kal Rubinson's review of the Sony unit on the May cover. No rational user of this site actually believes that there is a hidden agenda against SACD by Stereophile. Instead, there's simply what reads like sloppy and careless editing. Contrary to general belief, an editor should indeed question a writer’s findings and arguments. That's his job. What the magazine really needs is a good old fashioned Ombudsman to address these issues.

You seem to be demonstrating a lack of knowledge about what editors do and why. Stereophile is a magazine of opinion. My role is not ensure that my writers conform to some predetermined "party line" - ths magazine doesn't have a "party line."

Instead, the editor commissions articles and reviews from as wide a range of writers as possible. I don't tell them what to say; instead I ensure that those writers' opinions are as clearly and directly presented as possible while at the same time based on factually correct information. It is this entirely possible for there to be opposed opinions in the magazine, such as Kalman Rubinson's and Sam Tellig's views on SACD. If that confuses you, or leads you to call for the dispute to be resolved by an ombudsman, then maybe Stereophile is not a magazine that you should be reading.

Regarding SACD, yes in the US at least it has been rejected not only by what appears to be the majority of audiophiles but also by the mainstream record industry. If our saying that upsets you, you should note that it does not invalidate your own preference, unless you really take external validation of that preference far too seriously.

Ironically, this relative failure of the medium has happened despite SACD ushering in, as I have often written in Stereophile, a new Golden Age of classical recording, with companies like Channel Classics, Pentatone, Telarc, Linn, 2L, Harmonia Mundi, etc issuing extraordinarily good-sounding recordings. But the fact remains that SACD has become confined to a niche (classical) within another niche (high-end audio), which denies it any future success as a major music carrier. And this is without taking into consideration the extinction of brick'n'mortar, deep-catalog record stores where you used to be able to browse.

And most importantly, this is _despite_ SACD having the capability for improved sound quality compared with Red Book CD.

Finally, just a note for all those who criticize Stereophile for not proselytizing on behalf of SACD: you might not think Stereophile did enough for SACD, but a major manufacturer who had backed the DVD-Audio horse was so angered by what he saw as Stereophile's uncritical support for SACD that he canceled his advertising for the next 5 years!

IF SACD proponents think we are not supportive enough of SACD and DVD-A proponents thought we were too supportive of SACD, then as the magazine's editor, I believe Stereophile probably got the balance correct. YMMV.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Post by Kal Rubinson May 15, 2009 (29 of 107)
canonical said:

Pond? More like a stunning natural pool at a luxurious tropical island resort. Once you visit, you don't want to go back home.

It's a nice spot but well off the beaten path.

Kal

Post by audioholik May 15, 2009 (30 of 107)
Stereo_Editor said:

a major manufacturer who had backed the DVD-Audio horse was so angered by what he saw as Stereophile's uncritical support for SACD that he canceled his advertising for the next 5 years!

Are there any chances we will see Stereophile's SACD 10th year anniversary special issue (or at least a cover story article about it) anytime soon or the chances are rather slim since it would mean that most of CD manufacturers advertising in your magazine would cancel their ads for next 15 years?

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 next

Closed