Thread:

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

Post by soundboy May 15, 2009 (31 of 107)
audioholik said:

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?

A Hong Kong audiophile magazine already jumped the gun last year with a cover story on the 10th anniversary of SACD....including history, photos, benchmark recordings and players, and interviews with a rep from Sony.

Btw, I don't anticipate any of the US audiophile magazines will do any "specials" on SACD's 10th anniversary. A couple of years back, when CD was celebrating its 25th anniversary, hardly any "specials" were done for that format.

Post by Perigo May 15, 2009 (32 of 107)
Jason Victor Serinus said:

In short, the Stereophile conspiracy against SACD does not exist.

Impossible to believe. The continuous attack against SACD format by Stereophile magazine since many years are under the eyes of everybody.
What I consider letal for our common passion is that an historical hi-end review like Stereophile, that should consider ever the best of the best for own readers and customers, is fighting against the best source ever produced: the SACD.

Now, I must repeat my deep convinction about all this bad story:
**
There is a transversal lobby that since years works against SACD format. The Stereophile staff is formed in mayority part by old analogists. They almost everytime chat on review pages about the superiority of old and antiquated LP. Stereophile has a lot of advertisers from analogic world. SACD discs and hardware don't cause any incoming to these advertisers. On the contrary, SACD system, with new hardware and discs, distracts hi-fi people from the interests of these advertisers. Then, here we are to talk of the results of such wretch policies: hi-fi, the by this time microscopical and insignificant part of general entertainment world totally ruined and fallen in the hands of people that don't make the interests of music passionates because they have office attention to main paying sponsors.
Anything they decide to sell...
**

Post by Goodwood May 15, 2009 (33 of 107)
While I am quite sure that audio magazines have been far less helpful than they could have been in properly establishing SACD (ironic considering in the early 80's, as John Atkinson will know from personal involvement, they did so much to evangelise for improvements to both hardware and software in the CD) I believe todays world is far different from the one in which I developed my enthusiasm for audio.

As a late teenager and in early twenties, nearly all of my friends had an interest in audio equipemt. If they didn't buy a Linn like I did it was not out of ingorance, rather it was how they perceived value for money.

Looking at my son who has just emerged from a similar age span he has had, in CD, a medium which offers adequacy and convenience. In other digital formats some quality has been traded for huge increases in convenience and the ability to enjoy music anywhere.

If that weren't enough we have PC's, the Internet, digital photography, games consoles and nice big flat HDTV's. Of course I have embraced most of these things myself!

A few of my son's friends share my interest in the guitar but I have never heard him talk of any of them having a substantial sound system.

I therefore wonder what chance any high res audio format has with so many alternatives competing for both time and money. A small minority of audiophiles surely isn't enough.

SACD is in my opinion a near perfect medium for conveniently enjoying realistic reproduction of music. Unfortunately it's numbers that prevail.

Post by tream May 15, 2009 (34 of 107)
Stereo_Editor said:

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, 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

John.......the poster was dealing with the issue of frankly sloppy editing. Jason didn't say what you said - he made a much broader statement, and frankly, one that detracted from the point of his article - this is what an editor is supposed to correct. A couple more points:

1. A few years back, Tellig said something to the effect that "people who like SACD are people who would rather visit hi-fi shops in London instead of touring the Tate" (these may not be his exact words, I searched the Stereophile Web site before writing this, and behold, Sam's columns are not there as are the others. So I pulled this out of an earlier post of mine). As the editor, YOU are ultimately responsible for the content of the magazine - Tellig gets a byline, but you bear the responsibility for whatever is said in the magazine. I found this remark outrageous and was very surprised, even shocked, that you allowed it. Tellig's expression of his views goes beyond mere opposition to SACD and it does feel like he has another agenda in mind, just like his continued and uncritical coverage of Musical Fidelity seemed to indicated another agenda.

2. After a few years of format wars, the first Universal player was launched. Given the major concerns over RBCD continually expressed by the audiophile community, including many of your writers, the potential of both hi-rez formats, and the destructive nature of the hi-rez wars, this launch should have been front page news. Instead....there was a review. Nothing more. This is when I realized that you believe Stereophile's role is to report on events shaped by others. That's fine, but I expected something different. I firmly agree there is no agenda - there can't be one, given your view (which I have assumed from context) of the magazine's role.

Thank you for taking the time to express your views here at sa-cd.net. I have suscribed to Stereophile since, I think, about 1984.

Post by Stereo_Editor May 15, 2009 (35 of 107)
audioholik said:

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?

"most of CD manufacturers advertising in your magazine would cancel their ads for next 15 years?"

I doubt it and even it this did happened, so what? The advertising side of the magazine is none of my concern.

I am publishing an essay in the July issue by Steve Guttenberg in which he refers to SACD's 10th anniversary. But nothing else is planned, other than our ongoing reviews of SACD players.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Post by Jason Victor Serinus May 15, 2009 (36 of 107)
tream said:

John.......the poster was dealing with the issue of frankly sloppy editing. Jason didn't say what you said - he made a much broader statement, and frankly, one that detracted from the point of his article - this is what an editor is supposed to correct.

John was not being sloppy, and I was not attacking SACD. I wouldn't have proposed the article in the first place - the second interview I've conducted with Jared btw - if I didn't think he has something important to say and offer.

Let's do a reality check.
The enticement to read the article on the homepage says:
As SACD approaches its 10th anniversary, Channel Classics' Jared Sacks explains why the format is still the best.

How can any proponent of SACD take issue with that?

The opening sentence of the article begins with an affirmation:
Despite the recent affirmation by Stereophile's Kalman Rubinson that the Super Audio Compact Disc remains "the best available all-around physical medium for music" (May 2009, p.47),..."

It then goes on to acknowledge a real situation: "audiophiles in the US continue to declare it a dead format."

Now, I will acknowledge that the sentence could have said "some audiophiles in the US continue..." But I didn't say "all audiophiles." I just said "audiophiles." The interpretation some on this forum are placing on the choice of words is theirs, and does not reflect my intent. I was neither out to write an editorial or partisan piece in praise of SACD, nor out to trash it. It's a news story.

Besides, reality is reality. Over and over again, on forums and in letters to the editor, people, whether ignorant or worse, continue to proclaim SACD a dead medium. Many peoples' focus has shifted to downloads. Many of the same people think the choice of available SACDs is woefully limited. Good, bad, or otherwise, and despite anything and everything that brother Kal may say, that's how it is.

And, on that note, I'm heading to the gym to push around meaningless pieces of metal. It's probably too late to achieve high definition, but we do what we can.

jason victor serinus

Post by Stereo_Editor May 15, 2009 (37 of 107)
Goodwood said:

While I am quite sure that audio magazines have been far less helpful than they could have been in properly establishing SACD...

Stereophile does not have any overall responsibility for "properly establishing" SACD any more than it does for LP, CD, or DVD-A, even though individual contributors may push very hard for one or more of those media.

What a magazine does is to report on the medium's features, benefits, and disadvantages, which we have done - at length over the past 10 years. We have made it very clear since the launch in 1999 that SACD offers improved sound quality in stereo as well as multichannel playback. We have published article son SACD's technology; we have published reviews of as many of the players as we can get our hands on; Kal Rubinson has reviewed the recordings. Blaming a magazine for the public's not perceiving the features of SACD as benefits to be invested in, leaving it marginalized, is like blaming the weatherman for a thunderstorm.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Post by Stereo_Editor May 15, 2009 (38 of 107)
tream said:

John.......the poster was dealing with the issue of frankly sloppy editing. Jason didn't say what you said - he made a much broader statement, and frankly, one that detracted from the point of his article - this is what an editor is supposed to correct.

Correct? Correct what? As Jason has pointed out, his statement correctly characterized the position of SACD in today's audiophile world. It is a marginalized medium that failed, not because of its faults but because not enough of its features were seen as benefits by potential customers outside of, as I said, a niche within a niche. Music lovers as a whole decided to discount the benefit of sound quality in favor of convenience in the form of dreadful-sounding MP3s. While I deplore that, there wasn't anything Stereophile could have done about it other than point out the tradeoff. And even then, Stereophile is routinely criticized on other forums for being too critical of MP3 sound quality.

To address another of your points:

>1. A few years back, Tellig said something to the effect that "people who like
>SACD are people who would rather visit hi-fi shops in London instead of touring
>the Tate"...I found this remark outrageous and was very surprised, even >shocked, that you allowed it.

Why were you shocked? Why would you want this censored? I found it amusing. It is clearly Sam's opinion, in which he is poking fun at people who apparently value sound quality over performance. Are you saying that audiophiles cannot be gently poked fun at?

>2. After a few years of format wars, the first Universal player was launched.
>Given the major concerns over RBCD continually expressed by the audiophile
>community, including many of your writers, the potential of both hi-rez
>formats, and the destructive nature of the hi-rez wars, this launch should
>have been front page news. Instead....there was a review. Nothing more. This
>is when I realized that you believe Stereophile's role is to report on events >shaped by others.

That's exactly right. We report; you, the reader, decides.

> That's fine...

Good.

>but I expected something different. I firmly agree there is no agenda - there
>can't be one, given your view (which I have assumed from context) of the
>magazine's role.

Nothing I have written over 23 years at the helm of Stereophile should have led you to expect anything different. Stereophile's writers proselytize, that's their role, which is why I employ them, but the magazine itself remains agnostic.

>Thank you for taking the time to express your views here at sa-cd.net. I have
>suscribed to Stereophile since, I think, about 1984.

Thank you for 25 years of being part of the magazine's community.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Post by audioholik May 15, 2009 (39 of 107)
Arnaldo said:

the interview with Jared Sacks was obviously not an opinion article, and should not have been distorted with the placement of the now famous "audiophiles in the US continue to declare it a dead format" line in the first paragraph, thus inducing a negative connotation to the reader. The same lack of oversight marred the review of the Sony SACD player in the May issue

and Marantz SA-11S2 review in the February issue
http://puresuperaudio.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-marantz-sa-11s2-sacd-player-review.html

and McIntosh MCD500 review in the June issue
/showthread/37864//y?page=first

Post by FullRangeMan May 15, 2009 (40 of 107)
So, seems the Stereophile staff are spiting in the face of Sony Corporation for free, alone, just for the feeling of say SACD format is dead and have no convenience to offer to the users.
For me it was clear that they really hate the SACD format.

I do not know anything more inconvenience and disposable that vinyl, after afew hearings you listen only noises.
But in the vinyl Stereophile see qualities. Then there is much ill will by the magazine to the SACD format.
For me Sterophile already show what she is, then for me this case is past and Stereophile is full dead.
R I P

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

Closed