Help me decide if I should resubscribe to Sterophile. Seriously.

[klettermann]

No, this is not a troll. I subscribed to Sterophile for decades. I found it interesting and the reviews had some relevance to me, i.e., some of the gear was affordable for me. And I like the music reviews. And we didn't have DSP, hardly had digital at all in fact. Well, we all know what happened. Fast forward to more recently and it's turned into a joke IMO. Their whole editorial stances and subjectivism stuff has become kind of pathetic IMO, as has the gear they review. It's now really just a lifestyle magazine. I'm reminded of my recent (and accidental) visit to the "million dollar room" at a NYC HiFi salon. Who buys this stuff and WTF?

But then I got discount subscription mailer the other day. A 1 year subscription offer for the price of a beer! So I have 2 conflicting views. Will it just annoy me? Or for that kind of money is the ironic humor value going to be there? Cheers,

 

[Keith_W]

The answer is "no" for a few reasons.

1. You don't get any value out of it.

2. The market is changing. More people are demanding objective reviews and measurements. Stereophile needs to change with the market. Dropping subscription numbers should prompt some self-evaluation. If some retired Microsoft guy who runs a forum and another guy in Arizona running a Klippel out of his garage can produce objective reviews that are far more trusted, which are made available for free ... what is their role? They need to take a good, hard look at themselves.

3. Stereophile, as it currently stands, is a purveyor of misinformation. It is on the side of the manufacturers, not on the side of the consumer. If you review a $100k product that provides no sonic benefit over something that costs $1000, SAY SO! Force those manufacturers to justify their insane asking prices! Lying to the consumer about superior performance is anti-consumer, and we should not tolerate it.

 

[klettermann]

Hmmm.

1. Modest entertainment value, sometimes.
2. Yeah, good point.
3. Even better point. It occurred to me that they're literally giving it away. Why? Only reason I can think of it to fluff up subscription numbers to show their advertisers, many of whom are bogus snake oil of the lowest order.

Conclusion: no stereophile.

 

[ivayvr]

Only you can determine your BS tolerance! I ended mine 4-5 years ago and feel liberated.
Annual subscription for the cost of a beer is a clear indication of the value you are getting in return.

 

[Sal1950]

The answer is "no" for a few reasons.

A good post Keith_W and I agree with every word.
OTOH there is the ole proposition "keep your friends close, and your enemy's closer". I do like to keep a close eye on what's being said over their, along with reading John Atkinson's gear measurements also his gear reviews are OK. Then most of Kal Rubinson reviews are strait shooters.. I will continue to subscribe but have my own personal reasons.
It's been a long time since Stereophile had any real relevance in the High Fidelity world, mostly since Gordon Holt left, but things really went to shitte when Jim Austin took the reins as editor. He really should resign and maybe take a job with Synergistic Research as head Magic Dots marketer.

 

[ivayvr]

Couldn't say it better myself:

"but things really went to shitte when Jim Austin took the reins as editor..."

 

[kemmler3D]

@Keith_W pretty much nails it here, I will just play devil's advocate a little.

This question expanded a little is really about whether stereophile should continue to exist.

Why might it be worth saving even though they spread misinformation?

I think it is analogous to a cancer patient's heart. Although it spreads cancer cells by pumping blood, the other healthy organs in the body still need blood.

Losing stereophile would have a negative impact on some worthwhile brands via loss of a viable advertising/ marketing channel, and would have a negative impact on trade shows, which are also not all bad.

The hi-fi industry doesn't have a lot of reach to begin with, so even a crappy channel might be worth preserving for the sake of non-snake oil brands. Even though this publication is probably destructive to consumer knowledge, it does serve a purpose.

 

[Sal1950]

Why would it be worth saving even though they spread misinformation?

The best reason I can think of to subscribe is that it MIGHT carry some small weight when you post comments/criticism ?
But print magazines like Stereophile or TAS are a dying breed in any case, the times and world have changed.
Anyway let me use my sub muscle to take one more kick at Stereophile. I'm sitting here with the latest issue, and also the latest Absolute Sound.
Stereophile has 11 record reviews
TAS has 24, not including each of their reviewers doing a Best Of 2025 which would add up to a crap pile more if I counted them.

I believe Mr Austin getting the Editors job was due to the well known Peter Principle,
"The Peter Principle, a 1969 book by Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull, argues that in a hierarchy, employees are promoted until they reach their "level of incompetence," where they can no longer perform well, leading to widespread inefficiency."

 

[terryforsythe]

another guy in Arizona running a Klippel out of his garage

Alabama.

 

[kemmler3D]

Annual subscription for the cost of a beer is a clear indication of the value you are getting in return.

Also a clear indication that (a guess) >90% of revenue comes from advertising. The cost of a beer doesn't even cover postage for the year, probably...

E: (This is not by any means unique to Stereophile but it's worth thinking about if you plan to rely on their gear reviews...)

 

[AndyBell]

Think my browser has seen through them…

 

[HalSF]

I’m torn about Stereophile. I subscribed for several years on and off early in this century when first getting serious about hi-fi and the sound quality of recordings. I learned a lot. The descriptions of albums in gear reviews and album reviews were informative and inspirational to me, and I was lucky to pick some objectively good, reasonably priced components for my first real system based on recommendations in Stereophile. John Atkinson’s tests were impressive and educational. Some contributors were just very good writers, full stop, zany ideas included — bylines like Art Dudley were always worth reading.

But the culture and values of Stereophile have always had a shadow side, and I’ve spent years unlearning and shaking off some of the truly sick cult mumbo-jumbo and batshit high-end upselling propaganda of the magazine. Unfortunately everything I now vehemently resist is ascendant in their pages and their fanatical market pitch to actual and wannabe plutocrats.

I now get Stereophile for free via my subscription to Apple News, and check out the issues a few times a year. The latest has reviews of a preamplifier ($80K to $148K depending on chassis material), speakers ($40K/pair), tube amp ($25K), and a decent roundup of recommended recordings from contributors (25 men and two women). Those megabucks reviews are now dead to me — utterly worthless.

 

[kyuu]

I believe Mr Austin getting the Editors job was due to the well known Peter Principle,
"The Peter Principle, a 1969 book by Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull, argues that in a hierarchy, employees are promoted until they reach their "level of incompetence," where they can no longer perform well, leading to widespread inefficiency."

I don't think Mr. Austin's problem is that he was promoted one time too many.

 

[Sal1950]

I don't think Mr. Austin's problem is that he was promoted one time too many.

What is it then ?

 

[JeffS7444]

It's like any other subscription service: If it ceases to deliver much value, let it go. It's monetary cost may be minimal, but you are also devoting part of your life to read it

 

[DonDish]

Also a clear indication that (a guess) >90% of revenue comes from advertising. The cost of a beer doesn't even cover postage for the year, probably...

..and those advertisers get favourable reviws of their overpriced s**t products. Which translates to s**t journalism, so the journalist can sit at home enjoying free gear while sipping expensive redwine instead you having an extra cold one. You could probably dload it for free anyway.
Audiophile journalism and audiophile industry have always been a complete circle jerk. That is how we got $3000/m cables and super expensive, minimalist, mostly empty boxes to actually be good buys. If you ever paid for an audiophile magazine, you could just steal it for the rest of your life with a good conscience. Steal it from the shelf, steal it from the internet. Better support musicians, and buy more cold beer.

 

[Buckchester]

There is no correlation between how a speaker objectively measures and their subjective reviews. And their measurements are severely flawed. So nope.

 

[HalSF]

There is no correlation between how a speaker objectively measures and their subjective reviews. And their measurements are severely flawed. So nope.

There's no reason to be so mad at Stereophile that you histrionically attack one of the best things about it, John Atkinson's measurements. Everything that exists is "flawed." Ease up there, buddy.

 

[Purité Audio]

Perhaps a name change might freshen things up, ‘Gulliblephile’ perhaps.
Keith

 

[tineared]

Many years ago when I was young and still quite naïve, Stereophile convinced me to buy a Rega Apollo CD player that cost nearly a thousand dollars.
While the player is completely competent, it was no better than my Oppo DV-980 that I bought from Amazon for $103.
I canceled my subscription and never looked back.
It is entertaining to read on occasion so long as you don't take them seriously