🚀 go-pugleaf

andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume) writes:

>In article <1993Jan1.015237.447@leland.Stanford.EDU>, paulxxxx@leland.Stanford.EDU (paulastya gupta) writes:
>> I agree with most persons that Stereo Review is not an altogether good
>> source of information, but it does help ground one to reality (its OK to 
>> not be able to afford 20k for a system).  

>	i would point out that according to a study submitted to
>the letters section of stereophile, the high-end mags like
>stereophile and TAS actually reviewed a higher percentage of low
>end componets than did either audio or stereo review. hard to believe
>but the evidence was there (a one year sample).

>	andrew hume

>p.s. for my money, stereo review is worthless except for the rodrigues
>cartoons.

	Well, a single issue of Stereo Review has around 150 pages,
whereas Stereophile has around 400. Stereo Review also costs $2.95/
issue and $13.94 for a one-year subscription, and Stereophile costs
$4.95/issue and $19.95 for a one-year subscription.

	Nevertheless, your point is well taken. Not only does
Sterophile have more low-end reviews (especially since they are
currently in the process of reviewing a raft of <$1000 speakers),
they reviews are actually *critical*. I have yet to see a review in
Stereo Review that fails to give the component at hand at least a
lukewarm recommendation, whereas Stereophile reviewers will not
hesitate to write that they think component "x" is clearly better
and/or a better value. Stereophile also has clearly stated criteria
for their reviews.

	Besides, Stereo Review doesn't have Corey Greenberg! 8-)

					-Cal
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal Lott          "Oh, I see-- I thought 'no' meant 'spoon'!" --Dan
Email me, baby!   cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu   cjl1@midway.uchicago.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------