This audio mag I find to be a little less ad driven than Stereophile and it cators to people who have limited budgets as well as the rich.

So much of what is reviewed in Stereophile is influenced heavily by big money IMHO.

 

This is not to say that Stereophile is a "bad" magazine.

They publish little or nothing about progressive rock though. Most audio publications fall into this catagory. More classical and jazz driven with the typical mainstream rock/pop stuff thrown in to keep some of the mid aged folks who still listen to rock happy.

 

Trouble is, most rock recordings are really bad, where as jazz and classical recordings tend to be a bit better (sound reproduction wise). Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but........................

 

i notice the early beatles and rock'n'roll recordings seem very clear, they used simple studio set-ups using very few  microphones. this may also be true for jazz and classical recordings too, some modern multi-track recordings seem over-produced and flat, maybe they try to squeeze too many layers in?

there's a lot to be said for less complicated studio set-ups, look what deep purple achieved on the rolling stones mobile in a corridor and various halls, and led zeppelin's john bonham achieving a fantastic drum sound in the stairwell at headley grange, and some live recordings such as clapton's "unplugged" achieved great results. could "less" actually mean "more"..?