A proposal: the Objectivist Audio Review magazine

[rando]

Philosophical clap-trap designed to bring people back to the fold.  Sorry if that is out spirit with your intent, Christopher.

 

Hardly surprising, this is not a new idea.  I can think of at least a few examples of this in recent years that came about through organic and inorganic means.  The end result is always falling into line with the existing system.  Which no doubt Mr. Gutenberg is aware of.  Even in cases where striving towards this end was not the only reason for being forced into existence.  

 

Some time back I inquired what was meant by "Outlaw Audiophile Magazine" when that term was introduced in a conversation here.  The agreed upon definitions were quite similar to what is being suggested here.  A cyclical step, refreshing the ideas in place which will grow stale and hoary soon enough.  Everyone fawns over a freshly birthed cute little animal no matter how many times it has happened before in their life.  More importantly, that natural human instinct is cheapened to sell advertisements and columns quite readily.  

[rando]

On 6/29/2017 at 8:15 PM, Sal1950 said:

"Outlaw" along with "Underground" etc,  were terms used to describe audio print media back in the day that, in the main, started out free of advertising and supposedly were more free to review components without outside pressures.

On the list of  "MainStream"     were Audio, Stereo Review, High Fidelity --------

The Outlaws were Stereophile, TAS, Audio Critic, IAR,  --------------

Of the Outlaws, as here, there came a bit of a split between them. Some took a mainly subjective slant, others a objective one. Little is left in the Hi Fi print media of the objective approach, the most glaring exception being John Atkinsons measurement tags on some reviews at Stereophile.

What "one might have discovered in "outlaw" print" is exactly what you find in this thread. Divisive approaches to putting together a Hi Fi.  LOL

 

Not sure if I established relevance to CA where nobody else was considering it.  In any case I will chance a second OT-oken notification to bring Sal's quote over because it feel it is very relevant.  Also because with CA celebrating a decade on the web it doesn't hurt to look forwards (or back).  

 

57 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The writers for CA have nothing to gain by maintaining the status quo. My only requirement is that they are honest and feel good about their articles. If they are happy with what they've written, I believe others will be as well. 

 

I've said many times before, I'd hire ten @mitchco's in a heartbeat. 

 

In addition, I look at people reading our articles as giving their precious time to us. So, we better give them something back for that time. Whether that's knowledge, help, entertainment, or something else doesn't matter to me, but we better deliver something. 

 

CA will never end up as a status quo publication. That's a dead end and extremely uninteresting to me. I like to push boundaries and I understand how the internet works. I'm actively working to expand our base of writers on both the subjective and objective side. I enjoy reading both type of articles and believe there's a place for both on CA. The trouble is finding good writers. 

 

What will CA end up as?