International Record Review

[MickyD]

I agree with your "pristine" description, VodkaDilc - and what's more, though it carries a lot of information, the mag is wonderfully slim and easy to store.

[richardfinegold]

I'd be far more excited about a resumption of the annual index which they produced for the first few years. My complete IRR archive is onshelf, rather than online. I'd just like a more speedy way to access it. I would be most unlikely to make use of an online IRR. For me, nothing would replace the expectation of sitting down with a pristine copy - and IRR always seems pristine, unlike some more cheaply produced magazines.

(I asked Barry Irving about the index a few months ago and he said it's something he'd like to see return - when time allows.)

I had just received a notice from IRR about the Digital Edition. I pay a premium for the magazine here in the states due to shipping costs but I am not interested in the digital edition. IRR is just the right size for a comfortable read and as noted, stores easily. I have not found that reading magazines on a tablet is a pleasurable experience.
There seems to be certain irony in offering IRR, of all possible journals, in a modern digital form. After all, the readers are people who are likely to cherish historic recordings and tolerate the numerous issues involved with listening to them when compared to modern recordings. Limited frequency, tape hiss, pops and clicks, fiddling with 78s, lps, turntables, tone arms, mono cartridges, reel to reel tapes, etc. Why would a magazine that caters to readers who don't mind all of those issues think that these same readers would be likely to chuck the book- like format of the magazine for a digital experience?

[Thropplenoggin]

I had just received a notice from IRR about the Digital Edition. I pay a premium for the magazine here in the states due to shipping costs but I am not interested in the digital edition. IRR is just the right size for a comfortable read and as noted, stores easily. I have not found that reading magazines on a tablet is a pleasurable experience.
There seems to be certain irony in offering IRR, of all possible journals, in a modern digital form. After all, the readers are people who are likely to cherish historic recordings and tolerate the numerous issues involved with listening to them when compared to modern recordings. Limited frequency, tape hiss, pops and clicks, fiddling with 78s, lps, turntables, tone arms, mono cartridges, reel to reel tapes, etc. Why would a magazine that caters to readers who don't mind all of those issues think that these same readers would be likely to chuck the book- like format of the magazine for a digital experience?

Well said. Perhaps you can write to the editor to express these sentiments, Richard.

[Parry1912]

Limited frequency, tape hiss, pops and clicks, fiddling with 78s, lps, turntables, tone arms, mono cartridges, reel to reel tapes, etc.

Sounds like my idea of hell, and I speak as a IRR subscriber.

Having said that, I'm not interested in a digital version of the magazine as a replacement for the hard copy but an archive would be great.

[Thropplenoggin]

Sounds like my idea of hell, and I speak as a IRR subscriber.

Having said that, I'm not interested in a digital version of the magazine as a replacement for the hard copy but an archive would be great.

Agree about the archive.

[makropulos]

Well said. Perhaps you can write to the editor to express these sentiments, Richard.

From the proposal about this that was sent to reviewers, my understanding was that the plan was to offer a digital (PDF) version free of charge to any subscribers who wanted it - to go alongside the paper edition. Not as a replacement, but as a free extra. I don't quite see how that squares with the idea that subscribers might want to "chuck the book-like format of the magazine". But maybe I've got it wrong.

Speaking personally, I find a searchable PDF incredibly useful to have as well as the paper copies.

[richardfinegold]

From the proposal about this that was sent to reviewers, my understanding was that the plan was to offer a digital (PDF) version free of charge to any subscribers who wanted it - to go alongside the paper edition. Not as a replacement, but as a free extra. I don't quite see how that squares with the idea that subscribers might want to "chuck the book-like format of the magazine". But maybe I've got it wrong.

Speaking personally, I find a searchable PDF incredibly useful to have as well as the paper copies.

I didn't save the renewal notice that I got from IRR, so I can't reference it at the moment, but my impression was not that they were offering the digital feed as an "add on" but asking the customer to make an "either-or" decision. The notice mentioned that a subscriber would save a lot of money in costs if they were to choose the digital version only.
I agree that a digital "add-on" to a paper subscription would be a nice freebie, but asking me to choose between the digital and the hard copy is another issue entirely. I enjoy curling up on a couch with a book sized bit of reading, but I intensely dislike reading on tablets. I use an e reader when traveling because of the space saving issues, but always enjoy returning to my home and reading a proper book or magazine. I had thought that IRR readers, given their willingness to tolerate "old" technologies in the listening sphere, would feel likewise, and are therefore an ironic target for a digital product.

[makropulos]

I didn't save the renewal notice that I got from IRR, so I can't reference it at the moment, but my impression was not that they were offering the digital feed as an "add on" but asking the customer to make an "either-or" decision. The notice mentioned that a subscriber would save a lot of money in costs if they were to choose the digital version only.
I agree that a digital "add-on" to a paper subscription would be a nice freebie, but asking me to choose between the digital and the hard copy is another issue entirely. I enjoy curling up on a couch with a book sized bit of reading, but I intensely dislike reading on tablets. I use an e reader when traveling because of the space saving issues, but always enjoy returning to my home and reading a proper book or magazine. I had thought that IRR readers, given their willingness to tolerate "old" technologies in the listening sphere, would feel likewise, and are therefore an ironic target for a digital product.

Ah - well that's slightly different - though if it's either/or then clearly that is not going to be a difficult choice for you.

The only problem I sometimes have with the paper IRR is the print size (I've got horrible eyes), so I find having a PDF is very useful, since it's easily enlarged. Having said that, I wouldn't want to have to read the whole magazine on a computer screen.

[VodkaDilc]

I'm a little surprised by the enthusiasm for the printed edition - I thought I might be out of step, with everyone else wanting to enter the digital age with abandon. I am assuming that there is no (immediate) intention of replacing the physical magazine. I hope that these views get passed on; I know that Barry I is/was a forum member, but perhaps those in the IRR loop could draw his attention to it, in case he has missed the comments.

As several have commented already, the process of reading from a computer screen is fine in short doses, but not for extended periods. There is an age-group cut-off point somewhere; younger people seem happy to do it. (My guess - 40?)

[Thropplenoggin]

I'm a little surprised by the enthusiasm for the printed edition - I thought I might be out of step, with everyone else wanting to enter the digital age with abandon. I am assuming that there is no (immediate) intention of replacing the physical magazine. I hope that these views get passed on; I know that Barry I is/was a forum member, but perhaps those in the IRR loop could draw his attention to it, in case he has missed the comments.

As several have commented already, the process of reading from a computer screen is fine in short doses, but not for extended periods. There is an age-group cut-off point somewhere; younger people seem happy to do it. (My guess - 40?)

35 might be nearer the mark. I know, the pith helmet adds about 10 decades to me.

[Barbirollians]

It is much easier to have the print edition in the loo than a digital version !

[richardfinegold]

I just realized that I have been confusing my renewal notices for IRR and Classic Records Collector. The latter made an either or proposition, and I don't remember what the offer was for IRR. My comments about the love for antiquarian technology apply more to the readers of Classic Records Quarterly magazine.
I apologize for my creeping dementia.

[MickyD]

I have to spend a fair amount of my working day at a computer, and the very last thing I want to do in my precious free time is to remain stuck in front of a screen and that includes a tablet! If one has to choose between formats, without question, I will go for the traditional printed version.

[hafod]

It is much easier to have the print edition in the loo than a digital version !

Indeed! To do otherwise would offer a whole new experience for Max Reger responding to a negative newspaper review of a concert of his music when he dropped a note to the reviewer saying 'I am sitting in the smallest room in my house. Your review is before me. Soon, it will be behind me'.

[richardfinegold]

Indeed! To do otherwise would offer a whole new experience for Max Reger responding to a negative newspaper review of a concert of his music when he dropped a note to the reviewer saying 'I am sitting in the smallest room in my house. Your review is before me. Soon, it will be behind me'.

i hope the tablet used is a cheap android