Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Sky at Night vs Astronomy Now

Probablynot

Recommended Posts

steppenwolf

steppenwolf

Posted
Posted

Paper's good, nothing like sitting in the recliner with slippers and a pipe and a glass of scotch and a magazine.

Its a generation thing.  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

I too much prefer a paper edition (both for books and magazines) but I'm not entirely convinced that it is a generation thing. I love general astronomy research and the Internet (obviously electronic) is a fantastic resource tool that I use extensively but a magazine is more 'thrust at you', you don't generally buy it for specific content, more as an overview of what's going on and paper, that you can pick up and put down at will, is a perfect way to handle it.

As for which magazine, I still buy AN and SAN and find plenty of worthwhile material in both of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ghostdance

ghostdance

Posted
Posted

I get the paper version of Astronomy Now. Just under the editorial is their advert for the digital version of AN on mobile phone and tablet: "Download from the App and Play Stores". Easy to find if you Google it.

Mark

I downloaded the AN app a few weeks ago (used to buy paper before, but not every month). It's not bad at all - most recent issue is a £ or so cheaper than the paper edition and back issues from last year are 99p each. No adverts, which is great.

Books are a different matter - while I read a lot of public domain/classics on Aldiko or Kindle, I much prefer to have real books in my hands and on my shelves. It's like owning and playing an LP record as opposed to a CD or, eek, iTunes download.

A book is a personal thing, becomes part of you....

A magazine? Not bothered, online is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dwc

dwc

Posted
Posted

I switched from paper to the AN app last year, and it's perfectly good, especially for travelling. Except that I forget it is there, partly because on iOS it's hidden in the Bookshelf. So this year I've gone back to paper. Much more likely to pick it up off the table and read for 10 minutes.

I usually just get the calendar edition of S@N.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

I hope magazines are not on the way out. They have something the internet doesn't have - an editor. I'm an occasional AN contributer and am always impressed by the fact that Keith Cooper and his team have been through so much material each month and selected the scientific news from amongst what must be an indigestible deluge at times. Also, if I post an equipment review or anythng else on here I can say whatever I like and be as wrong as I like! (I try to be accurate but who is to say I'm successful?)  When I write for AN the editor will check what I say and perhaps get it overseen by a third party. The unedited nature of the internet is both its strength and its weakness.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAN or ASTROMAN

MAN or ASTROMAN

Posted
Posted

Neither ...

Both pretty much cover the same ground each month ...

Both full to bursting with the same old adverts month after month , probably 70% of the content ...

Both cost far too much considering the amount of advertising they include ... 

I suppose that advertising is an important source of revenue for any magazine,and as such must be seen as a necessary evil,though I do get a bit sick of seeing the same old adverts month after month. I'm an AN man myself- I've just renewed my subscription,at £40 for a year's issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tomjo59

Tomjo59

Posted
Posted

I suppose that advertising is an important source of revenue for any magazine,and as such must be seen as a necessary evil,though I do get a bit sick of seeing the same old adverts month after month. I'm an AN man myself- I've just renewed my subscription,at £40 for a year's issues.

You do wonder how objective the tests of equipment are, given how much the mags rely on advertisers. For example, a really good bit of kit might get '95%', and a very poor bit might get  '88%'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jnb

jnb

Posted
Posted

You do wonder how objective the tests of equipment are, given how much the mags rely on advertisers. For example, a really good bit of kit might get '95%', and a very poor bit might get  '88%'.

On the basis that they only review the better pieces of kit that's probably not unreasonable. Skywatcher, Orion optices and explore scientific will all get scores like that. National Geographic won't but then again neither would the magazines bother reviewing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

You do wonder how objective the tests of equipment are, given how much the mags rely on advertisers. For example, a really good bit of kit might get '95%', and a very poor bit might get  '88%'.

This has come up often and both myself (for AN) and Steve (for S at N) have insisted that we are objective and honest. And we are!

On the basis that they only review the better pieces of kit that's probably not unreasonable. Skywatcher, Orion optices and explore scientific will all get scores like that. National Geographic won't but then again neither would the magazines bother reviewing it.

... and speaking for myself, this is the reason. There's a lot of work in doing a review, certainly in the imaging sphere where I've worked. You don't get far with forty hours by the time you've dealt with software, set up the system on the mount, done the captures and processed the images. Then you have to do the writing. Simply put, I don't want to be wasting all that effort on something I think will be dodgy.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steppenwolf

steppenwolf

Posted
Posted

You do wonder how objective the tests of equipment are, given how much the mags rely on advertisers. For example, a really good bit of kit might get '95%', and a very poor bit might get  '88%'.

As Olly has said, this 'old chestnut' comes up from time to time but it really is unfounded. Most reviewers are freelance (Olly and I are typical examples!) so there is no connection between advertising revenue for the magazine and the result of the review - to put it bluntly I don't have any direct interest in the magazine's revenue but I do have an interest in reporting accurately what I find as this is a reflection on me personally. If the sample I get is junk, you'll hear it from me - if the sample I get is good I'll tell you so - the day the editor asks me to amend my review to give it an untruthful slant will be the day I walk, Simples! I have NEVER had my judgement of a product queried by the editor but I do know that they read the reviews in depth because tiny changes creep in to better explain some points.

I like Olly's example of the time it takes to do the job properly, I've stopped measuring the time it takes to complete a review as it is too scary :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
25585

25585

Posted
Posted

Astronomy the US magazine is my favourite. S & T too expensive though has great individual issues. 

Of the UK mags, AN is my choice. S@N is like S&T good but not consistently so. Former is too BBC - if you know what I mean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S.A.M

S.A.M

Posted
Posted

Use to buy both of them but now only go for AN.  I have noticed how AN have improved over the years for quality of items they publish, probably with SAN around they had to go forward?

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tomato

tomato

Posted
Posted

I subscribed to both AN and S&T back in the 80’s and 90’s I really enjoyed both of them. The Celestron/Meade showdown in S&T was a classic.

Nowadays I buy AN and S@N when the content appeals. On the subject of reviews,    yes, I do have faith in them, especially when you have some idea of the author’s credentials. Case in point, reading Steve’s review of the Mesu 200 and Olly’s review of the Altair 102 mm APO were the clinchers to making these two investments, I have not regretted either for a second:icon_biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tim

Tim

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, 25585 said:

Of the UK mags, AN is my choice. S@N is like S&T good but not consistently so. Former is too BBC - if you know what I mean. 

Nope, no idea at all what you mean, care to explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
25585

25585

Posted
Posted
On 26/06/2018 at 20:59, Tim said:

Nope, no idea at all what you mean, care to explain?

It's a bit like their other TV show related magazines. Good stuff in them, but also intetested TV personality - Brian Cox, Dara O'Brien (!) etc.

That's good for Wildlife maybe and Radio Times also schools, but not what I personally want from an astronomy magazine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.