Stereophile looses Jonathan Scull

I am somewhat torn about seeing Jonathan leave Stereophile. I can relate to both sides of the argument being presented here.

Having dealt with him directly via email on a few occasions, i found him to be an easy to talk to individual and someone that truly tried to stay in touch with what was happening in the industry. I think that he truly loves this field and this came through in most of his writing. He might not have been the finest reviewer, but he always tried to at least entertain. That is more than i can say for some of the "dried up" and "talent-less" individuals that have come before him and will follow him.

Then again, who wouldn't be overjoyed to play with ( and potentially keep ) the mega dollar gear that he was given to review ? Herein lies part of my major complaint about Stereophile ( and other "glossies" for that matter ). I think that we've all covered this before, so i won't go there on this specific thread. Either way, i see that others have noticed this, so i'm glad that i'm not alone in those thoughts.

As to the "guts" that it took for him to slag the RGPC piece, keep in mind that Stereophile had been getting MAJOR flack on AA for lack of "responsible journalism" and presenting both sides ( good and bad ) of various products. Since J-10 and JA are known to frequent AA and were reading / responding to those comments, was this merely a ploy to silence the uprising ? Did the RGPC product become a handy scapegoat or was J-10 really that dis-satisfied that he felt the need to warn everyone else about it ??? We may never know.

As to his "fine tunes" column, i always got a kick out of it. It's great to see the industries best selling magazine paying attention to what the little guy has to say and has experienced within the confines of his system. Some of us have to remember that not everone is "on-line", so some material is bound to be re-hashed wherever you go in society. This is true of any hobby or field of individual interest.

As i've tried to make clear, the whole J-10 / Stereophile issue is a two sided coin. Do we dispose of bad at the expense of good ? Does the baby go out with the bath water ? Where does one draw the line or know what is REALLY taking place behind the scenes ?

Either way, i hope that JA can pull things back into perspective. Just as TAS is undergoing plastic surgery, i think that Stereophile may be in the process of changing its' looks also. Whether or not it comes out of this potential "make-over" achieving the benefits of surgery like Raquel Welch or the disastrous results of Michael Jackson remains to be seen. For the sake of the entire industry, i hope that it we can once again call Stereophile "OUR" magazine. Sean
>

PS... Even if you don't subscribe to Stereophile for various reasons, i encourage you to check into other magazines. Not only can this help keep you up to date and expose you to different equipment, it shows support for the industry. I recently bit the bullet for a five year subscription to Bound For Sound. While it's not really a "magazine", it is good enough that i want to read it from front to back in one sitting.

I think Trelja is right on. A review should tell us everything about the component and how it sounds with different components. Scull's reviews told us little and they were often totally absurd. As a manufacturer, I would never trust the fate of my company to one of his "reviews". Price was always the main thing with him. He was not even consistent in his subjectivism. Audio's reviews (especially the speaker ones by the great DB Keale) were shorter, but more informative overall. Internal component photos (German audio mags set the standard) should never be excluded. Stereophile is too lean with photos. I like the close-ups you see in the euro mags.

Wow, Nightdoggy and Danielk141 bring up names of reviewers that I actually learned something from. DB Keele, J Gordon Holt, Steven Stone, and Thomas J Norton. Nightdoggy, you are oh so right in that Keele in the less esoteric 'Audio' was able to put so much more forth than ANYONE today at Stereophile.

As far as Scull being a good guy, easy to talk to, approachable, blah, blah, blah, who cares? His task was to review audio equipment. Being a nice guy is secondary to me. I pay for the magazine to learn about audio equipment. Equipment, which if it piques my interest, I may even audition and ultimately, purchase. I have no use for hearing about a fine Cabernet, the Ribbon Chair, K - 10's moniker for a UPS employee, or stories of his father. I don't care that he was a good writer, or loved what he did. It is all rubbish.

If these are criteria for being an audio reviewer, I can name many people on this site who would make Jonathan Scull a forgotten man in the course of one issue. How about Asa, Brulee, Carl_eber, Garfish, Dekay, Eldragon, Natalie, Sdcampbell, Swampwalker, Tubegroover, etc. These are all people I have actually conversed with, and have proven their real world knowledge and love for audio to me. Most of them are extremely well written. No one of this group could displace Jonathan Scull, John Atkinson, Kalman Rubinson, Michael Fremer? I do not believe it.

If this was a sacrifice, a bloodletting, great. If it wasn't, great. Does anyone besides me hold out faith that the magazine may actually be trying to return to the greatness it used to have?

My only take is that Stereophile has improved itself by parting ways with a reviewer with a penchant for high ticket items, and as has been mentioned, a lot of toys in his loft. I would have respected the man if he reviewed the likes of Cambridge D500/D500 SE and let me know what it sounded like. Price tag being secondary.

If anyone doubts my assertion of how he turned up his nose at approachable equipment reviews; seeing them as his wading through raw sewage, read the Sony SCD-333ES review. The review begins with JA asking Scull to review the player. Well, we all have to take on a job that is beneath us once in a while, eh J - 10?

If anyone can dig up an old copy of a Stereophile review from Dick Olsher, you will see what a proper audio review SHOULD be. You will not read about imported cheese, or hanging beef, but a thorough, in - depth report on the way a component worked, sounded, and fit in with a system. Associated components would be switched around to fully ascertain what a product offered, and what it didn't.

As an example, when was the last time Stereophile featured a review as Dick did of the JMlabs speakers? The awful Focal tweeters he came across in two of their speakers over the course of a year was laid bare in all their wretched glory. If anyone has come across these, you know what I am talking about(also check out any Osborn speaker with a Focal Ti tweeter). It's enough to drive a deaf man out of the room. The reviews got people all up in a huff. The result, Focal immediately made a switch to a different tweeter and modified the crossover network. Focal has spent the past decade getting things to the point where they are actually listenable. Bravo, Dick Olsher.

Can anyone imagine Scull providing this type of service to the industry? The fact that he is able to enjoy his Utopias is a homage to Dr. Olsher.

I remember Steven Stone telling things as they were also. Believe me, I listen to enough equipment to know that there is some real garbage out there. Price is no barometer of musicality in high end audio. I can name $1000 amplifiers that I would take over $5000 amps. Are they that afraid to submit reviews that actually lay out in hard and fast terms the sound of a component? Will they suffer that kind of loss in advertising revenue? I for one, would rather pay what I used to pay for the subscription in return for honesty, integrity, and their winning back my trust.

I for one will be somewhat sad to see J10 leave, while his reviews tended to be elitist (in equipment and tone) at least there was an interesting persona revealed. These are the sorts of characters that leave only to be replaced by milktoast, how unfortunate. What bothers me even more about this increasing blandness is that we (audiophiles) are partially to blame for it. In reading the many letters and commentaries to the audiophile mags over the years I've come to believe that some audiophiles only have disingenuous criticism to give. Every issue of every mag has readers cancelling or threatening to cancel their subscriptions over percieved contributors' wrongheadedness, language, personality traits, credibility, intelligence, etc... It never ends. God, if I agreed with everything written or spoken it would be one dull world.
While I agree it is good to publicize percieved wrongs, public cancelation of one's subscription is ridiculous, self-serving and destructive to the magazine publishing business. If one finds a mag to be anathma just cancel without telling the whole world. I for one would rather see print devoted to self-serving diatribes put to better use (reviews,technical evaluation,etc.). Diatribes are perhaps better placed in forums like this :-) where space is unlimited. How many bunnies does Art Dudley at Listener (consensus seems to place this magazine in high regard) have to give out in every issue. Rabbits do multiply! It has to be at best irritating and more likely downright demoralizing to publish in good faith only to be trampled on over and over. My God, the thickness of one's skin must be nearly a steel shroud. Sometimes I actually pity the poor contributor to audiophile magazines, who needs the aggravation. Is it any wonder we find the 'mainstream' audiophile magazines increasingly sanitized and glossed over.
Certainly there is a case to be made that publishers of 'mainstream' mags are destroying the quality of their product with myopic short-term profit equations, but audiophiles also have themselves to blame in the 'dumbing down' of audiophile publications. Proof of this is found in the circulation numbers of the so called 'quality' audiophile publications. Subscriptions are so ridiculously low that publication is sporadic (I can't even recall recieving the last issue of Positive Feedback), sometimes they quit publishing altogether and we are stuck with paying for goods never recieved. This situation makes it appear there is little or no profit in audiophile publishing. The fickle audiophile simply does not support a quality magazine in numbers great enough to be profitable. Rant and rave if you will but don't be surprised when you find the audiophile publishing world self-censored into oblivion. Sorry if I stepped on some toes, but self-criticism can be of service for good.