Stereophile looses Jonathan Scull

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.

The big question (that can't be answered right now) is what was the real motivation for excusing J-10. This thread contains both condemnation as well as support for his contributions over the years - I find myself definitely on the condemnation side. However, somebody has to approve the content before it's printed, don't they? Did J-10 just get bigger than his own shoes and become uncontrollable? If so, then maybe the intent is to bring in contributors who don't go off on all the tangents, who aren't so flowery and who give more hard-core equipment reviews. Maybe there was no other way to get that space under control.

There have been several letters over the past several years suggesting that Stereophile is "riding the fence" between their hardcore audience and the mainstream and that to survive, they're going to have to choose one or the other. I don't think it's quite that dire, but there are some tough choices that would have to be made if they were to go one way or the other. If it's more mainstream that they choose (and appear to be choosing), this forum will be ranting until apathy completely sets in, because we'll never be satisfied.

As a customer, it would appear that there are several writers for Stereophile who set their own agenda. If the magazine wants to retain their elite status, they're going to have to regain the editorial control. Perhaps the J-10 release is the first of at least a few power struggle outcomes. -Kirk

Trelja, i was not defending the quality of J-10's reviews. I simply stated that his love for audio related subjects was pretty great. As such, i basically agree with your summary and have stated so publicly. How do you think i came about talking to J-10 and JA to begin with ? I was bitching about some of the same things that you bring up and even more. I think that the bottom line is that you and i are on the same team, we're just limited by how things come across and are interpreted via the net.

Personally, i'd like to see Audio go back into business with a hand picked staff. Sean
>

Amen, Sean. I know your position on J - 10 and JA. I agree that Tellig does more than his share of promotion of Cary, Musical Fidelity, Rega, and Triangle. Too high a percentage of his reviews are dedicated to these four companies(also Macintosh and Conrad Johnson). JA is biased toward the companies which comprise Harman International. Seems as if he has always carried a torch for Mark Levinson(the company, not the man) gear.

When something does not smell right, it should be brought up.

I do miss Audio, especially every October. Boy, do I miss the October Audio magazine.

The bottom line is that I would like to see Stereophile get its house in order. I am a subscriber, with no intention of canceling. In fact, whenever my subscription comes up, I will renew. THAT is why I have such a stake in the most important audio magazine going.

Kirk I think your right
.
This points us directly to JA! I believe Sereophile's problems begin with him, and J-10 was just his side kick. If the owners of Stereophile want to begin a new, start with JA and J-10.

The clear and outright mis-use of Atkinson's power when Dunlavy speakers didn't fit his Recommended Component List was the worst and most blatant I can think of. The idea that a speaker that was "Best Component of the Year" can in two years, after an upgrade fall from Class A restricted to Class B unrestricted after proving it's bass response is all the evidence any of use should need. It's not fraud, but it's close. Just because John Dunlavy publicly humiliated John Atkinson should not be motive to destroy his company. I was shocked when this happened, JA wants so badly to play God, the fact that an $8000 speaker was capable of entering his all mighty Class A unrestricted list was just to much for Mr. Atkinson to take. Instead of re-defining his affiliations with the power companies he suddenly found a flaw in what he claimed to be the best just two years earlier. This was bad, the explanation was worse.

JA must be the next, then it's time to re-build the magazine to the place it was. As long as there remains clear prejudice I for one must think of the great Stereophile as a second tier rag.