Stereophile looses Jonathan Scull

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.

Jadem6, although I can't quite yet agree with his call for JA's head, is quite right about the Dunlavy IV classification affair. I would extend his critique to the whole of "Recommended Components" in this way: Unequal treatment is the norm, and the very fact of it delegitimizes the entire "ranking" hierarchy. This problem, BTW, is independent of any possible conflict of interest or "revenge" motive for JA's actions in that particular case. It is illustrated in that instance by the simple fact that JA does not "double-check" with his own ears (and opinions) every component ranked primarily according to its original reviewer's conclusions, or even very many of them. The near-uniqueness of his revisionism in the Dunlavy case only serves to increase the appearance of possible impropriety raised by the circumstances that Jadem6 refers to above. Unequal treatment manifests itself as Standard Operating Procedure when it comes to the ranking of components that are reviewed sans any measurements at all, such as those written up by Sam Tellig. To put it flatly, it is patently unfair to demote or deny one component a recommendation classification earned on purely sonic grounds because of its measurements, when another is recommended just as or more highly based on the same grounds, but without any measurements being taken on it at all. By the same token, some products are "saved" from being dropped off the list through attrition by a reviewer's timely "Followup" (often at the Editor's direction), while many others are allowed to languish and disappear from the biannual listing without an update - clearly unfair. Again, an example of favorable treatment that should be available equally for all, or equally for none, but not unequally for some (and JA surely knows that the eternal disclaimer about a piece's being dropped from "Recommended Components" in this manner not meaning it is "de-recommended" cuts no ice in this regard). The evidence for the insidious phenomenom of "class inflation" has been cited by others (see Trelja above), and JA certainly bears the responsibility for its corrosive effects, not only on Stereophile's reputation, but on the way that products are marketed and sold in the high-end industry. These and other valid points of criticism are also raised by Mssrs. Soholm and Clark in the letters column of the current issue of the magazine. I believe that John Atkinson possesses the werewithal, discernment, and fundamental sense of ethics to correct the state his magazine has drifted into regarding all of the problems enumerated here and in the above posts (including my own previous one), but whether he has the will or the vision to do so is an open question.