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.
Stereophile looses Jonathan Scull
General Asylum
FYI, Stereophile looses Jonathan Scull
66.161.175.28
Posted by Gordon Rankin (M) on March 29, 2002 at 12:39:56
FYI,
Heard about this yesterday and conformation today from J10 that Primedia (Stereophile's parent company) wanted to slim down it's staff in all magazines let J10 go yesterday.
I have know Jonathan for sometime now and his certain wit will leave Stereophile a little colder than it was before.
Thanks J10 for the bandwith!
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
FYI, Stereophile looses Jonathan Scull
66.161.175.28
Posted by Gordon Rankin (M) on March 29, 2002 at 12:39:56
FYI,
Heard about this yesterday and conformation today from J10 that Primedia (Stereophile's parent company) wanted to slim down it's staff in all magazines let J10 go yesterday.
I have know Jonathan for sometime now and his certain wit will leave Stereophile a little colder than it was before.
Thanks J10 for the bandwith!
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
- ...
- 39 posts total
- 39 posts total