Stereophile looses Jonathan Scull

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.

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.