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
albundy15000696a

Showing 3 responses by trelja

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 have been a Stereophile reader since the mid 80's. In that period, I have held a subscription about 50% of the time. My opinions of the magazine are strong, but it is because my love for and expectations of the magazine are strong.

It is obvious the magazine is a shadow of what is was a decade ago. The writers today do not hold up at all against those who have left. I long for the days of intelligent review and commentary from people like Dick Olsher, Jack English, Larry Archibald, Martin Colloms, and even Corey Greenberg. For the vast majority of these people, when I was finished reading their reviews, I actually had a good take on how a component sounded. A lot of people thought I was crazy when I was sorry Wes Philips left, saying he was a paper tiger, yet who replaced him? No one superior.

One does not need to look past Recommended Components to see how far the magazine has fallen. It is the exact opposite of what was created. Like grades at Harvard, the weighting into Class A is much, much too heavy. Whereas there used to be 2 or 3 components which held the distinction of "Best Attainable Sound", the category now stretches several pages. Maybe I am mistaken, but while times are good, they aren't nearly THAT good.

How is it possible for Class A to dwarf Class C? Class C should be the largest category, containing the likes of Conrad Johnson(most of it), Musical Fidelity, Rogue, VTL, etc. Instead, it is basically a bucket for entry level equipment that the magazine has reviewed, and doesn't necessarily hold in such high regard.. Class C used to be not a slap in the face, but the category where most real world equipment fit into. Stuff that 95% of audiophiles owned. Today, it means your component is not very good.

While I am dealing with Class C, its inclusion of the Legend Audio Starlet Integrated is preposterous. It is a fine sounding amplifier, as most people who have heard it will attest. While it is true that I believe if things were the way they should be, this amplifier WOULD be a Class C component, if the Adcom GFP - 750, Bryston 7B - ST, Musical Fidelity A3 power amp, Creek 5350SE, B&W 803 Nautilus, Krell LAT - 1, Revel Peforma M20, and Triangle Celius are all Class A Components, then the Legend should either currently be Class A or Class B.

One thing I have never brought up is how Coincident Loudspeaker Technology has been dealt with by Stereophile. They are an advertiser, and I do not necessarily correlate ad money with golden treatment, unlike a lot of people. Coincident is a facet of my argument. They feature an ad every month, and some of the reviewers even use their products(check Associated Equipment), yet they have never had a product even listed in Recommended Components. Not even Class D. They have reviewed two Coincident speakers, and either one or two of their cables. What is the story here?

While I am on the inexplicable, how about the never to occur review of Legacy? Here is an advertiser that has spent as much as anyone on ad copy in Stereophile. Yet, in the 15 years I have been reading the magazine, seeing them all the while, they have zero reviews to my knowledge. It used to be a discussion topic every other month in the magazine before I took a four year hiatus. And, while I feel their equipment is mediocre at best and should highlight their flaws in review, unless Legacy feared the review(and refused, which I have heard on occasion), one of their speakers should have sat in Recommended components since 1990.

Yes, the magazine has fallen far indeed.

I would like to add that Sam Tellig is my favorite reviewer of the magazine. Which, at this point, embarrasses me to no end. As has been stated, his reviews of the past two years especially have been utter dreck. Please do not forget the Conrad Johnson reviews of a couple of months ago. The CJ rep lavishes Sam with enough expensive steak, London broil, hamburger, wine, and a night on the town to purchase a component. His reviews are now consistently filled with this fluff. My experience usually is that I find myself entertained by his writing, but always needing to reread the review, due to not having a clear picture of the "featured component's" sound, there is nothing there.

Perhaps we should go with a Tellig - like pun, "There's no THERE there."

I am waaaayyy past hearing about his weight, and before that I was even more tired of all the ink given to his wife.

Kalman Rubinson has to be the most boring, uninteresting, uninspiring audio reviewer I have ever come across. I would rather read Julian Hirsch anyday. Unlike after exiting a Tellig review, I find myself exhausted at the end of a Rubinson submission. Painful and tiring. I can't say it's like going to the dentist, it's not. But, it does bring me back to my college days and my chemistry books. Maybe he could ask Ben Stein for advice in how to liven up his demeanor.

Hopefully, Fremer will be the next to go. I have always felt that his inexplicable popularity was solely related to the magazine putting him on vinyl. Otherwise, he would still be a stand up comic.

Jonathan Scull was a lousy reviewer in my opinion. I am on record of stating this several times. Even when he was on top. I will not miss him in the least. I never read a review by him that really gave me what I want; insight. Rather I read about his wife, his chair, and his appreciation for fine wine and fast cars. I always felt he was a kept man. Someone more interested in having the best equipment, and serving the masters it required to get it. Of course, I know none of this to be fact, it was just the cold, clammy feel I always got from his writing. His skill at writing cannot be criticized, but rather his over the top, cloying praise for anything he heard with a price tag of at least $5000.

Fine Tunes featured cheap or free tweaks, yet Scull was always a man who could not bear to live with less than multi - kilobuck equipment. His use for the Cary 300b SEI was solely to power his headphones. Many components that he reviewed wondrously leave me scratching my head as to what good sound they produced. And, I always return to the one instance his superiors had the gall of him reviewing a less than $1000(OK, $995) piece of equipment. He "fixed" them by serving up the only negative review I can remember coming from him. For a component that people I have true respect for hold in high regard.

For me, rather than lament losing Jonathan Scull, I rejoice. Seeing this as either the dawn of the magazine returning to its roots, or maybe Primedia beginning to pry into why Stereophile has become what it has become under John Atkinson.
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.