Stereophile looses Jonathan Scull

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.

Well, I too think Stereophile is going or gone the way of Stereo. To reform, they need to abandon the Recommended Components list and clean up their act. Maybe I read too much of the reviewing the reviewers at http://www.high-endaudio.com but I can see what seems like substantial corruption in most reviewers at Stereophile, some at TAS and Listener, but not Bound For Sound. Ken Kessler is still a good read, but little of the rest of Hi-Fi. Frankly, rather than J-10, I'd like to have seen Fermer get the axe. If he really did email Arthur at High-endaudio, then he embarressed reviewers as a group and showed himself to be far less than a gentleman. If I was his employer, I'd can him forthwith. And I'm a vinyl guy forever. All IMHO.

So long for now to the Robin Leach of the Hi-Fi world. I found his reviews to be entertaining to a point but hardly informative. His reviews were certainly in context of "lifestyles of the rich and famous" something to make you pant and drool with lust to have this equipment. Surely it must sound way better than the pitiful (less than 10000 dollar per item stuff us mortals must listen to but the reviews weren't informative enough to tell us in exactly which ways and by how much improvement you got for your dollar. I'll miss lines such as "bass that makes your pants flap", no mention of what db that took place at but I don't ever experience anything close except in person next to a Top Fuel Nitro car which will also rattle the buttons on your shirt. Maybe he'll end up at TAS.

Rhljazz: Well said. Love your Robin Leach metaphor. I actually heard "bass that makes your pants flap". We'll, actually it was my wife's pants -- in the Merlin room this CES. No kindding. Fine sound. Maybe us mortals can afford that and don't need no leaches, reviewer, manufacturer or otherwise. But Skull was entertaining, as is Robin Leach, sometimes.