Negative show report posts... enough is enough.

Yes, we have an obligation to report honestly.

Let's take your cables as an example. Your loudspeaker cables look like they are Litz construction. And one of my reviewers wants to review them... on his early Naim NAP500.

Would the honest thing be to let this review go ahead, or would the more honest thing be to place this cable with someone who uses an amp that isn't going to go into oscillation simply as a result of using Litz wire?

My take on this is the honest thing to do here is to attempt to replicate the end user's buying experience, and where possible place the product in context.

Having worked on comparison tests for about 16 years from 1992-2008, I know the good and bad of them. The psychology of reading is curious when it comes to group tests, in that people tend not to read them, just read the conclusion and work back from there. Typically, if you review six products, five of those six reviews don't get read and worse, people tend to demand comparison tests have a conclusion page of salient points that people can use like a game of Top Trumps or slapjack. This has dreadful consequences: I once worked on an amp test where the best sounding amplifier in the group (Sugden A21se) was the least well specified in terms of power output, inputs, and most of the other tick boxes on a conclusion box. I remember this well because the 'winner' in spec terms was heavily pushed by the company and sold well, despite it being criticised for mediocre sound, and because I still use an A21se.

In the case of compatibility issues or equipment broken by shipping of course you don't review it as-is, this is a reductio ad absurdum. Just like you wouldn't test a 2 wpc SET amp with an 85 dB eff speaker. And a car mag wouldn't test a Toyota Prius on the Nurburgring vs a Porsche GT3.

BUT, I would be interested in hearing a comparison of, for example, Odyssey's new speaker at $6k (2x 7" Revelators + Beryllium tweeter) vs their much more expensive competition that use the same or similar drivers. For some reason I don't think a comparison like this would ever happen... can we guess why? ;)
 
If electric power quality is so important, the show producers should provide it like the motion picture industry does. For location shoots they hire power contractors who arrive with diesel powered generators on semi trucks with miles of cable as big as your arm to provide many kilowatts of clean power for the lights and other equipment. But if they did, exhibitors would not have a convenient excuse for their poor sound.

So it actually can be done. Good. My idea wasn't so crazy after all.
 
A more fundamental problem is using hotel rooms as simulations of the home. Not only do you share the same AC, but you share the same corridor with people who are playing music. The nearest thing to this is a college dorm.

Worse, I've been to a small show, and the sudden realisation of how creepy it is to have a bunch of old geezers moving from hotel room to hotel room is not recoverable. Hiding us away in hotel rooms isn't going to make high-end audio more visible, either.

It's slightly easier for the head-fi guys, because they have the quietest demonstrations in consumer electronics.

Well, then the industry should create its own venue. As I suggested.

Again, sitting around complaining without doing anything helps nobody. The industry has done that for way too long. We are tired of the excuses of this industry.
 
Some hotels do it right - when I spoke to the chief electrical tech in The Venetian before the show started in the first year of CES at that new venue, he told me that we audiophiles are pussies compared to the Mary Kay convention. When 3 women in each room fire up their up 3,000W hair dryers at the same time and this happens in 500 rooms just before the final celebratory dinner starts, Las Vegas browns-out. Not just the hotel.

The mental image of this is priceless. And quite accurate, I'm sure.
 
Be realistic.

If the unit was damaged in shipping you obviously can't review it.

Some things should be self evident.

I agree! How would you know if its damaged? Some outward sign? I have certainly seen reviews done when the equipment was damaged and the fault not discovered until the equipment was returned, well after the review was in print. I also know of some equipment that has a reputation for excellent sound, but the innards are held together with hot-melt glue (personally, a practice I find deplorable). The unit could get dropped in UPS and show no outward sign at all that it had become a fire hazard. Now I would love to see such practices docked in print. But OTOH, the company is a competitor of mine so I have a conflict of interest.

We got docked one time for not making the full power for which the amp was rated (Soundstage- Bascomb King measurements) - turned out that Bascomb, in doing his measurements, had shorted one speaker terminal to ground via his oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer, even though he knew that the amplifier had balanced floating outputs. So the amp measured lower power and higher distortion as the drive to the output section was imbalanced by the short.

When stuff is not going right in the review, at the very least the manufacturer should be involved in the process enough to sort out what is going on. But too often that does not happen. Sometimes the reviewer fails to recognize that there is even a problem. I think we all want things to work ideally. But at the same time there is room for realism. They aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Or perhaps creating their very own venue. Look, just throwing hands up in the air and saying we can't do anything about anything doesn't help anyone. The industry has done that for decades. Perhaps my ideas are crazy, but crazy ideas are better than no ideas. No?

my exclamation was basically due to thinking it would take a dedicated venue and then you mentioned it
 
In the case of compatibility issues or equipment broken by shipping of course you don't review it as-is, this is a reductio ad absurdum. Just like you wouldn't test a 2 wpc SET amp with an 85 dB eff speaker. And a car mag wouldn't test a Toyota Prius on the Nurburgring vs a Porsche GT3.

So, suddenly the qualifications begin to appear.

No, you wouldn't test a two-watt SET amp with an 85dB loudspeaker. So, why would you expect a reviewer who uses a two-watt SET amplifier to be an appropriate assessor of a 1kW solid-state amplifier? The editor's job is to make sure the guy who thinks five watts is dangerously powerful doesn't wind up destroying a 1kW behemoth in print, and to make sure the guy who thinks 400W makes a moderately powerful headphone amp won't slaughter a SET amp because he doesn't 'get' it. Occasionally (and I mean really occasionally) I get someone asking me if Product X is supposed to sound like that? I'll go investigate and in most cases it's someone's personal taste getting in the way of the review than an intrinsically bad product.

Similarly, you wouldn't compare a Prius to a GT3, but the chances are the car mag would use different reviewers to review both, because their balance speaks to different people. Do you think the lead-footed petrolhead is going to assess the Prius appropriately? Do you think the eco-chummy Prius user is going to appreciate the performance of a GT3? It's possible, yes... but more likely they go to different people.

I'll say again, why is that a bad thing? If a member of the public tries your cables and doesn't like them (let's face it, it happens to every company) - they send them back. If reviewer does the same, would you really want them to destroy your brand in the process? While a reviewer should be able to step beyond their own personal tastes and view things dispassionately, we're still human and our tastes overarch. What is wrong with taking that product from that person and trying it on someone else?

I'm not talking criticism here. I'm talking 'this thing sucks'. However if, after you have done this level of due diligence and tried the product on more than one reviewer and both conclude it sucks, then of course you should take it out and shoot it in print, even if you have to suffer the consequences of that action in the courts. The advantage to not adding measurement to the review is you are less likely to be sued: the times I've been dragged through the courts it has always been over the minutiae of an objective review in a 'bad' review (never the 'bad' review itself) and as the only people in the courtroom who understand WTF is being discussed in such cases are the plaintiff and the defendant, it rarely goes well for the magazine.


BUT, I would be interested in hearing a comparison of, for example, Odyssey's new speaker at $6k (2x 7" Revelators + Beryllium tweeter) vs their much more expensive competition that use the same or similar drivers. For some reason I don't think a comparison like this would ever happen... can we guess why? ;)

Odyssey doesn't sell in my patch, so I can't speak to its performance. But I will say this: Avalon, Coincident, Evolution, Kharma, Marten, and more all use the same Accuton drivers (or customised variations on a theme) in their ranges, IIRC. While they have some core sonic elements in common, they don't sound alike. Why do you think the same thing would happen with Odyssey and its rivals?
 
Similarly, you wouldn't compare a Prius to a GT3, but the chances are the car mag would use different reviewers to review both, because their balance speaks to different people. Do you think the lead-footed petrolhead is going to assess the Prius appropriately? Do you think the eco-chummy Prius user is going to appreciate the performance of a GT3? It's possible, yes... but more likely they go to different people.

Well, the car mags do a lot of other things that the audiophile press seems really reluctant to do. Actual head-to-head competition within a vehicle class and price range on the same track. Use of multiple reviewers for the same item. Long-term loans that are fully disclosed, with updates based on ongoing impressions.

Now, a lot of this is possible because the auto mags have larger budgets by at least an order of magnitude. But things in the audiophile press could be better (and I'm not knocking your magazine - I haven't seen one for a while and can't directly comment on it). Head-to-head comparisons are good. The in-room measurements that JA does are good. But I would like to see more disclosure. It increases credibility.
 
Well, then the industry should create its own venue. As I suggested.

Again, sitting around complaining without doing anything helps nobody. The industry has done that for way too long. We are tired of the excuses of this industry.

No problems. We can build this.

A good floating-floor IEC standard room designed for audio shouldn't cost more than about $60k to construct (if we're doing it properly, we should do it properly and you can't use domestic construction in commercial construction and keep in code, which adds to cost) and the battery power feed should cost about another $30k (that's the cost of the individual battery power feeds, assuming we don't build our own power station). We'll need about 40-50 of these rooms to make it a viable expo centre and it should be in a suitable conurbation to allow ease of access for manufacturers and public alike.

At a rough guess, that's somewhere between $6m-$10m as a start-up, excluding taxes and 'walking overheads'. Split the difference - call it $8m

If it was industry funded, it will probably start with one in China (we should go where the business is, after all) then add one in the US and Central Europe later. We could probably get the 50 biggest names to spank down $160k or so to get the ball rolling, but then the exhibitions would be a little 'samey' as they probably wouldn't want others to take their expensive 'spot'. Besides, that just buys us the venue.

Perhaps if we got 100 forum goers to come up with $80k up-front and then maybe $1,000 per year each to cover overheads until the ball starts rolling. That would do it, and that way you aren't beholden to the industry insisting it goes where the business is and you could build it locally.

Or I guess you could go with Kickstarter.
 
Well, then the industry should create its own venue. As I suggested.
The venues exist already. It is that they are too expensive for high-end audio companies with so little sales, relatively speaking. And hence the move towards hotel suites instead of being in commercial spaces with ample power. This is a tiny industry in grand scheme of things so can't support the proper infrastructure.
 
So if the unit was damaged in shipment, or worse yet by accident you shorted out the speaker terminals and damaged it yourself- the review goes on??
Of course not. You contact the manufacturer and get it repaired or replaced. Are you completely discounting any rationality on the part of reviewers?
 
So, suddenly the qualifications begin to appear.

I'm not sure there was ever anything said about qualifications until you brought it up in order to make a reductio ad absurdium/straw man argument.

If you take a step back and look at this issue from an outsider's point of view I think hifi audio reviewing looks ridiculous. Yes, there are a lot of reasons and excuses it's ridiculous, but it doesn't change the fact it's still ridiculous.
 
Beneath the surface, behind the curtains, under the rug there seems to be more than just meets the eyes and the ears.

Peter (B), care to elaborate? :b ...From your own perspective. I've always respected your views.
 
So, suddenly the qualifications begin to appear.

No, you wouldn't test a two-watt SET amp with an 85dB loudspeaker. So, why would you expect a reviewer who uses a two-watt SET amplifier to be an appropriate assessor of a 1kW solid-state amplifier? The editor's job is to make sure the guy who thinks five watts is dangerously powerful doesn't wind up destroying a 1kW behemoth in print, and to make sure the guy who thinks 400W makes a moderately powerful headphone amp won't slaughter a SET amp because he doesn't 'get' it. Occasionally (and I mean really occasionally) I get someone asking me if Product X is supposed to sound like that? I'll go investigate and in most cases it's someone's personal taste getting in the way of the review than an intrinsically bad product.

I know a case where a digital amp that was not suited to handle a panel speaker was used to review that panel speaker, despite the distributor telling the reviewer not to do so. The reviewer didn't listen and reviewed the panel speaker with that amp, and wrote a meh review. It was quite ibvious the amp was not suited and that he should have used a powerful SS or Valve amp as the reviewer suggested. In fact, it would be common knowledge for anyone familiar with panels
 
Interesting. I think the OP is about censorship, excuses, name calling and the discouraging of private messages.

+1

I for one won't watch Peter B's video's again. In fact, I'll go out of my way to redirect others to the OP.
 
my exclamation was basically due to thinking it would take a dedicated venue and then you mentioned it

Steve, that's hardly a new idea. Did you ever hear of AAHEA? They looked into doing an industry sponsored event twenty years ago and there were too many logistical and legal issues (such as some anti-trust legislation) to make holding a show impossible. Their legal counsel even advised then taking out a coop ad paid for by different high-end companies to promote the industry would be subject to anti-trust legislation.

I've been silently following this thread and it's gone in so many different tangents with lots of opinions but few facts save for a few industry insiders such as Gary and Ralph. Let me share some insights from someone who been a writer going to shows since 1985.

1. For those that think that holding a show is a money making venture, think again. Stereophile couldn't make any money on their shows and they were the only game in town back then. When their new owners looked at their expense line, the first thing, despite John's best efforts, that got chopped was the Stereophile show. And Stereophile drew as many as 14,000 at one of their NY shows. Today's shows don't sniff near this in attendance. 5000 is a lot today. Axpona is lucky if they are breaking even right now. But they are looking at building the show up for the long run. There are simply so many expenses in running a show that people don't appreciate. Not the least of what is paying the hotel or advertising. No show goes anywhere nowadays without advertising. (something that RMAF, if it's going to survive, needs to do sooner than later.)

I really don't think that people appreciate how much it costs manufacturers to exhibit--especially given the number of show today. Not does that count the expenses for the exhibitors such as union fees. Let me give an example. The first issue of Ultimate Audio debuted at the Stereophile SF show. I UPS'd 7000 copies of the magazine to give out at the show. It cost me $800 to send the magazines to the show warehouse; it then cost me $2400 to have the magazines sent from the warehouse to the show hotel.

Or years ago when Dan and Gayle showed the mega Krell amps with the ML Monoliths at the Chicago Historical Society some years ago. Dan estimated it cost them 100K to do that show. Despite some people's opinions, we're not talking companies making megabucks. What do many high-end audio companies gross? 5 million a year at most? The two biggest years ago were Levinson and Krell (that reportedly grossed around 50 million one year).

Which brings us to small manufacturers that can't afford to buy a room and their own and must coop with other manufacturers. In many cases, they don't even know who their partners are up to the showtime. But what is better? Sound or market presence? Remember shows serve many masters. Not is the show a chance for audiophiles to hear more brands of equipment under one roof than they might hear otherwise in a lifetime, but it's an opportunity for manufacturers to show in areas where they have no representation or support their dealers in a given area.

Truth be told, there's currently way too many shows and it's becoming a case of quantity over quality. There's no question that some shows will shake out and eventually we'll have three regional shows: Newport/Axpona or RMAF and something on the east coast (right now the NY show isn't instilling confidence). Then of course there's the two Canadian shows in Toronto and Montreal. Then there's Munich. Then there's HK, etc., etc. Again these companies have a limited budget.

2. Selecting a venue. Most decent hotels have no interest (such as having to move beds, etc) in hosting a show so organizers are generally relegated to second rate hotels. Organizers make the best of bad things. And no show is going to be successful except in a major urban area.

3. Rooms. Yes, exhibitors know their rooms but that means nothing. In many cases, exhibitors take what they can afford and I'm sorry but nothing but nothing is going to help a 12 x 12 room--or even as I've seen 12x12x12 room.

4. Show sound. Let me start with a quote from my Magico S5 review:

Perhaps the real take home message from the time spent with the Magico S5s is that we [audiophiles] often are far too hasty to judge the sound of a component based upon one quick listen at a high-end audio show or dealer's showroom. That old adage about hearing a component in your own system before making any legitimate judgment (s) often takes a backseat in the rush to compare listening notes with your audiobuddies or online friend. Let's be honest. Audio shows (and/or dealer showrooms) are more often than not simply a poor substitute for a home audition. Case in point: Magico speakers. Despite hearing Magico's Q-series speaker at several shows—not to mention two local Magico dealers—I was baffled by the praise heaped upon the speakers.

And you know my current reference speakers.

I'm sorry to say that if I was a professor, show sound would be graded on a C- minus curve vs an A curve for "real" audio reviews. Or the same benefit of a doubt that I give the sound of recorded rock music relative to say classical music. I just really don't understand why people are getting so bent out of shape over the sound at a show. Years ago I learned that if something sounded good at a show it was worth investigating; conversely if something sounded bad, it means nothing.

In fact, those companies showing a small speaker with limited bass response probably have a better chance of getting good sound than someone bringing mammoth SOTA speakers. Not only are we talking lousy electricity but sheet rock walls. Wall so thin you can hear someone panting in the adjoining room. Walls that are flexing like a heart beating. It amazes me when I read what some people here do in their custom built rooms and they still have problem that need correction; what issues do you think faces most manufacturers? And yes, some purposely take the same room year after year to increase their probability of getting good sound but how many rooms do you see setting the gear up on an angle in the room? Oh yes, I've never heard good bass at the show and almost activate a bass filter when I go to shows.

On the subject of electricity: there's a little difference between lighting a light bulb and powering an audio system. While we're at it let's talk electricity (How is a generator going to get around a total of 15 amp service? At best.). Do people realize that many times the AC voltage is low? As low as 102 volts reported? Oh and the electricity did go out at the NY show two years ago and generators were used to power the whole show? And the sound was horrendous? Oh and CES requires exhibitors at the Venetian to use a current clamping device on their electronics so not to blow the hotel fuses? Exhibitors are fined for the first two offenses and then their exhibit is shut down on the third offense?

So it seem to me that some people here are looking at the half empty glass of water and missing the REAL point of going to a consumer audio show: that is having a good time, hearing lots of equipment, meeting the manufacturers (where do you normally have the chance1!!!) and meeting other audio buddies?!?! If there's good sound, that icing on the cake but not necessarily something that I come to expect.
 
Last edited:
Hi Myles and need I say on behalf of WBF a more than warm welcome but indeed an even warmer "welcome back"

You have been sorely missed and that post above shows why as you have always been such a wealth of information.
 
Well, the car mags do a lot of other things that the audiophile press seems really reluctant to do. Actual head-to-head competition within a vehicle class and price range on the same track. Use of multiple reviewers for the same item. Long-term loans that are fully disclosed, with updates based on ongoing impressions.

Logistically, many of these things become impossible with high-end audio publication and its budgets. You can drive one vehicle round a track, get out of that vehicle, get in the next and drive it round the same track and get viable results in an afternoon. A pair of full-range loudspeakers need to be installed, measured (if you do that), fine-tuned, bedded in, listened to, and then replaced with another pair of full-range loudspeakers that also need to be installed, measured (if you do that) fine-tuned, bedded in, and then listened to. Which is why a simple head-to-head that can take an afternoon with a pair of cars can take a week or more with a pair of loudspeakers. Also, car reviewer A can drive the review sample over to car reviewer B - we would have to pay a team of piano movers to do the same.

Long-term loans I am fully with you on this, but the ongoing updates thing has never taken off in print. We've tried this and it's almost always fallen flat, even when the ongoing updates are significant firmware updates that change the operation of the product. For some reason, it works in almost all other branches of consumer electronics, but not audio.

I'm not a big fan of long-term loans. They are at best a necessary evil. However, I'm not entirely convinced by the might of 'own' over 'loan', either. The UK audio industry of the 1980s was torn apart by a small group of reviewers who used their ownership of Linn and Naim equipment as an excuse to undermine anything that challenged the performance (and the resale value) of their Linn and Naim equipment. They could justify their actions by saying they owned every part of their system, they were not beholden to anyone... and then wreaked havoc. Some brands - Basis, for example - have never recovered from their actions in the UK.

My take on this is a pragmatic one. If the writer is able to maintain their personal integrity best through buying, buy. If not, not.


Now, a lot of this is possible because the auto mags have larger budgets by at least an order of magnitude. But things in the audiophile press could be better (and I'm not knocking your magazine - I haven't seen one for a while and can't directly comment on it). Head-to-head comparisons are good. The in-room measurements that JA does are good. But I would like to see more disclosure. It increases credibility.

I agree with all this. However, the only way the audiophile press can get better is if it has sufficient funds to clean up its act, and that also means new writers and editors replacing the existing ones.

You can't be half-assed about this. If one company washes its dirty linen in public, what tends to happen is the others join forces to say how dirty that linen looks, rather than follow suit. This industry - like many - doesn't mind a little dissent, but whistle-blowing is suicide.
 
Actually pursuant to this question of bashing show exhibitors for bad sound I find something else more disturbing and it is happening quite often. Reviewers are reviewing equipment almost solely on comparative merit. The review that comes to mind only because it is recent and speaks to my point is Mike Fremer's review of the Bricasti mono Block Amps in Stereophile Mag. He essentially dislikes them because they don't sound like his current amp choice. He goes on about this at length. Is this a review or a comparison? I'm not an anti Mikey guy. I just don't like this style of review and it has become too common and can be found in many places. I think reviews should be on the merits of a piece of equipment. Was it enjoyable? Did it sound great, OK, below average at its price point?At the end of the review if a comparison to another piece of gear is warranted, ok. But it should not constitute a review.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing