Negative show report posts... enough is enough.

[Phelonious Ponk]

Myles tome may be the "cap" on this thread, but this brief paragraph from Alan Sircom is probably the definitive statement;

What they have become is predominantly a series of mediocre, pale representations of what is possible from good audio, allowing a community of tired, ex-purchasers of audio the chance to re-justify their 20th Century buying decisions.

Then there's eloquent elaboration:

Typically, those who make a consistently above average sound regardless of venue have one thing in common - due diligence. If possible, they 'scope' out the rooms long in advance, either to secure the best room year after year, so they know in advance what to bring to suit the room. They ensure the products arrive in good time before the show, allowing an installation that is performed correctly and carefully with settling/warming up time, rather than still fiddling round an hour before the show starts. They consistently make sure the room is clean, the products are - and remain - spotless, the collection of music is suitable for venue, room, and prospective clientele (with a great deal of wiggle room), and they have enough professionally-produced literature presented professionally. They make sure the staff manning the stand are clean, personable, presentable, and appropriately clothed. Despite all this, anyone can have a bad day, but typically those who do all this make a good sound in most places they visit.

Ah. Professionalism. Work ethic. Striving for the competitive edge. We expect this from people who make our car radios. We make excuses for people who manufacture our $100k audiophile systems. Odd.

Contrast this with the alternative. The first time they see the room is 12 hours before the show starts. They knew from a few weeks previously what brands share the room, but this is the first time they plan out how the demonstration will go, and whether their products work together. Discussions (sometimes heated) ensue as to system placement, choices of music, who does the demonstration, and whether there should be any room treatment (often followed by the blame game when Brand X thought Brand Y was bringing the tube traps, and vice versa). A collection of cold products with thumb prints from handling get put on the equipment rack (which neither company really knows how to set up properly, hence the mild 30° tilt) finally get fired up at about 8am on the morning of the show, the sheets of hastily and cheaply laser-printed paper are artistically deposited somewhere in the room, and then - given no-one's paid any attention to a show-specific playlist, the same tired old tunes are rolled out yet again.

The latter is and should be unforgivable and inexcusable, and trying to hide such actions by deeming it impolite to criticise them does good audio a bad service.

The last half of that sentence about sums it up, I think. I'm a musician. I walk into strange rooms with unknown power, set up sound reinforcement in an hour. And I usually get pretty good sound. But when I don't, I don't stand at the microphone, blaming the room for the problems, or worse, telling the audience that they are ignorant cowards if they don't like it. This whole thing is just another example of audiophile fanboys making excuses for a pet who soiled the carpet. Or it would just be that if it hadn't started off with a handful of insults to anyone who dares to disagree.

Tim

 

[Alan Sircom]

A wise person once said that the key to a happy life is to manage expectations. Somehow I get the impression that some people here expect great sound at every room in a show.

The question isn't whether or not a display is good or bad. The question is WHY. Is it the gear? Is it the setup? Is it both?

The objection is to the snap judgement happy people knowingly or unknowingly doing hatchet jobs without bothering to figure out WHY things are the way they are. This does not mean they should go in and ask for the excuses. This means doing some due diligence themselves before blasting away. Spend some time, ask some questions, ask for a track you know. It is a matter of being responsible for one's words and actions. It's not even about being PC. Just being decent. There's a lot of stuff in shows that we would consider crap but I tell you that crap is loved by the guys that made 'em. There's good stuff at shows that is made to be crappy by people manning the room. If you're going to shoot someone down, at least make sure you're shooting the person that ought to be shot.

Up to a point, I agree. But only up to a point.

I don't think we can be over-sensitive toward the feelings of those who make crap. In a way, the better service all round is to let them know their product is crap (if it is crap), because they won't continue to throw money at trying to make a bad product.

However, from experience, those who make the worst products are (generally) myopic to the presence of better products, and either deaf to criticism, or treat even the most constructive criticism as open hostility. This often ends badly, because the product doesn't sell, they retain their exaggerated sense of how good their product was, and go on the 'blame-game' circuit.

 

[JackD201]

I did qualify by saying what we consider crap

 

[JackD201]

The last half of that sentence about sums it up, I think. I'm a musician. I walk into strange rooms with unknown power, set up sound reinforcement in an hour. And I usually get pretty good sound. But when I don't, I don't stand at the microphone, blaming the room for the problems, or worse, telling the audience that they are ignorant cowards if they don't like it. This whole thing is just another example of audiophile fanboys making excuses for a pet who soiled the carpet. Or it would just be that if it hadn't started off with a handful of insults to anyone who dares to disagree.

Tim

You're being you. Impersonating you would be much more difficult

 

[Al M.]

Plus Myles is Peter's Executive Editor. Just sayin'.

Sure, but I didn't want to go there. Yet it's useful that you point it out anyway. Buddies covering each other's excuses.

We are tired of the excuses in the industry, and Alan has pointed out that it can be done differently.

 

[FrantzM]

Sure, but I didn't want to go there. But it's useful that you point it out anyway. Buddies covering each other's excuses.

We are tired of the excuses in the industry, and Alan has pointed out that it can be done differently.

It should be done differently and yes! I agree with the above...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You're being you. Impersonating you would be much more difficult

Fair enough. But it's still setting up an audio system in a strange room, and in all but the worst rooms, it still sounds like that system.

Tim

 

[PeterA]

For several years I was responsible for shows we did at McCormick place in Chicago. That was the printing industry, everything from computers to the printing press. We spent a great deal of time as a company making sure to the details that we presented to prospective industry partners and to the guests as well. Nothing was left to chance and we had back up plans. We polished our equipment, we polished ourselves and our presentations.

Frankly, despite others attempts for me to worry about exhibitors lack of preparation and care for their customers and all the reasons why, as an excuse, is an insult to my intelligence. And its an insult to the exhibitors, large and small that do properly prepare for the show and do impress their customers and do have rooms that we enjoy. Like Amir said, if you want to invite customers to your show and not just have a show to generate alliances and inter-industry relationships, you better start putting some friggin effort into your rooms. You all might be reminded, that despite your half inch thick metal front panels, and your gloss finishes and your finger pointing, you are in the AUDIO business.

Excellent post. Thank you for this perspective.

 

[Al M.]

But, the real-world trumps reality - people do use audio shows to determine what does and does not sound good, and if an audio show was a static display of shiny things, those who don't go to shows today wouldn't go to shows tomorrow.

(Emphasis added.)

Thank you, Alan, for confirming my observations. Industry guys, get this. It's the real world. No more excuses.

 

[JackD201]

Fair enough. But it's still setting up an audio system in a strange room, and in all but the worst rooms, it still sounds like that system.

Tim

If you play well nobody will care how good or bad the sound is. Isn't that the case with recorded music too? In the show scenario that few seconds snap happy sticks his head in could be of music he doesn't like maybe even played too loud. That alone can be cause for a bad impression. Not enough info to go on.

 

[Audio Guy]

(Emphasis added.)

Thank you, Alan, for confirming my observations. Industry guys, get this. It's the real world. No more excuses.

I sure do hope Peter is reading these latter comments and absorbing some of the constructive criticism that is coming his way.

 

[JackD201]

Sure, but I didn't want to go there. Yet it's useful that you point it out anyway. Buddies covering each other's excuses.

We are tired of the excuses in the industry, and Alan has pointed out that it can be done differently.

Real classy Al. Let's all get personal now?

 

[Al M.]

Real classy Al. Let's all get personal now?

Jack, you must have missed the part of:

"Sure, but I didn't want to go there. Yet it's useful that you point it out anyway."

I would have let the part about them being buddies rest if it had not already been explicitly pointed out.

 

[Alan Sircom]

(Emphasis added.)

Thank you, Alan, for confirming my observations. Industry guys, get this. It's the real world. No more excuses.

Yes, but the point about it being akin to sitting in a car and making 'brrrm, brrrm' noises is far more important.

We (and by we I mean members of the public as well as the industry) have backed ourselves into a corner where the least good way of demonstrating audio has also become the most significant way of demonstrating audio.

Think about an audio show from the point of a consumer. Typically, most people have about an hour or so of critical listening in them before they are pretty much worn flat for several hours (training can help, but even the most trained listener has at best 10 or so rounds of critical listening in them in a given day before they are functionally useless). So, at best, you have maybe two hour-long sessions in a day that produce productive critical listening results. However, you are also listening in an unfamiliar room to an unfamiliar system, possibly even with unfamiliar music, in an environment that is plagued by the noise pollution from a demonstrator, from the chatter of other listeners, and other rooms leaking into that environment. And then, when you have heard that system, you move out into a noisy corridor (which could be considered a form of aural 'flooding' in its own right) before walking into the next unfamiliar room to repeat the process. Those elements also undermine your critical listening functions.

Even if every single demonstration in a show was conducted perfectly, with the best possible sound they could muster, after about lunchtime, how would you know? By the end of the day at a show, your critical listening faculties are so shot from over-exposure that the Holy Choir Invisible could appear live before you and your reaction would be 'Meh!'

So, yes, the manufacturers, dealers, and distributors need to raise their respective games. But equally, prospective buyers need to remember these shows are supposed to be First Contact, and not Final Analysis. Because that is impossible in the environment, no matter what changes we make to that environment.

 

[JackD201]

Lets reset.

When you visited PeterA you pointed out to him that there was something that wasn't quite right. PeterA took the constructive criticism and figured it out eventually. THAT is the way it should be done. The decent, honest, uncowardly way. You didn't go in there for a few seconds, say nothing then go online saying PeterA's system sucked. The latter is the behavior PeterB is in a huff about. Why does this bother you?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Lets reset.

When you visited PeterA you pointed out to him that there was something that wasn't quite right. PeterA took the constructive criticism and figured it out eventually. THAT is the way it should be done. The decent, honest, uncowardly way. You didn't go in there for a few seconds, say nothing then go online saying PeterA's system sucked. The latter is the behavior PeterB is in a huff about. Why does this bother you?

Let's revisit.

Here's the original post:

Lately the boards, and I mean all of the boards and the 'zines (as well) have been posting negative show room reports.

I believe this is the lowest of low behavior. It is frankly cowardly, if you don't have anything positive to say then why say anything at all. How would you like it if I was invited into your home and then publically bashed your system?

We all hear differently. We all have biases. By posting a negative report you are in effect elevating yourself as an expert and trust me, you are not an expert. Experts know why rooms have problems, experts know why components get mismatched. Experts know that certain music can make or break a room.

Do these cowards know how hard it is to setup a system in a hotel room in one day?

I've frankly had enough of this behavior.

Peter Breuninger

PS: I will also add to this thread, if you PM me regarding my OP, I will make it public. One coward has already done this and since I did not state this in advance, the cowardly PM will remain private. All future PMs will be made public.

Noting about spending a few seconds in a room. Nothing about the responsibility of the reviewer to give the poor vendor a chance to correct his errors before passing judgement (Really? Are we children re-taking a test, or is this a business?). Just anger and unrealistic expectations, punctuated by insults. I think we're in different threads, Jack.

Tim

 

[Al M.]

Lets reset.

When you visited PeterA you pointed out to him that there was something that wasn't quite right. PeterA took the constructive criticism and figured it out eventually. THAT is the way it should be done. The decent, honest, uncowardly way. You didn't go in there for a few seconds, say nothing then go online saying PeterA's system sucked. The latter is the behavior PeterB is in a huff about. Why does this bother you?

Why does it bother me? Because PeterB's post was about much more than that.

First, it was also about negative criticism in magazines, and those writers presumably did not just put their head in for just a few seconds and then anonimously wrote that it sucked. Instead, they presumably took the effort to actually listen, likely in or close to the sweetspot, and then had to conclude that the sound was entirely unworthy of the products represented.

Second, as has been the consensus among many people on this thread, PeterB's tone in this opening post and in subsequent ones was entirely inappropriate. There is no excuse for that, and no excuses should be made for it.

Third, because PeterB's post tried to cover up and silence the much larger issue, which is that bad sound at shows is a grave problem, and that the industry has made lame excuses about this for far too long.

 

[Audio Guy]

Lets reset.

When you visited PeterA you pointed out to him that there was something that wasn't quite right. PeterA took the constructive criticism and figured it out eventually. THAT is the way it should be done. The decent, honest, uncowardly way. You didn't go in there for a few seconds, say nothing then go online saying PeterA's system sucked. The latter is the behavior PeterB is in a huff about. Why does this bother you?

I was going to say the same thing the last two posts (433 and [URL="http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?17776-Negative-show-report-posts-enough-is-enough&p=320724&viewfull=1#post320724"]434)[/URL] said already...

 

[Al M.]

We cross-posted Tim. I guess we said similar things.

 

[JackD201]

We're on the same thread Tim. The key is in the first sentence. As a moderator I read almost every thread that gets posted. If you read the AXPONA and THE threads you will get an idea of what kicked this thread off in the first place.