Negative show report posts... enough is enough.

[Peter Breuninger]

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?

Thank you Jack. This thread is very eye opening to the naiveté of the most vocal posters (on this thread) on the realities of show conditions (and throw in magazine editing, equipment reviewing, ethics, tastes etc.) and the knee jerkers have swarmed around it (the naïve posts) likes flies on...

My OP is about making rash comments with no investigation or situational knowledge.

 

[PeterA]

I would say, it doesn't appeal to the thousands either.

The purpose of a show should be to present the latest audio products in the best way possible to a keen and receptive buying public.

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.

Good products making bad sounds in demonstrations at shows and at dealers is nothing new. I've been attending audio shows for about 30 years (at least a quarter of a century of that in a professional capacity) and rooms that make a good sound have always been the exception rather than the norm.

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.

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.

IMO, audio shows should be like car shows - they should act as an introduction to the new thing, that the prospective buyer then goes to test in their own time. Auditioning an audio product at a show is about as valid and informative as getting behind the wheel of a car in an auto show and making 'brrrrm, brrrrm' noises. 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.

So, demonstrators have to make what they have as good as they can. Dreams of audiophile-friendly venues and perfect sound in every room are just dreams. What we have in audio shows is the worst form of exhibition, except for all the others.

Alan, thank you for joining the discussion. You add a sober perspective from within the industry and not just another set of excuses. I'm with Al M. on this topic. Enough of the excuses and insulting the customer. The industry needs to hold itself to a higher standard, be more transparent and learn to respect its current and future customer base, or it will continue to decline.

Manufacturers who don't make the effort to get decent sound at shows, dealers who don't properly set up speakers after purchase, reviewers who are less than diligent, comprehensive or honest, and industry professionals who go on forums requesting censorship and insult readers; these together create an environment of distrust and mediocrity. The industry could be so much better, and the hobby deserves more.

 

[JackD201]

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 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.

I didn't like the tone either. I liked it as much as I've liked your tone for the last 20 or so of your posts. You guys are all pissed I get it. He vented, your venting. Have a ball.

What I don't get is why explanations of the difficulties are marked off as excuses. Those difficulties are real. Alan is right. Good sound is the exception and not the rule. If you want to get good sound from all the rooms there's only one way to do it. Get every single room manned with people that know what they are doing and make sure exactly one person per room is accountable.

 

[Al M.]

Thank you Jack. This thread is very eye opening to the naiveté of the most vocal posters (on this thread) on the realities of show conditions (and throw in magazine editing, equipment reviewing, ethics, tastes etc.)

Of course, there come again the excuses.

We are tired of the excuses in this industry.

And no, I am not naive about the problems with show conditions -- I have debated these with others extensively on this thread. The question is if there is any will in the industry to do something about the problems, or if a continued avalanche of excuses, including from you, Peter, prevents the industry from regaining its footing.

 

[Audio Guy]

I didn't like the tone either. I liked it as much as I've liked your tone for the last 20 or so of your posts. You guys are all pissed I get it. He vented, your venting. Have a ball.

What I don't get is why explanations of the difficulties are marked off as excuses. Those difficulties are real. Alan is right. Good sound is the exception and not the rule. If you want to get good sound from all the rooms there's only one way to do it. Get every single room manned with people that know what they are doing and make sure exactly one person per room is accountable.

The spoils of war go to the victor. Sour grapes for the rest.

 

[Peter Breuninger]

IMO, audio shows should be like car shows - they should act as an introduction to the new thing, that the prospective buyer then goes to test in their own time. Auditioning an audio product at a show is about as valid and informative as getting behind the wheel of a car in an auto show and making 'brrrrm, brrrrm' noises. 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.

So, demonstrators have to make what they have as good as they can. Dreams of audiophile-friendly venues and perfect sound in every room are just dreams. What we have in audio shows is the worst form of exhibition, except for all the others.

Alan, this is the most poignant and clever post in the thread. I'm never going to forget this image of an older man going brrrrm... brrrrm, behind the wheel of a show car.

 

[JackD201]

The spoils of war go to the victor. Sour grapes for the rest.

It's worked in my favor for sure but it sure doesn't help the industry.

I remember one rash post on one of my rooms. The guys says something like yeah it sounded great but they kept on playing church music. That made me laugh. Apparently he had come in while we were playing chorale works because a member of that same internationally awarded group was in the room. I had only played that CD once! Too bad. He should've caught the after party

 

[Al M.]

What I don't get is why explanations of the difficulties are marked off as excuses. Those difficulties are real. Alan is right. Good sound is the exception and not the rule. If you want to get good sound from all the rooms there's only one way to do it. Get every single room manned with people that know what they are doing and make sure exactly one person per room is accountable.

And Alan has shown at least part of the solution, and so just did you in this post. So you do confirm that the industry makes excuses after all.

 

[rockitman]

Alan, this is the most poignant and clever post in the thread. I'm never going to forget this image of an older man going brrrrm... brrrrm, behind the wheel of a show car.

agree...excellent analogy...(car shows)

 

[JackD201]

And Alan has shown at least part of the solution, and so just did you in this post. So you do confirm that the industry makes excuses after all.

There is no single voice for the industry Al. If you're asking if people in the industry make excuses then yes of course. Just don't make it out to be that everybody does. That's as bad as saying all metal tweeters suck.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Thank you Jack. This thread is very eye opening to the naiveté of the most vocal posters (on this thread) on the realities of show conditions (and throw in magazine editing, equipment reviewing, ethics, tastes etc.) and the knee jerkers have swarmed around it (the naïve posts) likes flies on...

My OP is about making rash comments with no investigation or situational knowledge.

More arrogance and insults, and a statement telling us what the original post was about. Evidently it meant to communicate something that was not actually in the post.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

And Alan has shown at least part of the solution, and so just did you in this post. So you do confirm that the industry makes excuses after all.

Just to add. If you want to experience a show where the greater majority, and I do mean greater, of rooms have good sound, go to IASJ in Japan.

 

[Al M.]

There is no single voice for the industry Al. If you're asking if people in the industry make excuses then yes of course. Just don't make it out to be that everybody does. That's as bad as saying all metal tweeters suck.

Fair enough, my wording was inaccurate.

And yes, there do seem to be people who according to reports consistently have good sound at each and every show. So if they can do it, should not many more be able to it? They make no lame excuses, so others shouldn't either.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Jack, You reference my system but don't address your post to any particular individual, so it seems a bit out of context to me. Who is "you"?

If what you write is correct, than Peter B should have written a completely different OP. From reading this entire thread, I have the strong sense that Peter B and a few others are discussing a topic completely different from what the OP states as written and to what the rest of us are so strongly reacting. Why the arrogance and condescension in the OP if it was simply about a rash and uninformed criticism of a show sound by one or a few visitors? Do you really think it would have solicited 433 posts and such a reaction?

Why did Peter B not reference the specific behavior from other posts in show report threads that he is in such a huff about? That might have focused this thread on a more specific topic from the beginning and saved us all a lot of energy. Instead, he has subsequently defended and supported the OP. So, we have only the OP to read and on which to base our opinion. I think Peter B meant to write what he wrote as he wrote it, and it has certainly opened my eyes to a side of the industry that I had not fully before appreciated.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Alan, this is the most poignant and clever post in the thread. I'm never going to forget this image of an older man going brrrrm... brrrrm, behind the wheel of a show car.

Thanks.

One of the reasons for this was a dawning realisation of how the Munich show actually works.

If you think of the three or four biggest names in German vinyl replay today - Acoustic Solid, Clearaudio, Pro-Ject, and Transrotor - all of them were demonstrating at Munich, but not one of them had a demonstration booth or room. Instead, they had open stands manned by personable and knowledgable technical sales people. They were - to the best of my knowledge, my German ends at 'mein luftkissenfarhtzeug ist von den aalen voll' - discussing the relative improvements of different turntables, arms, cartridges, and associated devices in an informed and enthused manner to a receptive audience, the most keen of whom were directed - or even booked in - to a local dealer of the product for a more thorough demonstration.

The more I thought on this, the more I realised the atrium rooms were more about discussing the product either without music, or at best with music playing in the background. The most 'music oriented' sessions largely came down to someone talking for 15 minutes about the thing, then playing the thing for two tracks, in a timed demonstration.

I'm not sure this works universally - I've been to many shows where if the person talks for more than a minute, feet start shuffling - but it treats the show as brand visibility, rather than a bad impersonation of a showroom. And 'brand visibility' is how the car makers do it in auto shows.

 

[amirm]

Let me probe something further. The foundation of a number of arguments in this thread is the unfair showing of some gear at a show. That is, the equipment is somehow much more capable of what it did at the show and hence the negative feedback that it got. I am not sure that is well supported.

If someone walks out of a room disgusted, who here wants to claim that is due to the electronics? As you all know, objectively we can show that 99.9% of the electronics have distortions below what we can hear. I know subjectively we don't agree and this thread is about shows where such beliefs are the foundation. But even for those, who wants to say that a great speaker, in a great room, with great content sounds like "crap" due to electronics?

My belief is that if the room doesn't sound good, then it is not because of the electronics. It is instead due to the following:

1. The content being played. I know this is the case for me. I don't listen to much classical music and have little appreciation for its fidelity when played on a system. To me, it sounds boring and flat with some rare exceptions. I have sat through $600K systems at shows that played nothing but scratchy old classical music, completely boring me to death and giving me no impression of fidelity. What was played in these rooms in those instances was selected by the person manning the station so the mistake there was not asking the audience what they wanted to hear.

You could argue that I am not the typical customer for them and that the typical customer would want to hear such content. But it doesn't change my perspective of walking into a room, hearing old analog recordings of classical music, when my interest is digital content, with modern music and far higher dynamic content. So me writing a negative review is merited based on what I heard.

2. That the speaker is poorly designed. A great speaker sounds good in far number of rooms than one that is not. Also, we seem to adapt to bad sounding speakers with the brain filtering out some of the constant distortions the speaker may have. When it comes to uber expensive speaker we tend to not want to accept such a view but it is solidly grounded in science. Bad speakers can be made to sound good but with a lot of work including rooms and positioning purpose built for them. It is entirely likely then that they cannot be coaxed into producing great sound in a hotel room.

Saying something negative in this regard then is speaking the truth. Who is to say that if it could not sound good in a hotel room, that it would sound great in my room?

3. That the room is doing something bad to the speaker. Here, I say the argument has no foundation! Yes, you heard me right. Show me a brochure for a high-end speaker that is placed in a room with full set of acoustic products. It doesn't happen. They are promoted and advertised implicitly to sound good in a naked room. We can't turn around all of a sudden and say that they only produce good sound if someone designs a full acoustic environment for them in a hotel room. If they sound good because I spent so much money on them, with speaker components put together by some virgin on a tropical island, then it better sound good in any room I throw at it.

4. That I am simply not in a mood to appreciate good sound. I think this is a viable explanation. I routinely listen to the identical system with identical content but emotionally think something must wrong as it doesn't sound good. Mess around, find nothing wrong, and then find the sound as good as ever! Surely I am not alone in this.

5. The listener is used to one kind of sound, brand of speaker, etc. and doesn't like another. It is human nature to rate what they have carefully selected as the best sounding and report back from a show a re-enforcement of that. Would a Magico customer really come back and say the Wilson sounded great but the Magico sucked? How about someone who listeners to planer/electrostatic speakers? Come back and say they lacked bass and dynamics and instead the best sound was from a boxed speaker? Now, it happens but how routinely?

6. There is no reference in audio and certainly not at a show. It is not like every room is playing the exact same thing and we can instantly AB one against the other to know which one sounded better. We almost always rely on faulty long term memory of one room playing X, and another playing Y. Even if we play our own content, we can't remember that sound from room to room.

 

[Audio Guy]

You aced it again, Amir. Very impressive.

 

[JackD201]

Jack, You reference my system but don't address your post to any particular individual, so it seems a bit out of context to me. Who is "you"?

If what you write is correct, than Peter B should have written a completely different OP. From reading this entire thread, I have the strong sense that Peter B and a few others are discussing a topic completely different from what the OP states as written and to what the rest of us are so strongly reacting. Why the arrogance and condescension in the OP if it was simply about a rash and uninformed criticism of a show sound by one or a few visitors? Do you really think it would have solicited 433 posts and such a reaction?

Why did Peter B not reference the specific behavior from other posts in show report threads that he is in such a huff about? That might have focused this thread on a more specific topic from the beginning and saved us all a lot of energy. Instead, he has subsequently defended and supported the OP. So, we have only the OP to read and on which to base our opinion. I think Peter B meant to write what he wrote as he wrote it, and it has certainly opened my eyes to a side of the industry that I had not fully before appreciated.

That was meant for Al Peter. Posts were made before I could submit.

As I said I inferred from other threads and likewise noticed the trend. As for Peter B's choice of tone and wording I can't speak for him.

 

[PeterA]

Alan, this is the most poignant and clever post in the thread. I'm never going to forget this image of an older man going brrrrm... brrrrm, behind the wheel of a show car.

Funny image indeed. The difference, though, is that most audio gear is NOT on static display at these shows, and for the analogy to work, some audiophile would have to start singing or playing the air violin while he is rubbing his hand over the finish of those wood veneer speaker cabinets.

I've been to RMAF and two shows in NYC. Exhibitors do not make qualifying statements about how visitors should only pass preliminary judgement on their gear and really only decide on its performance with a true in home audition. Perhaps they should. It's been implied on this thread, that we all know this and that it does not need to be stated. Unfortunately, that assumption just reinforces the notion that we should all be seasoned, experienced audiophiles who attend shows regularly. What about the young person with a budding interest in the hobby who attending a show for the first time? Should the industry not be more welcoming and a bit less condescending?

 

[JackD201]

Fair enough, my wording was inaccurate.

And yes, there do seem to be people who according to reports consistently have good sound at each and every show. So if they can do it, should not many more be able to it? They make no lame excuses, so others shouldn't either.

Did you hear the one about the two guys in the woods who spotted a bear close by? One guy started to tighten his shoelaces. The other said what are you doing? You can't outrun a bear. The other guy said I only have to outrun you.

Ah life on the show circuit