Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 4365 times.

Tyson

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #40 on: 10 Oct 2017, 04:50 pm »
I don't think it is ever "unfair" for a non-professional reviewer to share their experiences/opinions without regard to anything/anyone:
1. Manufacturers/Distributors roll the dice when they participate in events such as this, so they'd better work to get their systems sounding as they think they should, or pull the plug and display a static setup.
2. When reading reports such as this, from a non-pro reviewer/consumer, I appreciate reading what they experienced when they walked in the door and plopped down in the sweet spot, without filtration or excuses as to what they heard. If I want to read about how a specific gear is SUPPOSED to sound or WHY it sounds the way it does, I'll refer to a brochure or pro-review.
3. Regardless of the cost or scientific effort spent in designing/manufacturing gear, if the listener dislikes like how it sounds then the efforts to produce the gear are meaningless to the listener.

Exactly right.  Every year when Jason and I did show coverage, the manufacturers would try to explain in technical terms the magic going on inside their boxes.  Everyone had a 'compelling reason' why their gear was amazing.  In truth most of it was just meh.  So pretty quickly, this became a good example of what happened when a vendor tried to give us technical info:



In the end, we found zero correlation between how compelling the jargon was and the sound of the system.  Same with price - very low correlation between price and performance. 

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 8400
  • All Tweeters look like a target, then shoot them!
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #41 on: 10 Oct 2017, 05:20 pm »
Same with price - very low correlation between price and performance.
Glad you came to this conclusion :thumb:

Brettio

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #42 on: 10 Oct 2017, 05:25 pm »
"very low correlation between price and performance."

That's gonna bruise more than a few egos...

Early B.

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #43 on: 10 Oct 2017, 06:06 pm »
Same with price - very low correlation between price and performance.

A few years ago, I attended my one and only audio show, and the second best sounding system was all Emotiva gear, including their speakers. That's when I realized that the high cost gear was pretty, but didn't necessarily sound better. The best sounding system wasn't even remotely practical; it contained stackable subs the size of submarines.   

Wind Chaser

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #44 on: 10 Oct 2017, 08:16 pm »
Is it fair or even realistic to expect great sound at a trade show?  :scratch:

It takes me several weeks just to get a pair speakers optimized in a room. So brief impression based on a quick and dirty haphazard setup isn't something I'd put a lot of stock in. However, I still appreciate the time and effort taken to report on this event for those of us who could not, or did not attend.  :thumb:

vinyl_lady

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #45 on: 10 Oct 2017, 09:04 pm »
Here is a pic of the Daedalus, ModWright, WyWires room



and the Daedalus, ModWright, Skogrand room.



Both rooms sounded very good. The rebuilt Technics R to R by J-Corder is a spectacular source.

On Saturday in the big room, we compared the hi res digital with QRP's 45 RPM reissue of Stevie Ray Vaughan's Tin Pan Alley. WOW! the vinyl was jaw dropping good and clearly better than the digital. Lots of fun and great seeing and spending time with so many great audio friends.

Tyson

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #46 on: 10 Oct 2017, 09:33 pm »
Is it fair or even realistic to expect great sound at a trade show?  :scratch:

It takes me several weeks just to get a pair speakers optimized in a room. So brief impression based on a quick and dirty haphazard setup isn't something I'd put a lot of stock in. However, I still appreciate the time and effort taken to report on this event for those of us who could not, or did not attend.  :thumb:

That's a good point.  The counter point that I'd make is that there are plenty of people that get very good and even great sound at shows.  And many of those people get good/great sound consistently, year after year.  I've noticed that the mediocre/bad rooms also tend to be consistently mediocre/bad year over year, too.  Sometimes the quality will bounce around a bit, but for the most part it seems pretty consistent.  I will say this though - vendors do learn and get better after a few years.  There are fewer and fewer really terrible sounding rooms each year. 

Tyson

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #47 on: 10 Oct 2017, 09:36 pm »
Here is a pic of the Daedalus, ModWright, WyWires room



and the Daedalus, ModWright, Skogrand room.



Both rooms sounded very good. The rebuilt Technics R to R by J-Corder is a spectacular source.

On Saturday in the big room, we compared the hi res digital with QRP's 45 RPM reissue of Stevie Ray Vaughan's Tin Pan Alley. WOW! the vinyl was jaw dropping good and clearly better than the digital. Lots of fun and great seeing and spending time with so many great audio friends.

Thanks Laura - another 2 rooms I stupidly forgot to take pictures in.  Guess I was enjoying the tunes too much :)  I will say this, the Apollo speakers have replaced the Athenas as my favorite Daedalus speakers.  Loved those things.

DaveC113

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 3775
  • ZenWaveAudio.com
Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #48 on: 10 Oct 2017, 09:47 pm »
That's a good point.  The counter point that I'd make is that there are plenty of people that get very good and even great sound at shows.  And many of those people get good/great sound consistently, year after year.  I've noticed that the mediocre/bad rooms also tend to be consistently mediocre/bad year over year, too.  Sometimes the quality will bounce around a bit, but for the most part it seems pretty consistent.  I will say this though - vendors do learn and get better after a few years.  There are fewer and fewer really terrible sounding rooms each year.

Oh yeah... the first years of RMAF were incredibly bad. Not just setup, there was some really poorly designed gear that would never sound good. Both gear and setup has gotten so much better!

I still agree with WC though, and imo the really good sounding expensive rooms completely destroy the idea that lower priced gear is just as good. Like the MSB DAC room, sorry but that's just not achievable without a big wallet, same with Verity Audio... you're never getting results like that on a budget. And a lot more gear is capable of similarly amazing performance but for whatever reason it's just not achieved at the show with hours to setup. Of course you can say the same with less expensive gear but comparing the best $$$$ rooms to the best $ rooms leaves a pretty wide gap imo.

OTOH, it is amazing how good the "value" segment is getting, which is definitely something to celebrate.

vinyl_lady

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #49 on: 10 Oct 2017, 09:51 pm »
Thanks Laura - another 2 rooms I stupidly forgot to take pictures in.  Guess I was enjoying the tunes too much :)  I will say this, the Apollo speakers have replaced the Athenas as my favorite Daedalus speakers.  Loved those things.

The Apollos sounded great. I thought they sounded better than the Zeus until Lou, Dan and Alex swapped out some tubes and put the big Phillips rectifier tubes in. On Saturday afternoon, after the tube swap, the Zeus powered by Dan's Ambrose 30W tube mono blocks had the best Daedalus sound I have heard. I'm going to have to find time to hear the Apollo 11s which have two offset tweeters, 2 mids and the 10" woofer.

nature boy

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #50 on: 10 Oct 2017, 10:20 pm »
Thanks Laura - another 2 rooms I stupidly forgot to take pictures in.  Guess I was enjoying the tunes too much :)  I will say this, the Apollo speakers have replaced the Athenas as my favorite Daedalus speakers.  Loved those things.

Tyson, you and me both loving the Apollo speakers.  Looking forward to giving them a long listen at CAF.

NB

vinyl_lady

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #51 on: 10 Oct 2017, 10:34 pm »
Tyson, you and me both loving the Apollo speakers.  Looking forward to giving them a long listen at CAF.

NB

I know Lou is going to debut the Apollo 11s at CAF, Not sure if he also is bringing the Apollos.

Gopher

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #52 on: 11 Oct 2017, 02:36 pm »
Salk/Lampizator room.  Flat out the BEST I have ever heard the Salk speakers.  Great, great room.



Thanks for the recognition, man!  We had a good thing going with Salk and Wywires (and Lou's Daedalus DiDs) and will definitely be teaming up again in the future. 

It was cool seeing you there and I agree with your overall assessment of the show. 

Fred

P.S.  I've gotta ask...   did I pass the introvert test?   :lol:


mresseguie

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #53 on: 11 Oct 2017, 03:02 pm »
I'm personally (and selfishly) delighted that the Apollo speakers get such high approval.

I wish the Zeus and Apollo 11s had been ready a few months ago when Aldcol and I visited Lou's shop. I'll listen someday, I suppose.


witchdoctor

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #54 on: 11 Oct 2017, 03:17 pm »
Oh yeah... the first years of RMAF were incredibly bad. Not just setup, there was some really poorly designed gear that would never sound good. Both gear and setup has gotten so much better!

I still agree with WC though, and imo the really good sounding expensive rooms completely destroy the idea that lower priced gear is just as good. Like the MSB DAC room, sorry but that's just not achievable without a big wallet, same with Verity Audio... you're never getting results like that on a budget. And a lot more gear is capable of similarly amazing performance but for whatever reason it's just not achieved at the show with hours to setup. Of course you can say the same with less expensive gear but comparing the best $$$$ rooms to the best $ rooms leaves a pretty wide gap imo.

OTOH, it is amazing how good the "value" segment is getting, which is definitely something to celebrate.

Your comments about expensive gear reveal the weakness of 2 channel stereo, it costs too damn much to achieve SOA results, period. If you want a GREAT value setup I recommend two things:

1) An immersive sound system designed for music first and movies second (auro 3D or sennheiser ambeo.)
2) Active speakers.

When you have more than 9 speakers in your setup running extra amps and speaker wire is expensive and a PIA. Active speakers are easier to setup, and have the benefits of an active crossover.

IMO a properly setup $10,000 immersive system would produce results that are impossible to achieve with a two channel setup regardless of $$$$ spent. Check out Pink Floyd and Abbey Road. You don't need 8 subwoofers but you get the idea. Active speakers all around and immersive setup:

https://youtu.be/yMlFN8V4qW4

witchdoctor

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #55 on: 11 Oct 2017, 03:21 pm »
I think the problem with a LOT of immersive audio systems is that they use receivers. I think there is no way a receiver can give you the transparency of a good preamp/processor. However receivers offer a great bang for the buck if budget is an issue.


DaveC113

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 3775
  • ZenWaveAudio.com
Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #56 on: 11 Oct 2017, 03:42 pm »
Your comments about expensive gear reveal the weakness of 2 channel stereo, it costs too damn much to achieve SOA results, period. If you want a GREAT value setup I recommend two things:

1) An immersive sound system designed for music first and movies second (auro 3D or sennheiser ambeo.)
2) Active speakers.

When you have more than 9 speakers in your setup running extra amps and speaker wire is expensive and a PIA. Active speakers are easier to setup, and have the benefits of an active crossover.

IMO a properly setup $10,000 immersive system would produce results that are impossible to achieve with a two channel setup regardless of $$$$ spent. Check out Pink Floyd and Abbey Road. You don't need 8 subwoofers but you get the idea. Active speakers all around and immersive setup:

https://youtu.be/yMlFN8V4qW4

I did hear the ELAC Atmos demo with $4200 worth of ELAC speakers and it was VERY impressive! It ultimately doesn't have the refinement, resolution, etc of a high end system but I'd love to have it for movies.

roscoe65

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 522
Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #57 on: 11 Oct 2017, 03:51 pm »
Witchdoctor,

We all know your feelings about multichannel and MQA.  Literally every thread and comment from you talks about these and nothing else.

You may want to take a step back and assess the typical member of this forum:  one who enjoys music, listens primarily to two-channel, and who has typically committed years if not decades of research, experimentation and plain old trial-and-error to get great sound.  Most of us do not hold up multichannel as superior to well-produced two-channel while many of us enjoy multichannel in a HT/Music environment.

I enjoy immersive sound (Atmos in my case) and agree that in a HT (or mutichannel mastered music) environment the height channels work well to increase the sense of space during reproduction.  However, this pales in comparison to the sound I get from my two channel both in the same room and in a second system in another room.  Your own system is nice but somewhat modest, and more importantly set up primarily for multichannel.  Your room is untreated and your system likely relies too much on DSP for room correction.  Comparing two-channel with multichannel in your system will likely reveal that multichannel sounds superior to your ears.  In a room with room treatments, better sources, better amplification, and better speakers you may find the opposite to be true.

While all of us enjoy a lively back and forth, you have a habit of highjacking every thread with your assertions of how much better it would be with MQA or multichannel.  It has become tiresome to me and likely a few others.  More importantly, this has become accompanied more recently with hostility toward other members and rudeness to the industry members/sponsors.

There are a number of HT-focused forums in which you can discuss Aura 3D ad nauseaum.  This is not one of them.  You've probably experienced that when other members don't respond to these discussion topics.  Most of us don't have to bump our topics to keep people reading them.
« Last Edit: 11 Oct 2017, 05:25 pm by roscoe65 »

jseymour

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #58 on: 11 Oct 2017, 03:57 pm »
+1

S Clark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4969
  • Measurements don't make your toes tap
Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #59 on: 11 Oct 2017, 03:57 pm »
Roscoe beat me to it, but I'll post anyway
...IMO ...
Tyson is giving us his report of what he heard- good and bad, and you go off on your pitch.  Were you there at RMAF?  If so, enlighten us.