AudioCircle

The Commercial Zone => Audio Shows and Events => Rocky Mountain Audio Fest => Topic started by: aevans on 6 Oct 2015, 12:28 am

Title: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: aevans on 6 Oct 2015, 12:28 am
Figure you guys would get a kick out my show coverage, let me know if you have any questions or if you see that I got something wrong.

Day 1 Coverage: http://noaudiophile.com/RMAF_2015_Day_1/
Day 2 Coverage: http://noaudiophile.com/RMAF_2015_Day_2/
Day 3 Coverage: http://noaudiophile.com/RMAF_2015_Day_3/

Best of Show in the Budget category: ELAC System
Best of Show in the Floor stander category: Von Schweikert VR55s
Best of Show in the WTF that's a big speaker category: Vapor Perfect Storm White
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: beowulf on 6 Oct 2015, 07:16 am
Thanks for posting, there are a lot of great comments and pictures!
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: JLM on 6 Oct 2015, 11:07 am
Thanks.  I appreciate the knowledgable, yet average man on the street, perspective.

Would you like to join our small audio club in SE Michigan?
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Big Red Machine on 6 Oct 2015, 11:40 am


Best of Show in the Budget category: ELAC System
Best of Show in the Floor stander category: Von Schwikert VR55s
Best of Show in the WTF that's a big speaker category: Vapor Perfect Storm White

Your photos are excellent.

I much preferred the large Wilsons and Focals for best sound, followed by the large YG's in the PS Audio room, and the larger Legacy's. I like the VS 55's but still feel they have a ways to go and my Exotica 3's are 90% of them for 1/5 the price.

The Elac's were "for the money" good, but not enough that I "needed" to have a pair. For the burgeoning audiophile, a steal for sure.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Pez on 6 Oct 2015, 01:42 pm
Awesome coverage man! Great to see someone doing show coverage right.  :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: SoCalWJS on 6 Oct 2015, 03:17 pm
Very well done!

Nice to see another reviewer who's not afraid to tell it like it is!
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Zero on 6 Oct 2015, 03:33 pm
Great show coverage Aevans!!   I lawled at your triple nipple comment regarding the Tektons.  I said the same thing to Eric.  I wonder how many times he heard that?!
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Brad on 6 Oct 2015, 04:06 pm
I like your point of view, more a practical side of things that the neurotic tendency side of things  :thumb:
It's tough to see that many systems and keep any sort of perspective.
Love your directness.

Nice photos, wish you spent the same detail in proofreading that you spent in getting quality images.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: DaveC113 on 6 Oct 2015, 04:25 pm
I like your point of view, more a practical side of things that the neurotic tendency side of things  :thumb:
It's tough to see that many systems and keep any sort of perspective.
Love your directness.

Nice photos, wish you spent the same detail in proofreading that you spent in getting quality images.

It's nice to tell it like it is, but some comments were rude imo. I've made that mistake in the past myself and I've made comments I wish I could take back... the fact is everyone has their own preferences and if you're rude you may find fewer people will want to deal with you in the future. Maybe OP doesn't see this but it's a small world in the audio business and pissing people off won't help anything.

Well, whatever... any joe shmoe with no taste can post whatever they want these days... this isn't directed at the OP it's just how it is.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: a.wayne on 6 Oct 2015, 04:26 pm
Your photos are excellent.

I much preferred the large Wilsons and Focals for best sound, followed by the large YG's in the PS Audio room, and the larger Legacy's. I like the VS 55's but still feel they have a ways to go and my Exotica 3's are 90% of them for 1/5 the price.

The Elac's were "for the money" good, but not enough that I "needed" to have a pair. For the burgeoning audiophile, a steal for sure.


Agree with the above ....
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: a.wayne on 6 Oct 2015, 04:32 pm
It's nice to tell it like it is, but some comments were rude imo. I've made that mistake in the past myself and I've made comments I wish I could take back... the fact is everyone has their own preferences and if you're rude you may find fewer people will want to deal with you in the future. Maybe OP doesn't see this but it's a small world in the audio business and pissing people off won't help anything.

Well, whatever... any joe shmoe with no taste can post whatever they want these days... this isn't directed at the OP it's just how it is.

Maybe he is the new Audio Critic ........  :)
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: md92468 on 6 Oct 2015, 04:40 pm
More like "No Couth"...geez, these are folks whose livelihood you're messing with. It's one thing to be critical, another to be belligerent and rude. It hurts your credibility more than anything...hard to take anything you say seriously when all you seem to do is complain. 
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: brother love on 6 Oct 2015, 05:07 pm
Enjoyed your unvarnished commentary & agree with BRM about the excellent photos. I particularly like that you intersperse more affordable products in with the esoteric stuff.  Well done.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Wind Chaser on 6 Oct 2015, 05:10 pm
Awesome coverage man! Great to see someone doing show coverage right.  :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

That's quite the endorsement.

And while some may take offence with the OPs style, others prefer a more frank, no nonsense, fuck the politically correct bull shit and tell us what you really think approach.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Scottdazzle on 6 Oct 2015, 05:26 pm
No coverage of ModWright, Daedalus, Odyssey, Endeavor, Purity.  wtf?  Hard to award best of show when you miss some of the finest rooms.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Tyson on 6 Oct 2015, 09:25 pm
I like this guy's style, reminds me of someone, can't quite place it though.... ;)

More like "No Couth"...geez, these are folks whose livelihood you're messing with.

THIS more than anything is why Pez and I are calling it quits.  It was fun when no one knew us and no one took us seriously.  We could say whatever we wanted and have a lot more negative (but funny) banter.  Now that people know us, it's really hard to say anything bad because what we write might hurt someone's business.  And that's the last thing we want to have happen. 
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: rajacat on 6 Oct 2015, 09:49 pm
delete
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: rajacat on 6 Oct 2015, 09:51 pm
More like "No Couth"...geez, these are folks whose livelihood you're messing with. It's one thing to be critical, another to be belligerent and rude. It hurts your credibility more than anything...hard to take anything you say seriously when all you seem to do is complain.
+1
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: DaveC113 on 6 Oct 2015, 09:56 pm
I like this guy's style, reminds me of someone, can't quite place it though.... ;)

THIS more than anything is why Pez and I are calling it quits.  It was fun when no one knew us and no one took us seriously.  We could say whatever we wanted and have a lot more negative (but funny) banter.  Now that people know us, it's really hard to say anything bad because what we write might hurt someone's business.  And that's the last thing we want to have happen.

I agree, some years ago when I was a nobody... not that I'm anybody now, but I'm in the business... I wrote some criticism that was harsher than necessary and I regret it, even as a nobody that didn't matter. People have all sorts of different opinions about what sounds right to them and unless there are serious problems it's not up to me to judge. The thing is, aevans has a blog and is attempting to be a reviewer. I wouldn't think of saying some of the crap he said if I was reviewer, not only does it reflect badly on himself but it's going to make enemies. To be honest, I don't want someone that is willing to degrade others' to this extent anywhere near my products, even if he loves them I just don't want to be associated with such negativity.

aevans, I suggest you rethink your strategy here. Some find it entertaining but it's like shock comedy, totally low class. And after this you will find fewer people in the business wanting to have you review their gear, this I can guarantee you.

T&P... you were always honest but never insulting.

Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Wind Chaser on 6 Oct 2015, 10:01 pm
I like this guy's style, reminds me of someone, can't quite place it though.... ;)

THIS more than anything is why Pez and I are calling it quits.  It was fun when no one knew us and no one took us seriously.  We could say whatever we wanted and have a lot more negative (but funny) banter.  Now that people know us, it's really hard to say anything bad because what we write might hurt someone's business.  And that's the last thing we want to have happen.

Whether people know you or not, do you really think your opinion could hurt someone's business?

Personally. I prefer blunt and brutal honesty over censorship any day, even if I happen to disagree with the opinion.


Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: rajacat on 6 Oct 2015, 10:14 pm
Whether people know you or not, do you really think your opinion could hurt someone's business?

Personally. I prefer blunt and brutal honesty over censorship any day, even if I happen to disagree with the opinion.
I like honesty too but you can be honest in your opinion without having to be so upfront and rude. I suppose talking trash is the style nowadays. :evil: Hmm....does the reviewer go up to the vendor and tell him to his face that his speakers are *hit? I doubt it. He chooses to hid behind his pen. Much of this is a matter of taste  so opinion qualifiers such IMO should be inserted in the text.













 
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Geardaddy on 6 Oct 2015, 10:15 pm
Whether people know you or not, do you really think your opinion could hurt someone's business?

Personally. I prefer blunt and brutal honesty over censorship any day, even if I happen to disagree with the opinion.

+1

People are adults and can sift through the good, the bad, and the ugly and make their own decisions.  What I find more tiresome is the stealth, guerrilla marketing at play in the many of the forums these days.....like a one note instrument....
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Early B. on 6 Oct 2015, 10:44 pm
Whether people know you or not, do you really think your opinion could hurt someone's business?

YES!!!  It's called, "word of mouth".

For those who didn't make it to the show, including me, what Pez and Tyson have to say is the gospel because there aren't a lot of reviews out there for this gear. You gotta pick a complete stranger(s) whose opinions you "trust" and go with it. That's precisely how we make purchasing decisions on speakers we've never heard before. So if Tyson says all speakers with single, full range drivers suck, then so shall it be. :lol:

With regard to the OP, his insights didn't seem credible, so I just looked at the pretty pictures on his blog. I don't know a damn thing about football, but I can watch a few games and give you my opinion on the teams, players and coaches. However, I'm gonna sound like an idiot.

If you're gonna review gear, you gotta have some deep knowledge of audio, higher than average technical knowledge, and it helps to know a lot of the players in this game. Makes for a more informed opinion. 
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: maxboy00 on 6 Oct 2015, 11:00 pm
No coverage of ModWright, Daedalus, Odyssey, Endeavor, Purity.  wtf?  Hard to award best of show when you miss some of the finest rooms.

Agree, why no mention?

Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Douger on 6 Oct 2015, 11:01 pm
noaudiophile, you're a joke... Crude, but sometimes I like jokes. Once in a while you seemed knowledgeable, Martin-Logan home theater , looks like from Best Buy... Some Best Buy stores sell ML...
At least you don't come around often, and if you learn and apply yourself you could make a good reviewer :)
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Pez on 6 Oct 2015, 11:13 pm
Wow, insta-bullshit from a lot of people. NoAudiophile remember this: tell what you hear, the way you want to say it. I have been told 'this is someones livelihood blah blah blah' so many times I've lost count.

I was in a position a few years ago where I gave an AC vendor a VERY bad review. I was approached 5-6 times at the show by the fanboys of that vendor asking me to either pad my review or remove it entirely. I refused of course. The next day the vendor contacted us and told us that they were so happy that we came in and gave our honest opinion because it prompted the vendor to investigate what the problem might be. They found several issues and fixed most of them and asked us to come back and listen a second time. Low and behold the system sounded 10X better! These people telling you to 'play nice' think they're protecting the livelihood of those at the show but they're being very short sighted and quite frankly doing the exact opposite of helping. Honesty is ALWAYS the best policy. If anyone says otherwise tell them to go to hell.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Pez on 6 Oct 2015, 11:21 pm
No coverage of ModWright, Daedalus, Odyssey, Endeavor, Purity.  wtf?  Hard to award best of show when you miss some of the finest rooms.
And no offense Scott, but this comment is a bit self serving don't you think?


^^^^ perfect example of what I just said.  :P
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: jparkhur on 6 Oct 2015, 11:23 pm
Tell it like it is and no other way. I have come to a conclusion when expressing my personal view of what I hear-


No good deed goes unpunished in the audio world. 

Tell them to pound sand.


Jon
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Rocket on 6 Oct 2015, 11:38 pm
Hi Guys,

I guess it is a tough one and it seems that some bloggers use 'shock tactics' for their reviews these days.  I've bought products that didn't receive positive feedback by some of the bloggers who were at previous RMAF's and I personally don't agree.  Just my opinion and it doesn't match what they say.  I personally prefer a more diplomatic response as you can be upfront and not rude...

Cheers Rod
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Tyson on 6 Oct 2015, 11:43 pm
Yes, Jason and I got so much shit one year (2013) about our style and opinions I had to post this in response, seems appropriate here, too:

"I also think people are taking this FAR too seriously.  Me and Jason are just a couple of imperfect guys with definite biases in our listening preferences, which overlap a bit, but not entirely.  Part of the reason we write in such an irreverent manner is to undercut our own "authority" so that people don't take us so seriously.  Maybe we should put in a disclaimer on every one of our posts (modded from South Park):

All opinions and pronouncements in this show coverage --even those based on real facts-- are entirely fictional. All sound quality descriptions are captured ... poorly. The following report contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be read by anyone.  Thank you, T&P"
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: jtwrace on 6 Oct 2015, 11:58 pm
Wow, insta-bullshit from a lot of people. NoAudiophile remember this: tell what you hear, the way you want to say it. I have been told 'this is someones livelihood blah blah blah' so many times I've lost count.

I was in a position a few years ago where I gave an AC vendor a VERY bad review. I was approached 5-6 times at the show by the fanboys of that vendor asking me to either pad my review or remove it entirely. I refused of course. The next day the vendor contacted us and told us that they were so happy that we came in and gave our honest opinion because it prompted the vendor to investigate what the problem might be. They found several issues and fixed most of them and asked us to come back and listen a second time. Low and behold the system sounded 10X better! These people telling to 'play nice' think they're protecting the livelihood of those at the show but they're being very short sighted. Honesty is ALWAYS the best policy. If anyone says otherwise tell them to go to hell.
I like this guy.   :thumb:


This year I went into a room and and listened.  It was the worst I've ever heard but the person is too smart to have this.  However, I had to be honest.  Good news is that we worked a couple of hours on it and it was really freakin' good.  I think he appreciated the help but it sure does take a big man to admit that.  There were a few rooms from AC vendors that sucked but I have no idea what I'm talking about.   :thumb:   There were a few that were surprisingly awesome!
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: AJinFLA on 7 Oct 2015, 01:49 am
Best show report I've read in a long time. Refreshing honest opinions..and everyone's entitled to theirs.
Keep up the good work.

cheers,

AJ
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Kishore on 7 Oct 2015, 01:52 am
Figure you guys would get a kick out my show coverage, let me know if you have any questions or if you see that I got something wrong.

Day 1 Coverage: http://noaudiophile.com/RMAF_2015_Day_1/
Day 2 Coverage: http://noaudiophile.com/RMAF_2015_Day_2/
Day 3 Coverage: http://noaudiophile.com/RMAF_2015_Day_3/

Best of Show in the Budget category: ELAC System
Best of Show in the Floor stander category: Von Schwikert VR55s
Best of Show in the WTF that's a big speaker category: Vapor Perfect Storm White

Excellent coverage-  Nice work!  :bowdown:
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: dB Cooper on 7 Oct 2015, 02:35 am
Well, why waste the space to piss people off. When I read my Etymotics are "subpar crap", it made it that much harder to take your impressions of the Alclairs seriously (they may or may not be great- not perfect to be sure, but I like mine and think that whether they are your cup of tea or not, they aren't "crap.")

I think the hubby in general could benefit by keeping things in perspective. At Capital audio fest, Audio Note had a visiting cello player named Vincent Belanger. (highly recommend any cello fans look into him.) He played live there in the room. 10 seconds of live music was enough to ruin the claims of any of the vendors selling six-figure audio systems purporting to provide just-like-live realism.

By the way, do you know that one company (Knowles) makes the BA elements that are used in virtually every BA IEM on the market, from the $1K 8-driver jobs down to the $79 Apple In-Ear (not the el cheapos, the other ones?) Just a thought for people to consider before the drop four figures on IEMs.

All of that said, I appreciate the heads up on the Alclairs; I do happen to be looking for something a little more ergonomic than the Etys; I frequently listen to iEM's lying in bed on my side, and the long form factor of the Ety's don't work very well for this. I have been coveting a pair of Shure 535's but they are twice as much as the Alclairs and appear to also have been designed with a low profile in mind. So thanks for the tip. But don't be surprised when you write three pages of reviews and people take them seriously. Many people assume but if you didn't mean seriously, you wouldn't of made all that effort.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Tyson on 7 Oct 2015, 02:42 am
Well, why waste the space to piss people off. When I read my Etymotics are "subpar crap", it made it that much harder to take your impressions of the Alclairs seriously (they may or may not be great- not perfect to be sure, but I like mine and think that whether they are your cup of tea or not, they aren't "crap.")

I think the hubby in general could benefit by keeping things in perspective. At Capital audio fest, Audio Note had a visiting cello player named Vincent Belanger. (highly recommend any cello fans look into him.) He played live there in the room. 10 seconds of live music was enough to ruin the claims of any of the vendors selling six-figure audio systems purporting to provide just-like-live realism.

By the way, do you know that one company (Knowles) makes the BA elements that are used in virtually every BA IEM on the market, from the $1K 8-driver jobs down to the $79 Apple In-Ear (not the el cheapos, the other ones?) Just a thought for people to consider before the drop four figures on IEMs.

All of that said, I appreciate the heads up on the Alclairs; I do happen to be looking for something a little more ergonomic than the Etys; I frequently listen to iEM's lying in bed on my side, and the long form factor of the Ety's don't work very well for this. I have been coveting a pair of Shure 535's but they are twice as much as the Alclairs and appear to also have been designed with a low profile in mind. So thanks for the tip. But don't be surprised when you write three pages of reviews and people take them seriously. Many people assume but if you didn't mean seriously, you wouldn't of made all that effort.

I assume this was directed at me?  I'm sorry to have upset you but I think my opinion is still pretty well founded.  Remember, I own Etymotics too, so I know exactly how good they are.   Much better than the mass market stuff, for sure.  But the fact is they are simply not as good as the custom fit IEM's like Sensaphonics or JH Audio.  I got spoiled by the sound quality of the custom fit stuff but then had consistent problems with the seal, so eventually had to step back down to the Ety's.  So you can see why I was upset.  The Curve IEM's from Alclair bridge the quality gap to a large degree so I'm really happy I found them.

See, I can use nice language too  :D
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: mr_bill on 7 Oct 2015, 02:44 am
I enjoyed the OPs pics and that was about it. Hard to take any of the writing seriously after you read all the comments in the three reports. More shock value or humor than anything else.
The credibility is not there at all. I wouldn't quit my day job.

Tyson and apex - you guys did a great job again this year.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Scottdazzle on 7 Oct 2015, 03:01 am
And no offense Scott, but this comment is a bit self serving don't you think?


^^^^ perfect example of what I just said.  :P

As a responsible writer, If you're going to presume to publish best of show designations, you need to give all the contenders a chance. The OP obviously didn't even go to all the rooms he should have. I wouldn't mind if he didn't like some of the rooms but you can't stand in judgment of what you don't know. 

As far as the self serving goes, I am not affiliated with Purity or Endeavor but was quite impressed with their products.  As far as the other brands go, I'd match them against the OP's picks any time.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Opinions backed by knowledge and experience are better than what the OP offered this time.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: RDavidson on 7 Oct 2015, 03:09 am
Let's keep things in perspective, folks.

1. It's a show ; A venue to get a better understanding of things many of us have only seen pictures of, in one convenient place, over the course of a few days. That's it.

2. Regarding "reviews," we're essentially talking about first impressions in a context that really doesn't correlate with our home environments or equipment or music choices or social choices etc. etc. etc. We all know first impressions, though very important, can be deceiving (especially when you factor personal biases).

I put MUCH more weight on reviews of equipment by owners (of the equipment) or those who have listened to the gear for MUCH more than 30 minutes and can make useful comparisons in a consistent, relatable, context.

Think about it. How can one go into each room for probably less than 15-20 minutes on average with a fresh ear, without some sort of mental recalibration in between each room, AND THEN provide a truly useful/insightful/comprehensive review of what he/she heard? Seriously. That said, I'd still like to see and hear the Devialet speakers, regardless of how bad everyone says they are....not that I want them, but because they're interesting in a lot of ways that aren't common in high end audio. Isn't that the reason others, including the show reporters, went to check them out for themselves?

But anyway, I'll close by saying I appreciate all the work done and info provided (in opinionated form and all). The pics are great and the info is interesting.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: G Georgopoulos on 7 Oct 2015, 03:10 am
I assume this was directed at me?  I'm sorry to have upset you but I think my opinion is still pretty well founded.  Remember, I own Etymotics too, so I know exactly how good they are.   Much better than the mass market stuff, for sure.  But the fact is they are simply not as good as the custom fit IEM's like Sensaphonics or JH Audio.  I got spoiled by the sound quality of the custom fit stuff but then had consistent problems with the seal, so eventually had to step back down to the Ety's.  So you can see why I was upset.  The Curve IEM's from Alclair bridge the quality gap to a large degree so I'm really happy I found them.

See, I can use nice language too  :D

Tyson,I'm with you 100%,tell them the truth as it is,no one knows better than you and Pez,cheers.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: DS-21 on 7 Oct 2015, 03:46 am
It's nice to tell it like it is, but some comments were rude imo.

You mean like this one:

"In the $500 system, the digital sound conveyed by Emotiva Airmotiv3B loudspeakers ($200/pair), an AudioQuest Dragonfly ($150), and a little Macbook Air equipped with Tidal ($220/year) was so harsh and brittle that I beat a hasty retreat without even listening to the analog set-up, the same speakers connected to a Music Hall USB-1 turntable ($250)."

Oh wait, that was Stereophile. (http://www.stereophile.com/content/jasons-first-day-continues#2DeEU0loyxfO48aZ.99)

Aevans, thanks for the links to your coverage. I enjoyed reading it.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Tyson on 7 Oct 2015, 03:50 am
Tyson,I'm with you 100%,tell them the truth as it is,no one knows better than you and Pez,cheers.

GG (can I call you GG?) I should take a step back and say that I have no special access to the truth.  Just a set of ears and some pretty strong biases, all wrapped up in a flawed human being (aren't we all!). 
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: G Georgopoulos on 7 Oct 2015, 04:12 am
GG (can I call you GG?) I should take a step back and say that I have no special access to the truth.  Just a set of ears and some pretty strong biases, all wrapped up in a flawed human being (aren't we all!).

You can call me what you like,you guys know better than anyone else because you are there (I'm not) I cant express an opinion,your opinion is what matters,you report the show,show some confidence in your opinions,I would if I was reporting the show... :green:
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: DaveC113 on 7 Oct 2015, 04:30 am
Tyson,I'm with you 100%,tell them the truth as it is,no one knows better than you and Pez,cheers.

The point you're getting at is important... everyone has different preferences and harshly condemning something like you're the final arbiter of taste comes across as arrogant and presumptuous. At a show you're just one guy with limited experience of what you're hearing.

I'm not saying you can't be critical, just that it can be done with taste and class.

Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this into this kind of debate... if you want to be an arrogant, abrasive, rude know-it-all, it's your right... but there may be consequences.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: G Georgopoulos on 7 Oct 2015, 04:53 am
The point you're getting at is important... everyone has different preferences and harshly condemning something like you're the final arbiter of taste comes across as arrogant and presumptuous. At a show you're just one guy with limited experience of what you're hearing.

I'm not saying you can't be critical, just that it can be done with taste and class.

Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this into this kind of debate... if you want to be an arrogant, abrasive, rude know-it-all, it's your right... but there may be consequences.

Look who's talking,you have been expressing your opinions on how many threads (I lost count) and you seem very confident backing them up with pics and commentary but when I express my opinion you label me as arrogant... :green:
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: SteveFord on 7 Oct 2015, 11:33 am
I would like to say Thank You to everyone who provided coverage for RMAF.
I wasn't there but would have loved to have been and I appreciate everyone taking the time to post their pics and express their opinions of what was going on.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: johzel on 7 Oct 2015, 12:13 pm
I would like to say Thank You to everyone who provided coverage for RMAF.
I wasn't there but would have loved to have been and I appreciate everyone taking the time to post their pics and express their opinions of what was going on.


+1
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: RDavidson on 7 Oct 2015, 12:51 pm
Look who's talking,you have been expressing your opinions on how many threads (I lost count) and you seem very confident backing them up with pics and commentary but when I express my opinion you label me as arrogant... :green:

He wasn't talking about "you" personally. He was talking about "you" (plural) : Those who attend shows and provide commentary.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: mcgsxr on 7 Oct 2015, 01:15 pm
Feels to me like many things in audio.  Many opinions, and many egos involved.

Frankly I think he shared exactly what he thought.  Others will share what they thought.  It should come as no surprise that those thoughts will not all be in congruence.

Do some people offer their opinions (and that is EXACTLY what he wrote) in more gentle tones?  Sure.  And do some people prefer that?  Sure. 

Over the years participating here, I have posted a number of reviews about gear I have heard and liked.  I generally don't post about gear I did not like the sound of, but that's just my own preference.

I liked what I read both in this report, as well as the Pez/Tyson reports, and all the professional reports.

RMAF is one show I have always wanted to attend, and having the option to read a bunch of differing opinions about what sounded good to different folks makes me happy.

I get that the opinions may influence people, and that folks are making a living from what they produce, but I appreciated the different approach here.  If you actively decide to read a report from a guy that openly rejects much of the audiophilia, I suspect you should know that you will get a very different opinion, and potentially that opinion will be presented differently from someone more in love with audiophilia.

I for one love hearing about what others thought of a given show, and I do enjoy a different perspective and presentation at times.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Pez on 7 Oct 2015, 01:21 pm
As a responsible writer, If you're going to presume to publish best of show designations, you need to give all the contenders a chance. The OP obviously didn't even go to all the rooms he should have. I wouldn't mind if he didn't like some of the rooms but you can't stand in judgment of what you don't know. 

As far as the self serving goes, I am not affiliated with Purity or Endeavor but was quite impressed with their products.  As far as the other brands go, I'd match them against the OP's picks any time.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Opinions backed by knowledge and experience are better than what the OP offered this time.

If that were the case I would be guilty of not giving everyone a fair shake as well. We didn't come close to covering all rooms. It's just not possible anymore at these shows. So you base your 'best of' on your experience. If I had to do it all over again I'd skip Daedalus, Modwright, et al because I've heard their stuff so many years and missed other stuff. Any way my point is it's not possible to see it all.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: branislav on 7 Oct 2015, 02:00 pm
I guess no Acoustic Zen. They have been a fixture for quite a while with amazing room every year....
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: mresseguie on 7 Oct 2015, 02:17 pm
aevans,

I appreciate your effort and bravery for posting your thoughts here.  :thumb:

I guess I'm not too surprised to discover your commentary has produced a wide range of reactions. I was surprised by the strength of the (negative) responses. I'm going to stick my neck out and encourage you to post your thoughts your way. People will either read what you have to say, or they will not. The old adage "You can't please all the people all the time." holds very true here. Bold honesty and brevity are not always found in reviews in this hobby (in my opinion).

I could not attend RMAF this year nor last year. I hope to someday attend. In the mean time I love to read what others have to say about their experiences at such shows. I would very much prefer honesty over pretty prose.

Best regards,

Michael
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: HsvHeelFan on 7 Oct 2015, 02:28 pm
As an Orchestral musician, I'm looking for something that sounds as close to what the original source was as is possible and I do recognize that's a very difficult, if not impossible,  task.

I want a cymbal to sound like a cymbal.  An oboe to sound like an oboe.  Trumpets/FrenchHorns/Trombones/Tubas to sound like Trumpets/FrenchHorns/Trombones/Tubas.  Every instrument has it's own sound.  Does that instrument sound like that instrument? 

I think double reed instruments and pianos are difficult to reproduce well.

Yes,  how the orchestra/band/musician was recorded does make a difference, and a good system will tell you which recordings were poorly done and which one's weren't.

HsvHeelFan
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: SoCalWJS on 7 Oct 2015, 02:36 pm
Everybody has their own bias with regard to what they think sounds good. I gave up a long time ago trying to convince others that my opinion meant any more than theirs. I happen to have a belief that people tend to favor that with which they are familiar with - those who have gone to Rock concerts all their lives have a vastly different perception of what "good sound" sounds like than those who grew up listening to unamplified music (whether Classical, Jazz, Chamber, or whatever) (hence where TAS got it's old reference - live, unamplified music is the ultimate comparison)

The trick is to find other people with similar biases and then you have an opinion that you are more likely to agree with (and yet there will still be disagreements). If you can identify the ones you disagree with, you are also ahead of the game.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: SoCalWJS on 7 Oct 2015, 02:41 pm
As an Orchestral musician, I'm looking for something that sounds as close to what the original source was as is possible and I do recognize that's a very difficult, if not impossible,  task.

I want a cymbal to soan*und like a cymbal.  An oboe to sound like an oboe.  Trumpets/FrenchHorns/Trombones/Tubas to sound like Trumpets/FrenchHorns/Trombones/Tubas.  Every instrument has it's own sound.  Does that instrument sound like that instrument? 

I think double reed instruments and pianos are difficult to reproduce well.

Yes,  how the orchestra/band/musician was recorded does make a difference, and a good system will tell you which recordings were poorly done and which one's weren't.

HsvHeelFan
You beat me to it!

I grew up in band (Clarinet) and attended many live concerts, performances, and competitions while in High School, which is how I base my judgements (even though I now listen primarily to Pop, Rock, and Alternative rather than Classical or Jazz).

I remember many times at Rock Concerts where the sound was pretty awful and caused me to cringe, while others in attendance talked about how great the sound was.  :scratch:

Different strokes for..........
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: DaveC113 on 7 Oct 2015, 03:31 pm
You beat me to it!

I grew up in band (Clarinet) and attended many live concerts, performances, and competitions while in High School, which is how I base my judgements (even though I now listen primarily to Pop, Rock, and Alternative rather than Classical or Jazz).

I remember many times at Rock Concerts where the sound was pretty awful and caused me to cringe, while others in attendance talked about how great the sound was.  :scratch:

Different strokes for..........


I think you're required to be mostly deaf to get a job as sound guy for rock bands ;)
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: rajacat on 7 Oct 2015, 03:37 pm
If No Audiophile really isn't an audiophile why does he go to all the trouble to take pretty pictures, give commentary and post it here? :scratch: His interest in fancy audio gear reveals that he's actually an audiophile.

Actually, I do appreciate that NA posted here and after rereading, most of the the "reviews" I didn't find too many that were over the top negative in a mean way. His review of the  DC10 Audio Berlin, "This was the worst sound of the show. If you imagine a cardboard tube glued to the front of a tweeter that is similar to what these sounded like."
seemed to be harsh. If they were that bad, there must have been something wrong with the setup or the builders' taste must be WAY different than the "No Audiophile". This is the problem with trying to compare speakers at a show. For instance, most of the reviews don't take into account such issues as acoustical treatments, power conditioning that would give unfair advantage to one speaker over the other.  The playing field isn't level so the reviews must be viewed as commentary not reviews.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Early B. on 7 Oct 2015, 03:58 pm
Actually, I do appreciate that NA posted here and after rereading, most of the the "reviews" I didn't find too many that were over the top negative in a mean way. His review of the  DC10 Audio Berlin, "This was the worst sound of the show. If you imagine a cardboard tube glued to the front of a tweeter that is similar to what these sounded like."
seemed to be harsh.

Problem is -- a reviewer is being irresponsible by simply stating that a particular pair of speakers (not the entire setup?) is the worst sound of the show without clear justification, especially when experienced reviewers such as Tyson made positive comments about the same setup.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Tomy2Tone on 7 Oct 2015, 04:45 pm
Best show report I've read in a long time. Refreshing honest opinions..and everyone's entitled to theirs.
Keep up the good work.

cheers,

AJ

I do find a lot of this stuff kind of funny but I would like to get your opinion on something. Say you had a room at RMAF and this guy No Audiophile, of whom you don't know, walked in and said after 5 minutes what he said about the dc10 room. Would you take his criticism seriously? Would you think something must be wrong because he is a member of the press and therefore would try to change something up? And just before you do try to change something Tyson and Pez come strolling in and sit down for about 20 minutes and tell you this is the best room they've heard all day!

Do you listen to Tyson and Pez and think No Audiophile is no longer telling it like it is and that he's just full of shit? Just curious as to how a speaker manufacturer responds to criticism and praise all at the same time. I don't know how anybody can take a review seriously because as we all know everybody hears differently and has different preferences as to what good sound should sound like.

Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Tyson on 7 Oct 2015, 04:58 pm
As I've said many times, once you get above a certain level of quality, its ALL subjective.  Hell, Jason and I don't even agree with EACH OTHER half the time, and that's listening to the same music on the same system at the same time. 
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: AJinFLA on 7 Oct 2015, 05:05 pm
Say you had a room at RMAF and this guy No Audiophile, of whom you don't know, walked in and said after 5 minutes what he said about the dc10 room. Would you take his criticism seriously?
I'd give him my "total loser" award that I keep handy for such press. Consider him a deaf idiot for not swooning over the obvious greatness of my sound.

Do you listen to Tyson and Pez
No.

cheers,

AJ
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Vapor Audio on 7 Oct 2015, 05:47 pm
I do find a lot of this stuff kind of funny but I would like to get your opinion on something. Say you had a room at RMAF and this guy No Audiophile, of whom you don't know, walked in and said after 5 minutes what he said about the dc10 room. Would you take his criticism seriously? Would you think something must be wrong because he is a member of the press and therefore would try to change something up? And just before you do try to change something Tyson and Pez come strolling in and sit down for about 20 minutes and tell you this is the best room they've heard all day!

Do you listen to Tyson and Pez and think No Audiophile is no longer telling it like it is and that he's just full of shit? Just curious as to how a speaker manufacturer responds to criticism and praise all at the same time. I don't know how anybody can take a review seriously because as we all know everybody hears differently and has different preferences as to what good sound should sound like.

I talked with him at the show, and could tell just by the look on his face when I answered questions that he was a tough nut to crack.  That my typical superfluous answers to design questions weren't going to satisfy, so went into the more in-depth break down of what we're doing.  Even then, when he walked away I had no idea what to expect ... if he was a fan of our room or not.  So when his first page of coverage went online, and I saw his no punches pulled approach, I got a bit nervous.  "What would he say about us?"  So yeah, it was a big sigh of relief when I saw what was said  :)

We plan on sending him something to review in the near future.  Confidence in our product isn't an issue, and I personally appreciate his zero ass-kissery style.  If he reviews something from us and enjoys it, I'll know he's speaking truth without any ulterior motives.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Don_S on 7 Oct 2015, 05:59 pm
I find it disheartening that too many confuse telling the truth with being rude, quick to judge, and using unnecessary profanity.  We were taught several important life-lessons in kindergarten. One was to tell the truth.  Another was don’t be mean—AKA, “play nice”.
 
Put the two “commandments” together and the writer/speaker must take responsibility for their words and actions. Criticism does not need to be delivered with a face-slap. When abrasive style trumps substance credibility suffers.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: rajacat on 7 Oct 2015, 06:03 pm
I talked with him at the show, and could tell just by the look on his face when I answered questions that he was a tough nut to crack.  That my typical superfluous answers to design questions weren't going to satisfy, so went into the more in-depth break down of what we're doing.  Even then, when he walked away I had no idea what to expect ... if he was a fan of our room or not.  So when his first page of coverage went online, and I saw his no punches pulled approach, I got a bit nervous.  "What would he say about us?"  So yeah, it was a big sigh of relief when I saw what was said  :)

We plan on sending him something to review in the near future.  Confidence in our product isn't an issue, and I personally appreciate his zero ass-kissery style.  If he reviews something from us and enjoys it, I'll know he's speaking truth, not angling in any way for some sort of payola.

If he had posted a negative opinion of your speakers, would've you still appreciated his "zero ass-kissery" shtick?
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Vapor Audio on 7 Oct 2015, 06:20 pm
If he had posted a negative opinion of your speakers, would've you still appreciated his "zero ass-kissery" shtick?

Hard to say for sure how I'd feel in that case, fortunately we earned positive words.  But I'm someone who has always appreciated those who speak exactly their version of truth, which is pretty obvious what he's doing. 
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Early B. on 7 Oct 2015, 07:23 pm
SIDE NOTE:  We often err in placing too much value on opinions -- either our own or others. Opinions and honesty are useless without having some level of knowledge or experience about the subject matter. Honesty is not a virtue because one can be wrong or even worse -- hurtful.  "I think you're an asshole, and I'm just being honest."



 
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: lowtech on 7 Oct 2015, 07:53 pm
my typical superfluous answers to design questions weren't going to satisfy...

Thanks for sharing that insight.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Zero on 7 Oct 2015, 07:58 pm
The line that separates honesty and dickishness can be difficult to determine at times.   At the end of the day, I think show coverage should be viewed more as a form of entertainment than a definitive telling of what each system is or is not capable of. 

Sure, manufacturers want to put their best foot forward at these shows, but it's a whole lot easier said than done.  Imagine uprooting your entire stereo system and hauling it to a hotel room where you're almost guaranteed to encounter a number of BS issues.  At the end of the day, it's a rush to try and eek out something that'll sound good in a room that -you hope- will be crowded with people.

And on the flip side, the show reviewer has quite a few burdens to bear as well.  It's no secret that most of the rooms sound their best during the last day of the show.  So unless you can somehow make a mad dash during the last day and cover every single space, the odds of you getting to hear the best outta each room is slim to none.  You then have the issue of trying to position yourself into the sweet spot of every room, which ain't easy.  Then there will always be backround noise that'll compete for your attention.  You'll have people who won't know when to shut the living f*** up.  And the list goes on....

Anyway, back the point at hand....    This is all entertainment, folks.  The problem is when people assign an overinflated sense of value to these kind of reports.  Besides, if you want honesty, I'm pretty sure that my take on the rooms at RMAF would be the most negative in show coverage history - hence why I'm not even going to 'go there'.  :D 


Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: rockadanny on 7 Oct 2015, 08:52 pm
Enjoyed the reviews and photos. Good job.  :thumb:

(BTW, I found nothing in the reviews inappropriate for adult readers. Constructive criticism: I do think you should have skipped the name-calling - "slack-jawed lackey" - unless of course this person did something heinously anti-audio to warrant such label (i.e., ceaseless, room disturbing gum-flapping during playback). In which case perhaps you should have at least divulged your reason for it.)
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: S Clark on 7 Oct 2015, 08:57 pm
The line that separates honesty and dickishness can be difficult to determine at times. 
But if you have to choose, I'd rather a reviewer be a bit of dick than a little dishonest.
Keep at it, No Audiophile. 
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Pete Schumacher on 7 Oct 2015, 11:04 pm
To find out if No Audiophile is of any use to you would be to go out and listen to what he likes and dislikes.  If you agree, then you have a point of reference from which to work.

We were cracking up reading his coverage . . . that's a plus.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: FlexibleAudio on 8 Oct 2015, 01:54 am
+1

People are adults and can sift through the good, the bad, and the ugly and make their own decisions.  What I find more tiresome is the stealth, guerrilla marketing at play in the many of the forums these days.....like a one note instrument....

I couldn't agree more with this post. I get sick of the peddlers hocking their wares on forums. That's why I left another forum after 1000 posts and joined here.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: vortrex on 8 Oct 2015, 02:24 am
Obviously a Vapor shill.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Rick Craig on 8 Oct 2015, 02:30 am
Obviously a Vapor shill.

Who?
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: DaveC113 on 8 Oct 2015, 02:36 am
If No Audiophile really isn't an audiophile why does he go to all the trouble to take pretty pictures, give commentary and post it here? :scratch: His interest in fancy audio gear reveals that he's actually an audiophile.

Actually, I do appreciate that NA posted here and after rereading, most of the the "reviews" I didn't find too many that were over the top negative in a mean way. His review of the  DC10 Audio Berlin, "This was the worst sound of the show. If you imagine a cardboard tube glued to the front of a tweeter that is similar to what these sounded like."
seemed to be harsh. If they were that bad, there must have been something wrong with the setup or the builders' taste must be WAY different than the "No Audiophile". This is the problem with trying to compare speakers at a show. For instance, most of the reviews don't take into account such issues as acoustical treatments, power conditioning that would give unfair advantage to one speaker over the other.  The playing field isn't level so the reviews must be viewed as commentary not reviews.

He also lied to our face about what he thought about the sound, told us it was great and then made that ridiculous comment on his blog. Not a big deal, everyone else seems to think the sound was good to great. An example of a comment that reflects badly on the person making it imo.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Tomy2Tone on 8 Oct 2015, 02:54 am
He also lied to our face about what he thought about the sound, told us it was great and then made that ridiculous comment on his blog. Not a big deal, everyone else seems to think the sound was good to great. An example of a comment that reflects badly on the person making it imo.

Wow, really? The part I don't get in all this is apparently you don't have to be good at being a reviewer. In fact you can flat out suck, but as long as you're "keepin it real" or "telling it like it is" then it's ok. If it's the guy that was in there Saturday night in the Nimbus/ Mojo room I think he spent maybe 5 minutes listening and then left.

At least put in an effort to know the sound of the speakers by spending time in there and bring some familiar tracks like Tyson and Pez do so you're more able to discern from one room to the next...
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: DaveC113 on 8 Oct 2015, 03:14 am
Yeah, as I said it's no big deal. I know exactly where that comment came from, directional speakers sound different than speakers that have a wide dispersion pattern. The lack of 1st reflections can sound odd at first. Lying to us and posting a rude comment just shows the level of experience and character of the poster. And yes, any idiot can call themselves a reviewer and post ridiculous garbage, but they won't last long.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Wind Chaser on 8 Oct 2015, 03:15 am
I don't know why anyone would take any of this so seriously. A guy states his opinion on nothing more than a quick first impression and some think the fate of business could hang in the balance?  :scratch:
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Folsom on 8 Oct 2015, 03:18 am
I love the pictures.

Honesty is good. However there's an evident bias where if he sees something he doesn't believe is pure engineering of what he thinks is correct, it's disqualified. While there's snake oil, maybe not as much as some think, one that's that has an attitude of honesty should at least test before coming to a conclusion. I can't help but wonder if the d10 room got this treatment. But hell, I don't know, maybe they didn't sound good.

RMAF sadly is basically a speaker show. It's so hard to judge the electronics if you've not heard the speakers before. But in all cases you know a lot of about the speakers. That sad, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Nimbus review was due to electronics or noise from the location.

For the record I know that Dave's D4 cable set is superb, so there's zero fault anywhere near the cables for any possible problems with the d10 room.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: mresseguie on 8 Oct 2015, 03:19 am
Yeah, as I said it's no big deal. I know exactly where that comment came from, directional speakers sound different than speakers that have a wide dispersion pattern. The lack of 1st reflections can sound odd at first. Lying to us and posting a rude comment just shows the level of experience and character of the poster. And yes, any idiot can call themselves a reviewer and post ridiculous garbage, but they won't last long.

Dave,

You've lost me entirely. I can see you have a lot of energy over this, but I have not discovered what it is that has you so upset. Could you please explain?

Regards,

Michael
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: aevans on 8 Oct 2015, 03:56 am
- deleted
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Hugh on 8 Oct 2015, 04:15 am
Ditto.

I don't know why anyone would take any of this so seriously. A guy states his opinion on nothing more than a quick first impression and some think the fate of business could hang in the balance?  :scratch:
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: aevans on 8 Oct 2015, 04:24 am
What was I listening for: Smooth mostly neutral frequency response. Having a speaker that is tonally wrong on axis will usually get you a bad write up. Audible cone break up, or comb filtering from the drivers is not good and will get you an bad write up. Imaging should not be something I need to work at, if by the 2 minutes in to a track sitting in the sweet spot I still can't at least place a center image then there is something wrong with placement some other wrong thing that will get you a bad write up. In short if the speaker sounded somewhat neutral and did what it was designed to do then it got a passing grade. If there are specific examples of where you think I was too tough on someone let me know and I will explain further.

Now for the replies:

Quote
JLM - Would you like to join our small audio club in SE Michigan?

If you are reffering to SMWTMS I would be honored.

Quote
Brad - Nice photos, wish you spent the same detail in proofreading that you spent in getting quality images.

7 hours of the show floor, 4 hours of photo editing each night, 3 hours for writing, and I still had to make time for drinking at the hotel bar to get the scoop on what others thought. I've yet to go back over everything outside of a simple spell check.

Quote
md92468 - More like "No Couth"...geez, these are folks whose livelihood you're messing with.

Get better sound, and they won't have anything to worry about. Might sell more speakers that way too.

Quote
Scottdazzle - No coverage of ModWright, Daedalus, Odyssey, Endeavor, Purity.  wtf?  Hard to award best of show when you miss some of the finest rooms.

I picked my rooms looking for speakers. If any reviewer says they can hear a DAC or amp on a pair of speaker they have never heard in a room they have never walked in before, they are either fooling themselves or lying to promote some industry friends product.

Quote
Early B. - If you're gonna review gear, you gotta have some deep knowledge of audio, higher than average technical knowledge, and it helps to know a lot of the players in this game. Makes for a more informed opinion. 

I know quite a few things about audio, it's actually pretty impressive. Now, what I don't want to know is is "players in the game." That's the kind of sh*t that will cloud your mind and color your opinion. I did not even attempt to introduce myself unless I thought the speakers sounded good and they offered speakers for sale at less than $4k/pair. The audience that I serve with my website are mostly college kids, and people looking for entry level gear. I am at the show on thier behalf, not to stroke my ego or rub shoulders with giants. Listening to exotic gear is fun, and if something sounded bad many times I excused it with possible room issues or setup problems.

Quote
Douger - Once in a while you seemed knowledgeable, Martin-Logan home theater , looks like from Best Buy... Some Best Buy stores sell ML...

The best buy comment is something I got from the guy in the ML room with the Sony speakers when he was telling me about the multiple rooms ML had setup... he said "we even have one that looks like something you could get at best buy"

Quote
Early B. - Problem is -- a reviewer is being irresponsible by simply stating that a particular pair of speakers (not the entire setup?) is the worst sound of the show without clear justification.

It's not my job to guess or tell them what is wrong... if they can't figure out that their room sounds like sh*t I don't trust them to design or sell speakers. I heard from 4 other people that the DC10 room was awful, the only prompting I used was "did you hear the DC10audio room" at the hotel bar and people were more than happy to tell me what they thought in very honest hard hitting adult way.

Quote
Don_S - I find it disheartening that too many confuse telling the truth with being rude, quick to judge, and using unnecessary profanity.

I'm an adult and my audience is an adult audience that tends to be 20-40 year olds that like using profanity. Sorry I ruined your faith in humanity by having a potty mouth.

Quote
Early B. - Opinions and honesty are useless without having some level of knowledge or experience about the subject matter.

As I stated before, I know lots of things and have lots of experience. If you have any questions feel free to be direct with them, but being dismissive of criticism is not going to solve your problems.

Quote
rajacat - most of the reviews don't take into account such issues as acoustical treatments, power conditioning that would give unfair advantage to one speaker over the other.

I checked all of the speakers nearfield as well as in the sweet spot, this almost complete removes the room from the equation. I don't know how power conditioning is going to do anything unless you have such little faith in the ability of amp designers to design a good power supply for a 4-5 figure amp.

Quote
DaveC113 - He also lied to our face about what he thought about the sound, told us it was great and then made that ridiculous comment on his blog.

Yes, I was dishonest. I told everyone that asked that they sound was "great" and moved on to the next room as quickly as possible to cover more ground and find good sounding rooms. I'm not there to form an emotional personal attachment to each person that has a poor sounding room, so I only talked to the people that I needed to about the products that I thought my audience would be interested in me reviewing.

Quote
DaveC113 - And yes, any idiot can call themselves a reviewer and post ridiculous garbage, but they won't last long.

That's just mean. If you say it enough it might hurt my feelings and then I'll need to complain about it on the internet.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: G Georgopoulos on 8 Oct 2015, 04:28 am
Dear Sir,aevans, you seem very experienced in this, to me!... :thumb:
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: aevans on 8 Oct 2015, 07:51 pm
Dear Sir,aevans, you seem very experienced in this, to me!... :thumb:

Not my first rodeo.  8)
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Silvertone on 8 Oct 2015, 08:57 pm
aevans,

Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback and impressions from the show :)

Let me ask you, looks like you picked the Von Schwikert VR55s system as 'Best in Show'

How did that system compared to the Revels Salon 2's/ Mark Levinson No. 536 monoblocks system?

I'm looking into those monoblocks, your feedback will be greatly appreciated.

-Oscar
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: lowtech on 8 Oct 2015, 08:59 pm
Lol.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsV5PDVOGnM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsV5PDVOGnM)
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: nrenter on 8 Oct 2015, 09:31 pm
The hyper-sensitivity here is simply embarrassing.

I don't know why anyone would take any of this so seriously. A guy states his opinion on nothing more than a quick first impression and some think the fate of business could hang in the balance?  :scratch:

Amen, brother. If someone's business hangs "in the balance" over one guy's opinion, you've got bigger issues than that one guy's opinion.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: youravhandyman on 8 Oct 2015, 09:51 pm
If he had posted a negative opinion of your speakers, would've you still appreciated his "zero ass-kissery" shtick?

In reference to Vapor audio No Audiophile was not happy with the Nimbus.  Guess we all read what we want with these reviews.  Thumbs up for the reviews No Audiophile.  And kudos to those who took a lump with a smile.  They clearly are in the business for the right reasons.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: DaveC113 on 8 Oct 2015, 09:55 pm

Yes, I was dishonest. I told everyone that asked that they sound was "great" and moved on to the next room as quickly as possible to cover more ground and find good sounding rooms. I'm not there to form an emotional personal attachment to each person that has a poor sounding room, so I only talked to the people that I needed to about the products that I thought my audience would be interested in me reviewing.


Just... wow... I'm sure that'll work out for you just great.   :thumb:

Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: aevans on 8 Oct 2015, 10:33 pm
aevans,

Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback and impressions from the show :)

Let me ask you, looks like you picked the Von Schwikert VR55s system as 'Best in Show'

How did that system compared to the Revels Salon 2's/ Mark Levinson No. 536 monoblocks system?

I'm looking into those monoblocks, your feedback will be greatly appreciated.

-Oscar

The Revel was the smoothest sound of the show, something that does mean that the amps were doing their job. Two things in my mind kept them from taking the top spot from the VR55s. One was the size, the listening axis was too high for the small show room. The other is that I prefer a more flat room sound to go with a flat on axis sound. I achieve this in my home system with a very wide dispersion RAAL ribbon to fill in the natural roll off that rooms eat off of the top octaves with from wall materials absorption. This does have the downside of not having matched directivity between the midrange and the tweeter. The VR55s rear tweeter does the job keeping the room sound flat, while making sure that the directivity of the front drivers are better matched than my extra wide/narrow ribbon tweeter. It's a great design, and with the beryllium tweeter and silly good build quality it really just knocked it out the park.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: OzarkTom on 9 Oct 2015, 12:12 am
Thank you OP for sharing, this is the best report I have seen yet. I enjoy reading all reviews no matter who is writing them. These hotel rooms suck when you are trying to get good SQ, I am surprised when any room sounds great. For those that think it should be easy, take your system to a local hotel and set it up. It will humble you very fast.

I thought I knew it all, so I packed my system and took it to Dallas to the LSAF five years ago. On the first day, I was so embarrassed for anyone to come in my room, it was nasty, nasty, nasty. :scratch:

The next day, a little better but still not right I finally borrowed a battery system to hook up my amp, much, much better. I was not embarrassed when audiophiles came in my room. Of all the small hotel rooms, everyone said I had the most natural sound at the show. But it still never sound as good as it did at my house.

Bad sounding rooms, bad AC in the hotel rooms. If I ever repeated this experiece, it would be battery power all the way. Just ask Danny Ritchie here on AC and ask Living Voice at the Munich Audio show. LV takes a nuclear powered battery plant to Munich, or so it seems.


(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=129290)
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: OzarkTom on 9 Oct 2015, 12:35 am
Oops, I left Vinnie Rossi out. If I was a speaker manufacturer at these audio shows, I would use Vinnie Rossi equipment for the electronics. :thumb:
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: a.wayne on 14 Oct 2015, 12:18 pm
I'm with noaudiophile on this and enjoyed his coverage ,  too much blocking takes place in the industry , there's  no excuse for a bad product today or bad show sound , avg to good  sound should be par for the course ,  honesty should be appreciated and used as a push for making better products ,  this constant praising and promoting of bad sound because the vendor is  nice  or one of the insiders is what really gives this industry and Audiophiles their ratbat crazy rep and after all its not really that difficult , even for an amatuer,   Ozarktom figured it out  in two days and went batt Power ...  :)




Regards
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Brad on 14 Oct 2015, 02:37 pm
I'd say if you're going to give a company an award for a great product, might be worth taking the time to correctly spell the company name......
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: aevans on 14 Oct 2015, 03:38 pm
I'd say if you're going to give a company an award for a great product, might be worth taking the time to correctly spell the company name......

Typo on first post of thread... Well there goes all of of my credibility, right out of window!

Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: rajacat on 14 Oct 2015, 03:40 pm
Typo on first post of thread... Well there goes all of of my credibility, right out of window!
Why are you so sensitive to criticism? Isn't it OK to review the reviewers?
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: DaveC113 on 14 Oct 2015, 03:50 pm
Typo on first post of thread... Well there goes all of of my credibility, right out of window!

That happened when you admitted to lying.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: konut on 14 Oct 2015, 04:18 pm
Typo on first post of thread... Well there goes all of of my credibility, right out of window!

You're assuming you had any credibility in the first place. FWIW, I don't believe anything I read, and only 10% of what I see. In spite of that, I enjoyed your coverage.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: *Scotty* on 14 Oct 2015, 04:19 pm
aevans, How do you determine where the sweet spot is in these show rooms? I have had a hard time in some rooms.
Scotty
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: a.wayne on 14 Oct 2015, 05:06 pm
Sweet spot is easy , look for the lump of sugar ....
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: a.wayne on 14 Oct 2015, 05:08 pm
That happened when you admitted to lying.


Disingenuous is more accurate Dave, the usual deft smile and blank stare  by most pro reviewers listening to bad sound takes time to aquire. .
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: DaveC113 on 14 Oct 2015, 05:45 pm

Disingenuous is more accurate Dave, the usual deft smile and blank stare  by most pro reviewers listening to bad sound takes time to aquire. .

No, it was a flat out lie, right to my face.

I'd have respect for him if he had the balls to critique the sound and say why he didn't like it in person. Lying I have no respect for.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: a.wayne on 14 Oct 2015, 06:02 pm
I can see from your perspective why you would feel so,   he did say great sound  ...........
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: aevans on 14 Oct 2015, 06:13 pm
aevans, How do you determine where the sweet spot is in these show rooms? I have had a hard time in some rooms.
Scotty

I used my 27mm camera lens as a starting point, usually the left and right speakers will just fit into field of view. After that I see where I'm at and it's usually the first or second row. I was in doubt a couple of times in larger rooms and asked what the intentions were for seating.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Brad on 14 Oct 2015, 06:19 pm
Typo on first post of thread... Well there goes all of of my credibility, right out of window!

It was also spelled that way every time you referenced it in your online article, although you did go back and correct those.
My bad.

Also, decent and descent do NOT mean the same thing.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: aevans on 14 Oct 2015, 06:25 pm
It was also spelled that way every time you referenced it in your online article, although you did go back and correct those.
My bad.

Also, decent and descent do NOT mean the same thing.

Yeah, I'm a busy guy. If I fixed all the spelling errors you would complain about my sentence structure, and there is no fixing those rat nests.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: brother love on 14 Oct 2015, 06:37 pm
No, it was a flat out lie, right to my face.

I'd have respect for him if he had the balls to critique the sound and say why he didn't like it in person. Lying I have no respect for.

So... Have you ever had a meal at a restaurant that you weren't satisfied with & when your server asked you how was everything, you said good or fine (I have) ?  If you take it a step further (I haven't) & rip the restaurant on Yelp, would that make you a liar?  Not everyone is directly confrontational in that situation, esp. if they don't won't to waste the time doing so. Constructive criticism is not a requirement, esp. when you don't know how it will be received.

I really do see your point DaveC113, the OP's words were excessively harsh re: your shared room; but it is his opinion.  There are plenty of other reviews of your shared room that thought otherwise.

I truly sympathize with any/all audiophile vendors that deal with hotel rooms/ electrical feed to set-up & demo their wares. It has to be a nightmare making it all work with a show deadline & all. 

Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: JLM on 14 Oct 2015, 07:57 pm
So... Have you ever had a meal at a restaurant that you weren't satisfied with & when your server asked you how was everything, you said good or fine (I have) ?  If you take it a step further (I haven't) & rip the restaurant on Yelp, would that make you a liar?  Not everyone is directly confrontational in that situation, esp. if they don't won't to waste the time doing so. Constructive criticism is not a requirement, esp. when you don't know how it will be received.

I really do see your point DaveC113, the OP's words were excessively harsh re: your shared room; but it is his opinion.  There are plenty of other reviews of your shared room that thought otherwise.

I truly sympathize with any/all audiophile vendors that deal with hotel rooms/ electrical feed to set-up & demo their wares. It has to be a nightmare making it all work with a show deadline & all.

Partially we don't complain in person to avoid making a scene, to avoid hearing a multitude of excuses, or getting into a protracted and possibly heated debate.  As a former state and federal inspector for 25 years I've been involved in all of the above.  And like a reviewer I only had to state what I thought was wrong (in writing after the fact) and was not allowed on many of the inspections to make suggestions (which is hard when you know what the solution is).

It is not possible to cover an entire show the size of RMAF and wait to have lengthy discussions with each vendor (who can't be there every minute, especially if they have gear in multiple rooms).  OTOH I don't know how anyone can make a detailed evaluation under short term show conditions.  Everyone needs to take a large grain of salt.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: Wind Chaser on 14 Oct 2015, 08:19 pm
I think some people take trade shows way too seriously. :shake:
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: a.wayne on 14 Oct 2015, 11:33 pm
Well as it turns out , Absolute sound disagrees with No Audiophile  for best of sound , who would have thunk it ... :)
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: OzarkTom on 15 Oct 2015, 12:18 am
The last day of the show is always the best sound of every room there. That is also the slowest day of the show, so very few attendees gets to hear the best sound. No reviewer can run through the last day to review every room.

When I went to the shows, about 22 CES shows, I learned to never listen seriously to any system on the first day, mostly just looking at the equipment.
Title: Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
Post by: *Scotty* on 15 Oct 2015, 12:29 am
aevans, thanks for your response, you have been more fortunate than I in finding the sweet spot for listening at audio shows. In something like more than half the rooms that I have been in at shows, the sweet spot, if there was one, did not correspond any of the seating positions in the room, hence my question regarding your methodology for determining its location.
I noticed that this was primarily a function of how well the room was treated. It was a rare untreated room that had a proper ratio between direct and reflected sound and didn't have a problem with an over abundance of upper mid-range energy resulting in the dreaded upper mid-range glare. This was a particular problem in the generic small hotel room. The tonal balance error made any imaging the systems might be able to produce irrelevant to me.
 In the larger rooms that were untreated or ineffectively treated I had to use a grid search pattern on the seating looking for the sweet spot. In one room sitting at back of the room against the wall gave an acceptable tonal balance to an otherwise unlistenable system. In rooms that were treated properly regardless of size, the sweet spot was located in the chair or chairs more or less at the apex of a triangle about where you logically expect it to be.
Scotty