RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 24064 times.

rajacat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3133
  • Washington State
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #20 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.













 

Geardaddy

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #21 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....

Early B.

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #22 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. 

maxboy00

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #23 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?


Douger

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #24 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 :)

Pez

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #25 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.
« Last Edit: 7 Oct 2015, 12:18 am by Pez »

Pez

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #26 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

jparkhur

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #27 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

Rocket

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #28 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

Tyson

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #29 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"

jtwrace

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #30 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!

AJinFLA

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 994
  • Soundfield Audio Loudspeakers
    • Soundfield Audio
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #31 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

Kishore

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #32 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:

dB Cooper

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #33 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.

Tyson

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #34 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

mr_bill

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #35 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.

Scottdazzle

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #36 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.

RDavidson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2221
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #37 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.

G Georgopoulos

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1254
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #38 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.

DS-21

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 332
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #39 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.

Aevans, thanks for the links to your coverage. I enjoyed reading it.