RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 24066 times.

Tyson

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #40 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!). 

G Georgopoulos

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1254
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #41 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:

DaveC113

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 3887
  • ZenWaveAudio.com
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #42 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.

G Georgopoulos

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1254
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #43 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:

SteveFord

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 5015
  • The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #44 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.

johzel

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #45 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

RDavidson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2221
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #46 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.

mcgsxr

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #47 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.

Pez

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #48 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.

branislav

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 32
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #49 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....

mresseguie

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 2833
  • Beware manufacturer who treats people like crap.
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #50 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

HsvHeelFan

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 444
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #51 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

SoCalWJS

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #52 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.

SoCalWJS

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #53 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..........

DaveC113

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 3887
  • ZenWaveAudio.com
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #54 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 ;)

rajacat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3133
  • Washington State
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #55 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.

Early B.

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #56 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.

Tomy2Tone

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #57 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.


Tyson

Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #58 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. 

AJinFLA

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 994
  • Soundfield Audio Loudspeakers
    • Soundfield Audio
Re: RMAF Coverage from No Audiophile
« Reply #59 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