[lonewolfny42]

Thanks....enjoy the tunes AJ....

[Mike B.]

Thanks for the coverage. I am sorry to see this show turn into just another main steam high end show. I thought the initial concept was that of promoting DIY and the smaller guys?

[ceedee]

Thanks a lot guys,

Like I said before, we were a bit in Denver too.

Cor

[taoggniklat]

Hi Pez, we'll have to agree to disagree there. Wish you could have made my untreated room. My perspective is that a heavily treated room shows an alarming problem with the acoustic sources, or a preference for the sound of "stereo", rather than any semblance of the real thing. I challenge anyone who prefers that presentation to attend some live music (perhaps for the first time) with me and point out any of those stereo construct attributes. I remarked to Gary Gill at CapFest (at the band playing), that it should have been mandatory for all exhibitors to attend the live show in the lobby, not to hear john Atkinson on bass (not too shabby), but to hear real instruments for the first time, not emanating from a stereo...and point out that pinpoint/ultra precision studio construct imaging. It might be a real ear opener for many, to hear the real thing.
To each their own of course. Not going to tell you which to prefer.

**snip**

cheers,

AJ

But on the same token, just because it is real and life doesn't mean it sounds good. While I agree I don't think vendors need to cover every wall with stuff, but all I ask is take the time to set up your room to get the BEST sound out of your system you possibly can, given the circumstances. Don't do nothing simply because "I am brand xyz and my stuff doesn't need acoustic treatment". We aren't looking for smoke and mirrors, just a vendor that is willing to address the areas that need to be addessed to show their product in the best possible way.

[taoggniklat]

My favorites of the show: No particular order except #1. Hands down my favorite of the show this year

1. TAD with the CSR1's
2. GR Research
3. Fritz Speakers
4. Estelon
5. VR44's
6. Salk

My least favorites included:
Tidal
Magico
VTL/TAD
Zu (I really wanted this to be better, but this one just made me run. Last year I loved the Superfly room)

[Carl V]

thanks Pez & Tyson for all your efforts.
I first met Pez & Midwest Audio fest in Lima.
Great guy & I miss the smaller show camaraderie...
such as the old VSAC shows. Great Guy.

I agree with some of your Show Condition caveats.

Yet like AJinFLA  sometimes a nice room set-up won't
always need lotsa Fiberglass batting...as Floyd Toole
has written about.

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/White%20Papers/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt1.pdf

Unfortunately this is the 1st RMAF I missed...family issues.
these are great shows for education, entertainment & enlightenment.

[Pez]

AJ we will most definately agree to disagree on that point. It is the job of the recording engineers/producers to make a recording lively sounding or not. In your scenario the system sounds lively no matter what. And every single system in the untreated rooms sounded splatty and shouty at high SPLs due to overloading. I doubt your speakers were any different honestly, but I will save my brutally honest opinions for when I actually hear your room. 

[mgalusha]

Jason & Tyson, thanks again for the massive effort. As you say, no way to see and hear it all so even for those are can attend, your coverage is invaluable.

A thought for the exhibitors that show ever year. Spend a few hundred bucks on some lumber and build a mock up of the room and figure out how to make your stuff sound good in that space. I know some can't do this, particularly those who are borrowing speakers from another vendor but ask that vendor to at least take the room dimensions into account. The rooms certainly don't change size from year to year and the dimensions are posted on the RMAF website with the exception of the ceiling but I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to find this info. Just a thought...

mike

[rbbert]

I agree totally with Pez about the room treatments at the show; far too few.  And for the exhibitors and listeners who doubt that, you didn't spend enough time in modest rooms with modest equipment that sounded killer, I'm almost sure because of room treatments.  Puget Sound Studios rooms were good examples, with $2500/pr (inc. stands) Evolution MM Micro 1's in one and $5000/pr Usher mini-Dancer II's in the other, both of which sounded like giant-killers (which they probably are , but I doubt to this extent).

[rbbert]

I'm definitely not an analog guy, so I was glad to see so many good digital front-ends, especially the computer based ones.  I don't do that yet, but it's sure a good tool for both the exhibitors and the listeners.

I did think there were many many great sounding analog sources also, both reel and vinyl.  I did post earlier about my disappointment with the VTL room, which had what should have been great sounding tape and vinyl, but overall just didn't deliver.  It sounds like I wasn't alone in this opinion.

[rbbert]

My favorites of the show: No particular order except #1. Hands down my favorite of the show this year

1. TAD with the CSR1's
2. GR Research
3. Fritz Speakers
4. Estelon
5. VR44's
6. Salk

My least favorites included:
Tidal
Magico
VTL/TAD
Zu (I really wanted this to be better, but this one just made me run. Last year I loved the Superfly room)

I would absolutely agree with the least favorites here, if by that one means most disappointing.  I didn't hear GR Research or Fritz, but I would add von Schweikert, Salk and Estelon to that "disappointing" list.

Odyssey was impressive, and the Rosso Fiorentino speakers pictured but not named above were an impressive debut.  mbl sounded quite good in a terrible room.  Only the biggest YG's sounded half-way decent to me, and they were clearly too big for the room, so I'm really not sure what to make of that company.

Sonus Faber had a lot of good sounding models present.

The TAD room sounded really good, but it wouldn't be my choice for best in show.  Definitely a contender, though.

[taoggniklat]

I would absolutely agree with the least favorites here, if by that one means most disappointing.  I didn't hear GR Research or Fritz, but I would add von Schweikert, Salk and Estelon to that "disappointing" list.

Odyssey was impressive, and the Rosso Fiorentino speakers pictured but not named above were an impressive debut.  mbl sounded quite good in a terrible room.  Only the biggest YG's sounded half-way decent to me, and they were clearly too big for the room, so I'm really not sure what to make of that company.

Sonus Faber had a lot of good sounding models present.

The TAD room sounded really good, but it wouldn't be my choice for best in show.  Definitely a contender, though.

I have to agree, TBH I was disappointed with the Salk room in that I expected it to be better than that. I love Salk Sound and they are arguably my favorite and I will eventually own a pair...but I did find the room to be a bit lackluster this year.

Thanks for your comments

[macrojack]

The two sentiments I've noticed as most prevalent here are praise and gratitude for the efforts of Pez and Tyson -- and the negative feelings generated by the VTL room.

I can second the praise and gratitude but have to just shake my head in wonder at the shortsightedness and stupidity reflected in VTL's attitude.

Ben Franklin famously said that you will attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Looks like Ben was right this time. The flies are buzzing.

[lonewolfny42]

The Usher Mini-Dancer II's (Room 8000) are a very good speaker...more people should give them a listen.

[dminches]

I would absolutely agree with the least favorites here, if by that one means most disappointing.  I didn't hear GR Research or Fritz, but I would add von Schweikert, Salk and Estelon to that "disappointing" list.

Rob, I went back to the Salk/Van Alstine room on day 3 and the sound was completely different. Frank told me that the speakers were brand new and needed to be broken in. He was right. They sounded much better on Sunday.

[AJinFLA]

But on the same token, just because it is real and life doesn't mean it sounds good.

Of course not and that isn't what I said. It's all preference. Some people love the sound of stereos and others strive for fidelity to reality.

While I agree I don't think vendors need to cover every wall with stuff, but all I ask is take the time to set up your room to get the BEST sound out of your system you possibly can, given the circumstances. Don't do nothing simply because "I am brand xyz and my stuff doesn't need acoustic treatment". We aren't looking for smoke and mirrors, just a vendor that is willing to address the areas that need to be addessed to show their product in the best possible way.

Who gets to define "BEST"?
Which is more likely to sound better in your room or room X, the speakers that interact well with an untreated surrounding and manages to sound "good", or the speakers that needed a padded cell to sound "good"?
I don't disagree with you that vendors should attempt to coax the "best" sound possible from their system. It's just that one mans definition of "best", may not exactly meet another. Agree?

cheers,

AJ

[AJinFLA]

AJ we will most definately agree to disagree on that point. It is the job of the recording engineers/producers to make a recording lively sounding or not.

Sure...and it's my job to make that recording please me, the end user, not the engineer (or whatever the "intent" may have been). So if the engineer made it unbearably bright, guess what, I turn the treble down, the engineers/producers be damned.
As Tooles perceptual research has shown, the rooms superimposition upon the sound in not necessarily detrimental, despite the recordings inherent reverberation, due to perceptual adaption. Interesting results occur when the treatment crowd are asked for preference when forced to listen with ears only (blind) . Btw, I prefer the descriptor "live" instead of "lively", which has a subtly different meaning.

And every single system in the untreated rooms sounded splatty and shouty at high SPLs due to overloading.

Ah, but what percentage was the room and what percentage was the system overload contributing to the "splat"?

I doubt your speakers were any different honestly, but I will save my brutally honest opinions for when I actually hear your room. 

Only one way to find out ...and it's the only way you would hear my system, there, Capfest...or elsewhere.
Maybe I just didn't have Tool cranked up loud enough
Though I doubt anyone would say I played the Eric Kunzel stuff too softly.
Anyway, sorry to threadjack...on with the actual show. So much to see/hear, so little time....

cheers,

AJ

[jtwrace]

Rob, I went back to the Salk/Van Alstine room on day 3 and the sound was completely different. Frank told me that the speakers were brand new and needed to be broken in. He was right. They sounded much better on Sunday.

No excuse for this.  The show date has been known for nearly a year.   

[fsimms]

Thanks for the fantastic reports!

I also thought the Salk SoundScape 12s sounded less warm than my 10s.  I don’t know if it was the room or electronics or what?  I did like the ease at which they played.  Maybe it was because the 12s are more efficient than the 10s and Frank’s amp is more powerful than my DNA 225s. 

I thought the SongTowers sounded great with Frank’s ultravalve.

Bob

[rbbert]

Rob, I went back to the Salk/Van Alstine room on day 3 and the sound was completely different. Frank told me that the speakers were brand new and needed to be broken in. He was right. They sounded much better on Sunday.

I also spent about 10 minutes (I know, not that much time  ) in the AVA/Salk room on Sunday.  The speakers were clearly better than on Friday, but by Sunday I had heard many more excellent sounding rooms, and my overall impression was still one of disappointment.