Thank You

When I say 'we' in this report, which I do unless I am sticking my neck out, in which case it is 'I', absolving everybody who knows me of any responsibility for what I say :-), it is me (Mike) taking the photos and writing commentary - but there is our implicit support team: Neli and Dave Cope staffing our rooms 99% of the time, along with Steve G. and this year Kevin O. helping out a LOT (thanks guys!) so that I could get out of the room and prowl the halls with ears and camera. Also Mike Latvis from HRS was with us this year - lending his knowledge, support and, oh yeah, an SXR double wide HRS rack (thanks Mike!).

And, of course, we have to thank Al and Marjorie, for putting on this show, and putting up with all of us really somewhat strange people (speaking for myself and everyone I know in this hobby :-). We should also thank our fellow exhibitors, we'd look even stranger than we do now if we took over a hotel suite and setup a system in a hotel all by ourselves....

Our room was very crowded except for the last hour on Saturday (curiously, that was when I too over as DJ) and last hour Sunday. It was great to see all of  you that could make it.

Order of the Report

We did floor 9 on Friday, the first day. Then 10, 11, 2 and 1 the second day, Saturday. Finally, the Mezzanine, and floors 5 (whoa, a lot of rooms!) and 4 on Sunday.

There were more rooms (130 compared to 100) and more people.

Local Dealers

As usual, we do not say anything about the sound in the rooms of local dealers - our  honorable competition here in the Colorado front range.  After much thought, we also still do not say anything good about them either (sorry Darrin), as this implicitly says something negative about the others. We do, however, post pictures all of their rooms.

Photos of Humans

There are few photos of people in our show reports. That is because we feel that high-end audio should be about the sound, not the personalities.  Some of the best manufacturers are not very photogenic.  Some of the best reviewers aren't either. In my particular case... I ain't.  Hey, we can't all be Danny Kaey :-). Oh, and I am so happy that Stephan on Audio Asylum was unable to catch me in the room, but just so's you all know:

Am I In a Ba-a-a-d Mood?

Some people have written to say that it seems I did not like anything but our room. And in some sense, that is exactly right. If someone wants a system that is actually competent [top-to-bottom great separation, balanced dynamics, etc.], real-sounding with emotion, musicality and a little magic, impressive when called for, sweet when called for, then in my opinion we nailed it. I think it is important to put a stake in the ground and say yes, this was the sound we were going for.

There were a lot of rooms this year that could have been contenders, and in general the sound was good, but were just kind of blah sounding - dynamics, timbre, room interactions were all not quite what one would hope for (and for this conclusion I am supported by the scuttlebutt at the show - not just my own immediate impressions as I zoom through the show) - PeaK Consult, Ascendo,  etc. Perhaps it takes a year or two to get the used to the rooms at this show, or the altitude - we are a mile above sea level.

I had to zoom through the show (we have our own exhibition rooms here) so commentary is necessarily limited to the rooms where I could spare the time to pay attention to the sound; whether by design or accident, I did get to hear at least some of the rooms this year. Well, that is not exactly true - I got to hear about 95% of them - the ones that were playing music - but it helps to determine the quality of the systems more accurately if the music if familiar, or at least somewhat complex.

We Are More Critical of Expensive systems

As for the general tone of the commentary - if systems are going to have compromises, numerous compromises, or massive compromises, then this should be reflected in the price of the system. If the dynamics are significantly uneven, for example punchy bass but soft midrange, then the system should not cost as much as a condo. If the dynamics are good but the timbre sounds makes Elvis sound like a duck, the system should not cost as much as a car. I am not referring to specific systems, here, but to the idea that I am going to be more critical of expensive systems that have questionable sound quality than I am of less expensive systems.

And, the funny thing is, many less expensive systems are more well-balanced in their problems. They have minor problems in many areas, spread out so that the overall effect is not lopsided listening. So many people say XYZ system was great, when they are really referring only to the dynamics, or the warmth, or the amount of detail - because that was what they were focusing on - eclipsing the fact that the sound may have been bright and harsh sounding, or atonal, or whatever.

Our Job as Show Reporters

Which is fine. People should enjoy gems where and if they are lucky enough to find them. But it is our job, intrepid show reporters that we seem to have fallen into being, to report from the professional system designer point of view. ALL the facts, not just the rose colored ones. From the point of view of the best systems in the world. From the point of view of not just our particular prejudices, but of those of the 1000s of people we talk to and what THEY want to hear in a system.

People's Preferences Can Be Grouped Together

People have different preferences, but there IS a general consensus out there - with little islands off-shore of people who cluster together a little bit away from the mainstream. Which is great - we like to visit those islands a lot - (just not live there :-)

I think preferences most likely reflect the distribution of many natural phenomena, often represented by a Mandelbrot fractal, such as that to the right there - with the main body the black area in the lower right corner, and many offshoots all around the circumference, and offshoots of the offshoots, etc.

For example, one of the black offshoots might be people who only like Impressive sound. Another might be those who on care about how much Detail there is. Another is people who only care about Measurements. But the main black area there is people who do not care about the technology, or about any particular nuance, but want something that sounds good to them, fits in their room, and offers good value for the dollar.

But this focusing on only one attribute and ignoring others, and declaring 'best of show!'  [I made the mistake of visiting the forums, to see what people were saying.], I guess that is biological, built-in for the propagation of the species. Caveman to Cavewoman 'Oh honey, what beautiful... eyes... you have' ignoring her rotting teeth and saber tooth tiger scars. Awareness and higher brain functions would just get in the way of the propagation of bad equipment, right? ;-)

Good Sound is Not the Primary Goal of Most Exhibitors

The sad fact is, most exhibitors could care less. They want to present their products in the most politically correct and least expensive way.  And by 'most' read '90+%'.  This is true at all shows we have attended - which is now at 15 or so and all in North America. Systems are marriages of components - in these cases marriages of convenience, not love. It is shacking (not) but making as much  money as possible while minimizing effort is really popular.

What this means is that great components can be found in unbalanced sounding systems that will not give a listener a reasonable length of listening pleasure, say, for example, 2 years. (After a few years, in our fast paced society, many people will just get plain antsy and want to do something different).

Take the Linn room for example. They make (made) the CD12, still one of the best CD players ever made. Their Klimax amps are really cool and one of the best amps of that genre. But their room / system was not highlighting the potential of these pieces, but was instead a showcase for their product line. Visually it was awesome looking - but people can see that for themselves. But sonically, the overall result was not, in my opinion, going to give lasting pleasure to most people, and since this is my report, I am going to say so.

How the Photographs Are Processed

We started with 1523 photos, more or less. Each one is read into Photoshop. Parts of the image that do not contribute to communicating to people the atmosphere and / or equipment in the room are cropped (removed). Then lighting is looked at - the first goal is that the people can see what the photograph is about [sometimes this is difficult, especially for black equipment - of which there is a lot at a show]. Next, various techniques are used to make the equipment in the image as attractive as possible - 95% of the time I just tune things until they are so cool looking that I am tempted to buy them, regardless of how great they sound. The other 5%, when my photography is so poor that I still do not want to buy the thing, I try to make it look as happy happy as possible.

Best Of Show

Audio Federation

Personally, I was very, very happy with the sound in our larger room on Saturday and Sunday (and sometimes on Friday when we weren't playing it too loud). When we got the bass just right, I will stick my neck out (carefully :-) and be somewhat immodest to say that the sound in our room was significantly better than any other room at the show - and better than any system I have ever heard.

For a consistently honest competent reproduction of the music, that sounds like the music that was actually recorded, there isn't anything close. Opera to Techno to Classical to Rock & Roll to Country to Heavy Metal - notes in all their glory - dynamics, harmonics, frequency -  were not smeared, collapsed, mixed up, warped, smacked around, blown up, exaggerated, or short-changed.

It is not that other systems aren't good. Damn good, and offer the listener a lot of pleasure. And enjoyment of a particular system often has nothing to do with how well it reproduces music and everything to do with how much detail it has, or slam, or purity, or measured performance, etc. And [understatement alert] heaven knows not everyone can afford this system. But listen to it for an hour or so [I say an hour or so because it is helpful to hear songs you like and don't like, digital and analog,  loud and soft, well-recorded and .. uh... not so well recorded,  to get a feeling for just how robust the reproduction is with this system] and you will find that this is one of, if not THE, first system that just calmly reproduces music at audiophile quality and with no compromises.

Using world-class components, most of which are indisputably in the top three, if not at the very top, of their class, this system should sound pretty good. But is has taken us almost a year to find the right combination of components and cables and positioning and calibrations to start getting the system where we knew it was just shredding. Oh. Of course. It seems obvious NOW. Hopefully, by next year, we will have made more obvious changes to bring the system to an even more exalted level of shred.

The criteria for scoring the best of show is:

How much would I personally like to listen a particular system in our house for a total of one year, if we had no other systems, room for the system, and could afford the system.

1. IsoMike / Kimber / Soundlab* / Pass Labs (Floor 1)

Not very realistic, but moving the speakers closer together compared to last year increased the dynamics at the listening position and made this system kind of a fascinating study. Only heard relatively simple music on here, etc. etc. And there are the associated limitations of electrostatics not to mention the Pass Labs amps. But this I would like to have if we had an extra auditorium here at home. First thing I would do... use real amp stands :-)

2. Kharma* Mini Grand Ceramique / Tenor / MBL / Kubala Sosna (Room 537)

Think Kharma 3.2 with guts. Think some of that Tenor magic (not quite that old OTL magic, and now at a $75K price point). Needs a bigger room and a lower volume :-), and sounded way better with vinyl - but very, very nice.

3. YG Acoustics / Krell / DCS (Room 446)

Very even response. Somewhat cool, but not terribly so. Dynamics and soundstage a little uneven top-to-bottom, but less so than average. I liked listening to this system - and it would be great to be able to put on some Radiohead, Led Zepelin, Perfect Circle... see what it can really do :-). A word of warning: YG Acoustics is quite aggressively attacking people who talk about the real-world performance of their speakers.

Best Of Show Small Systems

Not including our Audio Note U.K. room, of course... which would actually score pretty high in the above list, but was really designed to be a modest, livable, loveable system and not an all out assault.

1. Odyssey Audio (Room 529)

One of the least expensive systems at the show at around $5K. But one of the more well-balanced. Most people in high-end audio have worse systems than this [well, I do not know that for sure, obviously, but this was certainly true at the show so one can extrapolate can't they?].

2. Audiomagus / Johnblue loudspeakers (Room 1021)

Maybe I was captivated by big sound tiny, tiny speaker - but the big sound, mostly all present and accounted for, and, hopefully, reasonable price makes this very interesting.

Anyway, on with the report... enjoy!

Detailed Reports and Photos

High Resolution (jumbo-sized) Photos with Commentary

Floor Number 9

Floor Number 10

Floor Number 11

Floor Number 2

Floor Number 1

Mezzanine

Floor Number 5

More Floor Number 5

Even More Floor 5

Floor 4

 

Medium Resolution (medium-sized) Photos with Commentary

Floor Number 9

Floor Number 10

Floor Number 11

Floor Number 2

Floor Number 1

Mezzanine

Floor Number 5

More Floor Number 5

Even More Floor 5

Floor 4

 

Low  Resolution (small-sized) Photos with Commentary

Floor Number 9

Floor Number 10

Floor Number 11

Floor Number 2

Floor Number 1

Mezzanine

Floor Number 5

More Floor Number 5

Even More Floor 5

Floor 4