Each year I get a talkin’ to by *somebody* about my show reports and this year it was Channel Islands Audio (CIAudio) in the Von Schweikert room.

It started off by them accusing me of trashing their room sound. I tried to think of whether I had ever said ANYTHING about CIAudio in any show report. I am sure the confusion showed on my face [Neli says I look especially stupid when I am confused :-)].

So then the clarification arrived [to save me from looking stupid… or as stupid anyway] which was that I said their system couldn’t be taken seriously because it was driven by an iPod.

And then more clarification about how I only like tubed gear and Analog sources.

Well, that last is not exactly true, but I can understand how one might arrive at that conclusion.

And the statement about the iPod sounds exactly like something I would say.

At the time I said I was sorry, but we really had to decide how much ‘fidelity’ we were going to sacrifice in order to attract the iPod generation [the idea being, that if we sacrifice too much to get them, we will have won the battle and lost the war].

With some prompting, another person in the room indicated that they thought that the iPod with the Wadia dock sounded better sometimes than the Oracle CD player. We shall skip the discussion about whether the Oracle CD player is a good benchmark of high-fidelity or not and discuss something I think is a more general problem.

1. Almost every electronics manufacturer at the show has some kind of support for the iPod.
2. The iPod does not sound great when playing in a hi-fi system [hopefully we can agree on this]
3. The iPod generation is completely, absolutely, without a doubt absent from hi-fi shows, and we don’t hear much about them shopping up a storm at any high-end dealerships either

Now I am going to state some assumptions, otherwise this post will be as long as your typical online equipment review:

1. To attract a listener to the audiophile way of life they have to hear a system that sounds good.
2. Support for the iPod is a pre-requisite for the iPod generation who we want to transition to something better [there are technological methodologies that would help to transition them in other ways – like to a music server, with potentially much higher fidelity, but let’s continue…]
3. Making the iPod sound good in a good sounding system would be a home-run in this game of ‘save our industry from a lingering death’.

Just doing step 2 leads to failure to attract the iPod generation, and loses us some of the current generation of audiophiles as well, and this is where we are right now.

My proof comes with the experience I had in several rooms at the show, where, when I was in the room they played an iPod (or digital source) which was extremely bright and, in fact horrible in many ways – whereas other people whose ears I trust and who know my criteria – they heard a real source component and the sound was reportedly good to excellent.

This is plain stupid. In fact it is idiotic.

We would do better to attract the iPod generation by people bringing decent system source components and not looking strange, or even hostile, at young people when they want to play young music [you know, like the music WE LIKED when we were young? Duh].

Neli’s idea is that there could be an iPod docking station and lazy exhibitors are NOT to use it because they are too lazy to bring a real source component and CDs [or a turntable and box of LPs… unlike us lazy bones this year].Instead they should offer to plugin other people’s iPods and play THEIR music.

But this only works if it sounds better than them just sticking a couple of ear plugs in their ears. And if the exhibitor’s system is playing an iPod – and it sounds like poop – and the exhibitor happily grins and says “ain’t that great?” … what does that say about our entire hobby to a newbie. It says all we have in high-end audio is poopy sound and that they should spend their money on a bigger flat-screen instead.

So, now I not only reiterate that a iPod-fronted system can’t be taken seriously as hi-fi – but that, at shows, they are a threat to the hobby. And that includes laptops and music servers – which, with iPods, significantly increases the number of rooms that have megabuck equipment in them that sound horrible most of the time because they try to be ‘cool’ playing these sources that they cannot [yet!] make sound good.

So, let’s make this stuff [yes, it is COOL. No doubt about it. In fact we are eager to jump in with both feat.] sound good BEFORE we subject all these listeners to it, OK? Otherwise we have a repeat of the CD introduction – and we know what THAT did to our wonderful hobby.

Remember, CD Players were just as COOL, back in the day.

And they darn near killed high-end home audio.

OK.

I am not sure what good it will do. And it is not like I think the entire Audiophile press is corrupt – which I don’t.

But we have been the only ones doing a show report that talks about the sound for a long time – and, like the very very few honest news programs out there that have actual real facts [you know, from Reality] and lots of bad news – people just do not know what to think about our ‘odd man out’ show report so to speak .

I think the parallel is the Miss America contest [or Miss Universe, or Mr. Universe for that matter, although Schwarzenegger in his day was the clear winner]. An audio show for 99% of the press and attendees is a Miss Universe contests with no ‘talent competition’.

She walks out in a bathing suit, people vote on looks and their preferred measurements, and that is it.

At an audio show, people vote for what they think sounds best with respect to their preferences. That’s it. A beauty contest that is all about the eye of the beholder.

It is like a car magazine where everyone takes a test drive and they all vote based on appearance and their experience about which is the best car. Who cares to talk about what the car will be used for. Or safety. Or reliability. Or price/performance. Or suitability for the average person. Or maintenance costs.

It is a very shallow ‘opinion’ by someone with no vested interest – they will not have to marry Miss America nor purchase the car with their hard earned money.

Yeah, so maybe the press is populated by shallow people and shallow people read what they write and all is as it should be in a shallow world.

So where is the place for people like us, and I sincerely hope, some of you?

People who want to know what is the best – REALLY, HONEST TO GOD. People who want them ranked and their weaknesses and strengths pointed out in a clear, straight forward manner.

I mean, audio is so much easier than cars. A car might be ruled out by many people because the driver’s seat is just too uncomfortable for some unknown reason, that the head room is just 1/2 inch too low, the suspension is just a wee bit too stiff.

Things like this is audio: the speakers too heavy to get up the stairs, the design requires too much space and your room is too small, whatever are easy and obviosu for us all to deal with AFTER we know which is the better speaker and which is not.

Given a kind of an average over types of sound, a sound that is not so over the top in some areas that it will be off-putting to most people, what room sounds the best. It will have very high if not the highest marks in what makes a good sound reproducing system – and doesn’t do anything so bad that invalidates all the other high scores.

——————————

OK. Two thought experiments.

1.

Imagine an art show occurring in the Marriott. Each room has works by a single artist.

The press does not know the names of the artists. One of the rooms has a few unknown pieces by Picasso, a few unknown by Leonardo Da Vinci and the rest of the 100 rooms or so have art by local artists, some of which advertise in the magazines the press represents – so they are familiar with and know the artists and recognize their work.

Who gets best of show? What percentage give best of show to Picasso and/or Leonardo?

2.

Same art show. The names of the artists are posted on the doors to each room.

Who gets best of show. What order are the best of shows after the first 2?

—————————–

What does this mean?

It means that show reports are by and large useless [and I would expand this blanket statement to reviews as well].

The only cases where they are useful is when a reporter (when they have the ability to understand what they are experiencing) gets really excited about something they see [hey , that local artist COULD be the next Picasso].

As someone who came from the outside, thinking that as press I should report an accurate and honest account of what things sound like, well, I was the first one at the time (and I was clumsy and inexperienced) – and still the only one now.

A lot of people read the show reports, but they do not really like hearing bad news. Those real new channels only get 1%(?) of the listeners, and that is for presumably the same reason. Sure, I could accuse all the bad sounding rooms of being terrorists – and probably get my own cable channel – but I doubt if I could do it and keep from cracking up [laughing I mean :-)] at the blatant absurdity of this world.

So, do I continue bring bad news to people about how things really sound? It is not really ‘bad’, it is just that there is usually some bad and some good and some ho hum. It is not all BEST EVER like people have been trained to expect by the press.

Or do I put the real poop here in the blog, and let the masses see and learn about what is at the show without any independent coverage on Spintricity? I do like helping the ‘small guy’ get the word out – one of the reasons I do not talk much about the sound in their rooms unless it is actually better than expected – and this approach of segregating the show report would probably help them….as Spintricity show reports would probably get even more visitors that would then see the small guy’s wares.

A little rambling, I know.

But, as you might expect, this is a subject that I think about quite a bit.

————————

Summarizing:

*Preferences of the reporter have no place in a real show report – some sound is REALLY better and some is not for 90% of the listening public
*99% of the Press does not do their job
*Every system has some things it does not do perfectly
*Most people do not like to be reminded of reality
*Some people, however, will suffer facts in order to make informed buying decisions.
*All people are so inundated with lies and hype that they do not know what to believe
*Our show reports, now on Spintricity, is the only one [although Stereophile does darn good] to cover the small manufacturers

Our goals are two-fold: bringing audiophiles and manufacturers together (especially small ones, Musical Fidelty does not need our help). And to help our readers make informed buying decisions.

Perhaps these are best served by bifurcating the show report, putting analysis here on the blog, and leaving Spintricity to focus on helping connect audiophiles with cool equipment.

Opinions anyone?