Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Meet Impression and ethics.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Meet Impression and ethics. - Page 7  

post #91 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davesrose View Post
Exactly....it's been stated that John Grado was pressed into showing a prototype GS1000 at the headphone meet, months before it was actually going in production. It's a prototype that didn't have its kinks ironed out (and I'm not talking about SQ....who knows if the differences were because parts couldn't be mass produced). Granted, headphones are completely different then amps, and their sonic characteristics can change more dramatically with tweaking. All I'm saying is that I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that a prototype must be the same as the production model. Absolutely no product is like that. Anyway, if John Grado is reading this thread, he certainly won't be showing anymore prototypes now....no matter how much Head-Fi presses him


I wasn't at the meet, I haven't heard the GS1000 or prototype, and I'm not a huge Grado fan. So I guess I'm the one who isn't dissapointed that the prototype was indeed different then the final production run. I'm just pointing this out, because I know enough about production that prototypes are always going to be different then the final run. Aparently, others are saying that at the meet, John Grado was adament that the headphones he showed were prototypes. Maybe you have a point about the GS1000 write-up saying that the GS1000 was introduced at the Head-Fi meet. But you know, every company is guilty of making exagerated marketing claims.

Anyway, I'm done writing for tonight. My only arguement has been that you can't expect a prototype to be just like the production run. I hear you that you're dissapointed that the production GS1000 is a let down for you. At least there's no harm done returning it or selling it.
But, as a member of Head-Fi, I'm distressed when the name of our organization, and the opinions of its members as expressed at our International Meet, are used when making exagerated marketing claims. If Grado's claims, which cite our members' glowing views of its GS1000 product, are indeed exagerated, then an objection by Jude to John may be in order.
post #92 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeg View Post
But, as a member of Head-Fi, I'm distressed when the name of our organization, and the opinions of its members as expressed at our International Meet, are used when making exagerated marketing claims. If Grado's claims, which cite our members' glowing views of its GS1000 product, are indeed exagerated, then an objection by Jude to John may be in order.
First you said in 2 sentances what it took me 5 pages to say. and for that I am sorry but to sharpan the point a bit. We as head-fiers at the National reviewed the prototypes as prototypes that was there name at the meet.

John in his Grado Labs web-site call the headphones at the National GS-1000s
and goes on to except glowing reviews from Head-Fi .(I have to say this is where the bate and switch coment comes from Again I opolige to anyone offended by that phraze)

This has always been my point. Everyone agrees John has the right to sell what ever he wants. But he did change the sonics from the prototypes to the production models that is true read my e-mail from grado to me.

So John changes the sonic of the production model, changes the name to GS1000s all good by me. Then calls the prototypes at the meet GS 1000.

And my most important question is why use Head-fi reviews of a prototype (which at the national meet was identified as a prototype) to valadate the sonics of the GS1000. Head-fiers at the National did not have a GS 1000 at the meet. So how could they review it. see my point.
post #93 of 109
Quote:
I respectfully repeat my previously made point; i.e., that I ALWAYS expect final products to equal or exceed the performance of their prototypes.
But there's a mistaken assumption behind this assertion. Whether the production version is "inferior" to the prototype is just a subjective opinion, not an objective fact. I don't think it's accurate to state iron-clad that the production model under-performs the prototype.


Also, if, as Hirsch implies, the chief difference between the prototype and the production model is impedence, then we have to factor in reaction to, compatibility with, and synergy with the amp being used. The amp may have fovored the impedence of the prototype over the production model.

I'm not especially a Grado fan-boy, I really don't care for any of their cans *except* the GS1000 (I had a production version sample). It's the "un-Grado" to me. Anyway, so I'm not trying to defend them, just point out there are other factors that don't seem to be being considered here.
post #94 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl View Post
But there's a mistaken assumption behind this assertion. Whether the production version is "inferior" to the prototype is just a subjective opinion, not an objective fact. I don't think it's accurate to state iron-clad that the production model under-performs the prototype.
I agree with this and also subscribe to the position that there's a point when the «difference» is going in such a radical new direction that we can sustain the view that a product has gone in a less than optimal situation.

I have the Black Dragon balanced GS-1000 and reading this thread is only making me think that my GS-1000 could have ( and have been in the prototype forms) been different.

Did at some point a GS-1000 prototype was superior and conciously was rejected by Grado's Lab as a form of customer deception plan? I dont think they are perfect (I mean these guys in NY City who btw never return my very polite e-mails ) but they certainly are not that stupid.

Evolution in a product's life can be surprising.

Amicalement
post #95 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl View Post
Also, if, as Hirsch implies, the chief difference between the prototype and the production model is impedence, then we have to factor in reaction to, compatibility with, and synergy with the amp being used. The amp may have fovored the impedence of the prototype over the production model.
Actually, based on the performance of the two versions in the same amp with the same source and cabling, I'm convinced that there is a difference in efficiency between the one I heard at the meet and the production headphone I had bought, which may or may not have been due to impedance.
post #96 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl View Post
But there's a mistaken assumption behind this assertion. Whether the production version is "inferior" to the prototype is just a subjective opinion, not an objective fact. I don't think it's accurate to state iron-clad that the production model under-performs the prototype.
I totaly agree.

But different or the same (prototype V GS 1000) Grado labs said that the GS 1000 got great reviews from Head-fi at the NY national meet. Which was impossable because there was not a GS 1000 at the National meet.This is my point how can anyone dispute my point. It is? unethical Bad word I know. to tell a miss truth!


Quote:
Also, if, as Hirsch implies, the chief difference between the prototype and the production model is impedence, then we have to factor in reaction to, compatibility with, and synergy with the amp being used. The amp may have fovored the impedence of the prototype over the production model.

I'm not especially a Grado fan-boy, I really don't care for any of their cans *except* the GS1000 (I had a production version sample). It's the "un-Grado" to me. Anyway, so I'm not trying to defend them, just point out there are other factors that don't seem to be being considered here.
I think you have made some great points.
post #97 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genetic View Post
I agree with this and also subscribe to the position that there's a point when the «difference» is going in such a radical new direction that we can sustain the view that a product has gone in a less than optimal situation.

I have the Black Dragon balanced GS-1000 and reading this thread is only making me think that my GS-1000 could have ( and have been in the prototype forms) been different.

Did at some point a GS-1000 prototype was superior and conciously was rejected by Grado's Lab as a form of customer deception plan? I dont think they are perfect (I mean these guys in NY City who btw never return my very polite e-mails ) but they certainly are not that stupid.

Evolution in a product's life can be surprising. Amicalement
I totaly agree with you on all points. But the sonics is not the point. There was not a GS 1000 at the Meet so how can grado labs take credit for the great reviews on a headphone that was not evern built yet.
My point all along. Only point.The headphone reviewed was not a GS 1000 and you guys keep telling me this and I keep saying I know it is different they have every right to build what ever they want. Just dont take credit for a review of the prototype and call it the GS 1000 .
post #98 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hirsch View Post
Actually, based on the performance of the two versions in the same amp with the same source and cabling, I'm convinced that there is a difference in efficiency between the one I heard at the meet and the production headphone I had bought, which may or may not have been due to impedance.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Hirsch off topic a little. Do you think we could get Grado labs to build a limited edition of the prototypes like the limited additions of the HF-1 I think they are called head fi members put a $1500 or more price on them and John might sent some amount to his favorite charity? This would be the win win for all who would like the prototype sound a bit more and john can support the audiophile headphone comunity and those of us who can afford it can get a great product and give money back to a good cause.

This is if john has the parts to do this. Some one said he went back to grado and the next day he had a second set fo the prototypes maybe he has more parts for a limited edition.
post #99 of 109
1- the "new headphone" . . . the circumaural style with bagel pads, (this prototype), got great reviews at National

2- riding high on this excitement and energy, Grado labs works to transform this prototype into a production model, fully expecting to have it received as well as had been the prototype.

Now, Do not forget he is working on a concept here, a new grado style: circumaural. One with larger housings (and perhaps drivers?). A departure from the 'tried & true' designs of the past.

This would cause me to expect to encounter some unexpected results in response to minor changes.
These same changes, if made on the "old" supraural styles, might likely cause little (or less significant) changes if any. This is somewhat of "a new animal" and therefore less predictible based on the old/different models history.

There are a number of likely explinations, none of which I expect were driven by either greed or deceipt.

I think that energy and excitement mentioned in my #2 (top of this post) may have caught Mr Grado into the whirlwind of production preperation. During this process (as well as druing the actual mrocesses of toolmaking/line set-up and adjustment/production runs/adjustments/quality control) resulting in a change of presentation.

3- GS1000 gets produced, there is a difference in it's sound/presentation compared directly to the Prototypes. (The same prototypes he would have destroyed of locked-away had there been any intent to deceive, but instead were sold to members here making them available for future comparison.)

Now, regarding the OP's complaint . . . . I can see your point!
Quoting that the HP1000 was a hit at the National Meet, when it was only a prototype at the meet, (which has turned out to be different than the production models) would cause one to expect that statement to be somewhat misleading. Unless it makes a clearly distinction that the GS1000 did not receive rave reviews at Head-Fi Nationals, but it's prototype did.
I would classify this as overly excited, jubilant, "spin", and not meant to be particularly under-handed or unscrupulous.

With some minor word changes, his statement about the GS1000 being received well at the meet, could be made to be accurate and releive the objections stated in these posts.
"A prototype for a new Grado Series, a circumaural headphone which is a new direction for our company, was highly received at the National Head-Fi meet, thus generating a great deal of interest in when a production model may become available."
Perhaps Mr Grado will feel the same and modify it somewhat for clarification purposes. I expect it will help some here feel more comfortable with the situation.
post #100 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeg View Post
I also think that markmaxx's implied argument that a production unit should meet or exceed the performance of it's prototype, has merit.

I am certain John Grado agrees with this statement, which is why he continued to work on it. John's email clearly states that he believes what he did to the production model to be an improvement. If not 100% of the people out there agree that is an improvement, they are of course entitled to their opinion.

As to the press about the GS1000 being at the meet, I'll say this - 100% of the Head-fiers at the Meet and the Head-fiers who read the impressions after the meet knew that it was a prototype. Heck, it was called the RS1000 there, remember? So if anyone was NOT going to be misled about this fact, it would be us.

The only thing we didn't know is that John changed more than the name. Ok, so maybe the impedance, and whatever else made the proto sound different than the production. As mentioned before, changes from proto to production are almost a given.

So as a fellow Head-fier, maybe it's something to be surprised about, but not unexpected, and certainly not a subject of shock and indignation. Yes, your personal preference in sound might be for a proto sound instead of the production sound, but John didn't feel that way, and so the rest of us not named Jude or Bozebuttons will have to close that chapter. Fair enough?
post #101 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmaxx View Post
I totaly agree with you on all points. But the sonics is not the point. There was not a GS 1000 at the Meet so how can grado labs take credit for the great reviews on a headphone that was not evern built yet.
OK lets go ethical on this....

In your view the GS-1000 was not yet an existing product at the National Meet. According to this we can see at all positive National reviews as going toward a «possible» product wich was finally abandonned a short time later.

I wasn't at the National therefore I cant comment on the nature of the differences and the extent of these. Did the later changes to what become the GS-1000 were in fact big enough to qualifie it as a «completely different» product or did these changes were made to «improve» the headphones in a non essential/fondamental manner?

So if I understand correctly you asked an interesting question: by modifying the prototype did Grado Labs was forbidden to take credits from the National Meet reviews? Again it depends on the level of change and finding at what point we can say that the proto and the final product are indeed too differents to be considered as the same product.

My personal take on this: no matter how deep these changes were, Grado Labs was a bit imprudent in including these National «accolades» (and Jude impressions) on it's website.

In French civil law we could call it «des manoeuvres dolosives»....
(meaning: creating a reality distortion with the intention of making the buyer accept a sale contract based on non-existent caracteristics)

Amicalement
post #102 of 109
The extent to which a manufacturer takes responsibility for pre-production prototype reviews in relation to actual shipping product seems to vary from little to none.

However, the most positive aspect of this thread is that the Head-Fi community is further educated in the process of new product development, and to beware pre-production hype (or any hype/review for that matter).

Lesson learned.
post #103 of 109
Indeed, not a bad lesson to learn for when the HD700 creeps ever closer to production as well, which should have one of the biggest hype shows surrounding it. Although I have a feeling Senn might be a tad more deliberate in their (insert French phrase here) - remember when they presented the discontinued Orpheus system at that Euro show as an eyecatcher for their current production models? But I digress

Anyhow, when I get my GS1000, I'm going to promptly make it sound different than both Proto and Production - VWAP pads, anyone?
post #104 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahn View Post
Although I have a feeling Senn might be a tad more deliberate in their (insert French phrase here) - remember when they presented the discontinued Orpheus system at that Euro show as an eyecatcher for their current production models? But I digress

LOL....you could try: mise en marché machiavélique....


Amicalement
post #105 of 109
Sennheiser and AKG are pretty much a mainstream corporate company: ie they would never show a prototype to begin with. Grado Labs is a smaller "home-brew" type company, who has now learned the positives and negatives associated with showing a prototype before production.

For those that feel let down by the prototype sounding different then the production GS1000, it seems the only thing you can cite Grado for is the write-up on their website that has a claim that the GS1000 was introduced at the international meet. So if you feel like it's a diservice, then contact them and ask them to either delete that first sentence or change it to read "A prototype GS1000 was shown...". Jude already knows about the write up, I'm pretty positive, since his recommendation of the GS1000 is quoted on the site.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Meet Impression and ethics.