Originally Posted by granodemostasa
Yea..... but for some reason you don't seem to take offense at overly enthusiastic meet impressions, just my bad ones. The "music, headphones, cables" comment was directed at my comparison between the b52 and apache... what i was trying to counter was people saying they sounded the same (which is what ray was trying to talk me into believing). I think they obviously sounded different.
You are right, i shouldn't make any real decision based on limited time with it... which is why i want to listen to it again. Nevertheless, meet impressions are just that, meet impressions and this is a meet impression thread, not a review thread. If people come in hear raving about it, and people make decisions to buy it off of that, it is no different than people withholding because someone says they were unimpressed by it.
and I have proclaimed it time and again... i don't sympathize with manufacturers, but I'll be happy to tout the B52's sonic virtues when asked. I'm not trying to hurt or help ray, I'm just saying what i think.
and I'm not just shooting off... nor do I think that my comment was overtly negative.
No, I totally agree with you. I don't think that your comments were overly negative. Sorry if I gave you that impression. I guess I was trying to be dramatic to make a point (by saying that you thought the B52 sucked the first time but now you think its great and that you thought the Apache sucked this time, etc). In fairness, those weren't your words at all, so I hope you won't take what I've said personally. That wasn't my intention at all. You didn't really say much, and were just being honest, which is all that anyone can expect.
In fact, the point that I was trying to make could just as easily have been made with any number of comments made by all sorts of different people in meet impressions threads (including my own comments about gear, as a matter of fact). What you've experienced with the B52 is a fairly common phenomenon with meet impressions.
Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about: when I first bought a pair of Ultrasone Edition 7 (and was the first and only member of Head-Fi to have done so at the time), I brought them to 3 different Head-Fi meets with me within the first 2 weeks that I owned them (to New York, then to Orange County, CA, then to a South Florida meet). Basically, I'd say that nearly everyone who heard them (including myself, the disappointed buyer of a very expensive item) thought they sucked!
The main problem, as it turned out, is that the character of these particular headphones (and as it turns out, most Ultrasone headphones) changes much more dramatically with an extended break in period than do almost any other headphones I've ever encountered. I mean, these Edition 7 really stunk right out of the box, and this is what everyone heard! They had an absolutely terrible reverb problem that was unmistakable. They actually sounded broken.
But after a long break in, they settled in quite nicely. Had I waited to bring them to meets until that time, I'm sure that nearly everyone who may have posted comments about them would have been very favorable. Essentially, what occured was massive misinformation, and then the Edition 7's got falsely labelled as being a terrible sounding headphone and not at all worth the price, etc.
Now the Edition 9 are out and they use all of the exact same parts as the Edition 7, and per Ultrasone, should sound identical. Guess what? Nearly all of the early Edition 9 reviews and impressions from people who had only heard them briefly were extremely positive. Suddenly, everyone at Head-Fi wanted to know more, and then as more and more confirming opinions came flooding in, people started to order them without even hearing them for themselves. Dare I say, for a high priced pair of headphones, they have been as close to a "flavor of the month" as anything since the L3000 and PS-1.
Same exact headphone as the Edition 7, which due to my neglect (initially, for not breaking them in) became known as a terrible sounding headphone. I made the further mistake of continuing with my negative comments about the Edition 7 because I didn't like the cheap looking cord on them, etc. But because I was convinced that they sounded bad, I put them aside and didn't bother to listen to them very often (or to even break them in for quite a long time).
When I finally did break them in and give them some serious listening time, all of a sudden they were an excellent sounding headphone in nearly every possible way. At that time, I wrote up a big review about them and how shocked I was to be hearing them sounding so good all of a sudden, but that bit of news got buried quickly. I doubt that most of the people who I had intitially turned off to the Edition 7 ever read what I wrote a year later about making such a big mistake by judging them too harshly too quickly.
Don't know if it made much of a difference to Ultrasone's Edition 7 sales, but I'm sure it couldn't have helped. I feel bad about it now, so I'm the last one who should be pointing a finger at someone whose opinion has flip flopped about a product that he didn't have a chance to spend much time with the first time.
So as I said in my initial post (and anyone who knows me can tell you I'm being sincere about this), no offense intended. It's just that when my mind gets on to something, I tend to take a bit of poetic liscence with the actual comments that I'm working from (and that triggered my thoughts to begin with). You did nothing wrong by stating what you thought about the amps you heard at the meet, good or bad. All I'm really saying is that meet impressions tend not to be as well developed as they might come across as being if you just look at the black and white words being expressed.