The Unofficial Impressions About Meet Impressions Thread - Page 3  

No need to be overly sensitive. But to address your question... Cut is the same as remove (like cut and paste). Snuff as to extinguish the discussion in the official unofficial meet impressions thread where it would have been most visible and as you viewed it completely off topic discussing the dangers of highly positive/negative meet impressions. And I've seen similar discussions in other meet impression thread, but that isn't the point. You made an equitable decision. The GS-1000 served only as an example that seemed to veer off the the preceding discusion.

My personal take on meet impressions is consistent with most peoples' thoughts. There is only so much that can be gleaned from good or bad impressions at a meet, and at a BIG meet even less is possible in my opinion. Reading the impressions of others adds in another factor because the bias or preferences or past posting history of the impression-give all may shape how I read them.

At a meet, I normally do not even really come to any firm conclusions one way or the other unless a real opportunity presents itself. Last year, I got to borrow Shure E500s for an hour or so, and even though Wayne hogged them for much of that time, I could tell because of the nature of good IEMs that I liked what I heard. I bought them and still love them based on that impression. At this meet, I listened to the Woo Audio 5 amp for longer than any other and also at a time when most of the people in the room were gone. I also got a good chance to listen to foo_me's Zanden amp in the wee hours of the K1000 room and Tyll's fabulous demo of the Headroom Audiophile Desktop. Those things I am comfortable writing about.

The problem that I have is with people who post in a definitive tone about things they cannot possibly be definitive about. Some people -- including the OP -- make statements both positive and negative that are stated as gospel. The positive ones might lead some people astray into believing some attribute of some gear to be true. The negative ones, however, can have a very serious negative financial impact on a manufacturer. When stated as if it is a "truth" a comment that this amp is crap or those cans are terrible or either one is not worth the money, then the maker of that product can suffer the consequences multiplied by the number of times that trashing is viewed on an authoritative site like Head-Fi.

Now, the argument can be made that an overly positive impression can have a financial impact on a purchaser who based his or her decision on the view of the poster. The crucial difference to me is that the purchaser of an item has the option and the ability to seek other opinions, seek auditions, or to take other steps to inform themselves before making the buying decision. A vendor, however, is stuck with a steaming pile of poo on its name and its product's reputation, and their only hope is that more positive comments cover up the stench. Although personal relationships with the vendors -- one of the absolute highlights of this niche market for me -- factors into my thinking, that is the main reason I usually do not post negative comments or couch the negatives very clearly in their context.

Whether posting positive or negative comments we all have to think before we type. At least as importantly, readers need to think before they react.

Please don't tell me I'm being overly sensitive when in fact your have posted three or more times in two threads questioning what you now state was an equitable decision.

I just said no need to be... If you are not that's good.

I've been posting a lot today, but no more than three about this particular subject. I only posted one short sentence in the official unofficial thread since I freaked when the thread went from 40 pages to 2 pages (a normal reaction). In this thread my comments (that you keyed in on) were joking around in response to robm321's comments and not directed at you.

So cut ( ) and snuff ( ) or what words should I have used instead? (smilies included--as originally were to indicate banter).

Philosophical question: is posting meet impressions useful? Because half the reason to go to a meet is to try out new stuff for myself to find out what I might like and to make sure of what I won't like. How is this useful for other people? Just because I perceive the sound one way doesn't mean everyone else will perceive it that way. I don't know, IMO meet impressions are pretty useless, regardless of other factors like meet noise and uncontrollable associated components. It's the same thing as posting a review - what works for me might not necessarily work for someone else.

I posted HeadFest impressions primarily because so many people were demanding impressions, not necessarily because I wanted to. People always say the best way to decide if you'll like something is to demo it at a meet, which is still great advice. I might add on a footnote to that: Don't rely on other people's impressions, unless maybe they have the same sonic preferences as you.

I don't think meet impressions are all that much different than regular impressions, which most people post soon after receiving a new headphone, amp, source, etc.

My R10s, HD650s, K340s, SinglePower Extreme, Larocco PRII, and Hornet were purchased after hearing them at meets for only a short time in less than ideal conditions. My impressions were favorable at the time, and are moreso today. On the other hand, I purchased MS1s and Proline 2500s after reading numerous threads and/or posts, many by folks who had owned these headphones for quite some time and had been listening, one can assume, in ideal settings. I ended up trading one pair and selling the other not long after giving them a chance in my system.

Plainsong had a point that, in my mind, it is almost more important to look at who is posting the impression as opposed to what type of post (meet, review, enthusiastic I-just-got-these-today): How much experience with gear and what kinds does the poster have? Does he/she have similar tastes (check profile and previous posts)? Does he/she change opinions with each new purchase about previous purchases, etc.? Although not a meet thread, I bought the Heed Canamp in that first batch buy through Blackbird Audio after reading Pinkfloyd and mrarroyo's initial impressions as I felt comfortable with their opinions. I happily use my Canamp today on a near daily basis. Same with the Darkvoice I had for a while.

Also, look at the K1000 room thread. This thread is perhaps one of the more exciting, and excitement generating threads in a very long time. Suddenly, we're getting out of the F1/Sig 30 amp discussion deadlocks and opening up to serious system building discussions that only make me wish I had the money to participate (not just to own gear, but to find out how good we can really make these sound). I would like to see more of these kinds of impressions and maybe more mini meets set up that could focus on a specific headphone or amp and creating the ideal system for it. If the larger meets' impressions could bring about those (like the K1000 room seems to have done), it would be extremely beneficial to all.

R10 mini-meet anyone?

Yes, like if I'm saying I like a Corda amp and Beyerdynamics (unless I say I liked the dt880s, in which case, go "HUH??").

But for the OP, if you go back and read the entire impressions thread, you'll see some hurt feelings and some offense taken. I wasn't there obviously, but that's my impression of reading your impressions, that's all.

What would they say on audio asylum if someone from Stereophile said this?

This seems a wormy road to travel. If you're honest in reviewing equipment, the chips should fall where they may.

Or should they? I'll illustrate the point by analogy. This argument comes up for journalism in general. If we're talking about protecting a person from being harassed based on rumor, I can sympathize, but not when it merely stifles the truth to aid a commercial or government entity. Seems to me, the closest comparison is to a frivolous lawsuit, or false rumor with the intent to hurt a commercial interest. If there's no specific intent to harm, expecting this kind of softening of the truth seems a dangerous course. The analogy isn't perfect, but it's suggestive to me. Maybe it comes down to whether you prefer a free press to a so-called responsible press.

When I give my impressions, I try to include my biases so people know how to interpret what I hear. It also stresses the most important point we constantly make to newbies--trust your own ears. It's hard enough to review equipment based on your personal taste. Trying to put it in the context of how others might appreciate the equipment is already a stretch for my brain. I don't think I'm capable of being honest once I have to consider the consequences to the parties involved. On the other hand, I don't think I'm capable of being perfectly impartial, either. We expect a judge to be impartial. The same principle applies here. When we give our opinions, are we acting as judge and jury, or are we supposed to consider the consequences of passing sentence?

I think your post is right on the mark, Steve.

I read bad posts about HeadRoom all the time. I don't enjoy it, but I look at them quite vigerously. I learn a lot about us. Even if I think they're just wrong, I still look at it and think about why the poster might have felt that way. Maybe my marketing needs improvement.

Bottom-line: I WANT to hear about stuff when it doesn't satisfy. I would hate to have to read between the lines too much if I though someone was softening their true opinion. I'd hate to think I was missing comments that would travel anyway under Head-Fis collective breath. That would be problematic. It would be a waste if the convergence of the internet were broken due to politics.

If the competitors can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Tyll - Somehow I disagree with the highlighted portion of your post. Manufacturers who are smaller than your organization, or who are perhaps more sensitive to criticism, may actually be producing fine products that benefit our community. Losing them would be a sad loss to all of us. I think that aggressive encouragement throughout Head-Fi to communicate negative impressions of products directly to manufacturers, using PMs, could be highly effective.

All, I know is that I haven't heard a single headphone that I don't like the sound of. Only headphones that are a better value vs other headphones. That's just me. The only thing I can't stand is ear buds esp. stock ones that cut into my ears when I wear them

Very good point about the financial impact of poo, and I agree, which is why I think that negative impressions have to be all the more careful when being posted. But I don't think it should prevent posting negative impressions in general. It is the listener/poster's responsibility to bear in mind that impressions are only that (listening conditions, pyschoacoustical and pyschological influences, possibility of technical issues, listener bias, etc.), with some being more useful than the others, but it should also be his responsibility to post what he or she heard. The negligence of the first responsibility should not infer the failure to take the second one to heart.

Anyways, it would also take away some of the poster's credibility if impressions are posted in a definitive tone, although the reader has to be aware of it as well, which is another problem, but once again it doesn't imply that the responsibility to post what was heard on part of the listener/poster should be disregarded. I hope I'm making some sense here.

Simply put, for people like myself who can't make it to such a great meet, impressions on the Woo GES, for instance, are all that I can work with. And if it's bad, I really want to hear it. In such a situation I simply have to choose what is available to me at the time because these impressions make up a big part of my decision making.

Personally, I find it refreshing to read negative impressions because it displays honesty, if the way of putting is right, and I usually then value his or her opinions a bit more highly with regards to other impressions because there is a sense of relativeness. If it's all good, it doesn't tell me a lot or it might as well all be bad. One can argue that it's only a matter of preference anyways, but I also want to hear subjective goods and bads.

Finally, just to pick up the point that a lot more positive comments are needed to work away the stench: it only took one of your posts that the big Woo sounds great to even out granodemostasa's post on it, and even more since you said that you spent a lot of time with it. Granodemostasa's post provided information that might or might not be useful or valid, but imo that decision should be made by the reader, perhaps based on his previos posts or perhaps by his tone or other content, but at least it's there - which is more or less my basic stand point (i.e. hail to information).