Saw a good flick last night called, "Bottle Shock"
There's a great line in that film that comes to mind reading the all too familiar "pass the Grey Poupon" rhetoric I read here often.
Put a pair of great speakers in a small, floor-to-ceiling-tiled room and they will most certainly not sound "good", and few, if any, would want to spend any time listening to music in that room. To a lesser extreme a room can certainly obscure the attributes of any speaker, some more than others. Compare ten pairs of speakers in the bathroom setting I describe and I doubt very much whether anyone could tell that much about how each speaker distinguishes itself from the others as when set up in a more ideal environment that suited the specific speaker. Sure, you'll be able to glean some useful information from the comparison, but I don't think I would want to make a decision based solely on the information I came away with. Broadly comparing the rooms at CES with those at RMAF I personally thought that there were far more rooms sounding better at CES than at RMAF and I do believe the difference in the rooms being contended with had something to do with that. To some extent I'd agree though, that the differences are not so extreme in practice as to really obscure being able to discern important qualities of a speaker's performance. There are consistencies in performance that come to mind from one show to the other (Roger Sanders for instance - though I felt his speakers sounded great in both cases, I thought at T.H.E. show recently, they were actually more compromised by (?) than at RMAF so go figure). I would not, however, dismiss the room so flippantly...it almost seems like a contrarian fishing expedition to me. I don't see it as a mechanic blaming poor tools. A mechanic working to tune a Ferarri in a well-lit, comfortably heated, well equipped garage vs the same mechanic, same tools, tuning the same car in a cold vibrating room with dim lighting. Same tools, same mechanic, different environment = likely different results.
There's a great line in that film that comes to mind reading the all too familiar "pass the Grey Poupon" rhetoric I read here often.
Youre a snob, and it limits you
Put a pair of great speakers in a small, floor-to-ceiling-tiled room and they will most certainly not sound "good", and few, if any, would want to spend any time listening to music in that room. To a lesser extreme a room can certainly obscure the attributes of any speaker, some more than others. Compare ten pairs of speakers in the bathroom setting I describe and I doubt very much whether anyone could tell that much about how each speaker distinguishes itself from the others as when set up in a more ideal environment that suited the specific speaker. Sure, you'll be able to glean some useful information from the comparison, but I don't think I would want to make a decision based solely on the information I came away with. Broadly comparing the rooms at CES with those at RMAF I personally thought that there were far more rooms sounding better at CES than at RMAF and I do believe the difference in the rooms being contended with had something to do with that. To some extent I'd agree though, that the differences are not so extreme in practice as to really obscure being able to discern important qualities of a speaker's performance. There are consistencies in performance that come to mind from one show to the other (Roger Sanders for instance - though I felt his speakers sounded great in both cases, I thought at T.H.E. show recently, they were actually more compromised by (?) than at RMAF so go figure). I would not, however, dismiss the room so flippantly...it almost seems like a contrarian fishing expedition to me. I don't see it as a mechanic blaming poor tools. A mechanic working to tune a Ferarri in a well-lit, comfortably heated, well equipped garage vs the same mechanic, same tools, tuning the same car in a cold vibrating room with dim lighting. Same tools, same mechanic, different environment = likely different results.