Andrew Robinson: Only Positive Coverage to Save the AV Industry (Agree/Disagree)?

[gene]

Andrew Robinson, formerly of Emotiva and now an independent producer, says negative style reporting is hurting the AV industry. He singles us out b/c of our recent critical coverage of Dolby Atmos and basically implies that only positive coverage should be done to save the shrinking and fragile AV industry.

Do you Agree or Disagree?


My Response to the Bogus Dolby Atmos "Discussions" | The Emotiva Lounge

 

[macddmac]

Does a negative auto, appliance, or TV review in CR hurt those industries? Nope, makes them go back and improve their products or face the consequences (loss of market share etc.)
The audio industry is no different, and we shouldn't sugar coat product deficiencies. Otherwise, we as consumers will be saddled with less than satisfactory products and therein lies the real threat to this market.
Get a clue Andrew!
my .02.
Cheers, Mac

 

[GranteedEV]

I think "the problem" with the AV industry is much, much more deep-rooted than "coverage" - whether positive or negative. Panasonic's ST60 plasmas just a year ago were considered the best deals in televisions ever including a heavy-hitting review by the ever-familiar CNET.

WHat happens?

Panasonic pulls out of the plasma game less than a year after those rave reviews.

 

[markw]

So critical thinking and honestly stating contrary opinions is harmful to this industry? I wonder if the boutique cable industry knows about this.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

I do agree search engine optimization, content marketing and 'content optimization' can be irritating when its readily visible or forced.

 

[zieglj01]

Positive coverage will not save the shrinking AV world - Bose still sells a whole lot of speakers,
Even the negative comments will play on the human mind - and people still buy their products.

It is mainly the economy and broken down families that are playing a big part in all this. Plus
the Hollywood movies with more artificial sound effects and poor weak story plots, can wear
you out. Also some of the theater sound is too bright and over-bearing.

Plus some of the more expensive electronics, are not much better than the budget friendly items.
Also the competition from the likes of bluetooth, computer HT set-ups and different apps, are
playing a big part and drawing attention.

Now AV World and Hollwood, time to focus a little more on getting the family united. Plus make some
good movies where there is some type of story and interest - even regular TV is starting to get crazy,
then blend the action in, so it will not be mainly cheap thrills.

While I may or may not agree with everthing that Audioholics does - I respect what they are trying
to do, and their right to free voice. In the mean time, I will see if the turtle gets across the street.

Now does Atmos want a big free marketing push - well be confident and make sure everything is
right (set). Send the stuff to Audioholics, let Gene review them - I believe if he is wrong, then he
will admit it. Then he and Hugo can fancy themselves up, make sure their hair is straight - then go
on YouTube and announce it to the world, and eat the bowl of crow live.

 

[gene]

Positive coverage will not save the shrinking AV world - Bose still sells a whole lot of speakers,
Even the negative comments will play on the human mind - and people still buy their products.

It is mainly the economy and broken down families that are playing a big part in all this. Plus
the Hollywood movies with more artificial sound effects and poor weak story plots, can wear
you out. Also some of the theater sound is too bright and over-bearing.

Plus some of the more expensive electronics, are not much better than the budget friendly items.
Also the competition from the likes of bluetooth, computer HT set-ups and different apps, are
playing a big part and drawing attention.

Now AV World and Hollwood, time to focus a little more on getting the family united. Plus make some
good movies where there is some type of story and interest - even regular TV is starting to get crazy,
then blend the action in, so it will not be mainly cheap thrills.

While I may or may not agree with everthing that Audioholics does - I respect what they are trying
to do, and their right to free voice. In the mean time, I will see if the turtle gets across the street.

Now does Atmos want a big free marketing push - well be confident and make sure everything is
right (set). Send the stuff to Audioholics, let Gene review them - I believe if he is wrong, then he
will admit it. Then he and Hugo can fancy themselves up, make sure their hair is straight - then go
on YouTube and announce it to the world, and eat the bowl of crow live.

Actually I already said I'd eat my own hat on youtube if the Atmos speakers convince me of discrete elevation. I also plan on measuring them and the HRTF response at the AV receiver end.

BTW I just finished a very detailed article about Atmos Enabled speakers with some industry expert feedback included. It's currently under peer review and will publish next week.

I discovered something a bit troubling about Atmos speakers that will be revealed in my article. I look forward to seeing how Auro 3D and DTS UHD deal with this and how consumers will react when its time to upgrade again.

 

[gene]

I do agree search engine optimization, content marketing and 'content optimization' can be irritating when its readily visible or forced.

He puts forth a lot of red herrings and to my knowledge he's never run a high traffic site so he doesn't speak from experience. I could make ALL of our content void of opinion and purely scientific. It would still get the same results SEO wise b/c we have a clue how to get our articles well indexed on the search engines. We write the articles the way we do b/c we write based on facts and our educated opinions. By comparison Andrew's writing is purely subjective with no measurements, analysis or independent verification. It's always interesting when the pure subjectivist criticizes us for our methods.

Don't forget Andrew was also involved on the HTR website that defended Lexicon shoehorning an Oppo Blu-ray player into a fancy casing while we instead reported objective facts with measurements on what was being done.

 

[zieglj01]

Actually I already said I'd eat my own hat on youtube if the Atmos speakers convince me of discrete elevation.

Then put the crow in the hat - use the hat as a bowl, it will be better for live YouTube TV.

 

[jcparks]

hmmm... this bothered me cause he gave my speakers such a glowingly awesome review...

 

[gene]

hmmm... this bothered me cause he gave my speakers such a glowingly awesome review...

If you're happy with your speakers, who cares about his or anyone's opinion? Consumer Reports slammed the new Lexus IS250AWD but I drive an IS350F and love it

BTW CR didn't provide any objective measurements on the car but C&D and MotorTrend did and gave the car very favorable reviews. Food for thought.

 

[jcparks]

Oh I am totally satisfied with my speakers... no doubt. I think they were an awesome set of entry level speakers to open my eyes a little and get me into the hobby. I just feel a little duped because his review was such a big factor in my decision to buy this set in particular. The review in question could have been completely heartfelt and honest... but reading something like this really does hurt his credibility.

 

[Andrew Robinson]

Greetings Forum Members,

I realize I'm a visitor in your house, so thank you. I appreciate Gene opening this discussion up to you and this forum, however, I believe my larger point may be misinterpreted. I do not believe all AV coverage going forward needs to be purely positive as the title of this thread would have you believe. I just believe that one should not, or at least try hard not to, pass judgement, good or bad, prematurely. Gene and the staff at Audioholics are smart, capable people who obviously know their stuff, however, that doesn't excuse the fact that no one on the Audioholics staff has heard Dolby Atmos in the home, for themselves. And still they persist on drawing a great many conclusions without having first-hand knowledge or experience on the subject. Had Audioholics or Gene himself demoed Atmos first and come away disliking it, then I would take no issue with any criticism, jab or whatnot that he cared to lob in Dolby's direction. But to lob based on no first-hand experience is, in my opinion, irresponsible. And Gene is not alone, all publications do this from time to time, even I have done it in my 10 plus years working in and around this industry. It's human nature to a certain extent. This was the point I was trying to make in my article, for it is this type of reporting or pot-stirring that can, over time, damage the hobby.

If any of you have questions, comments or concerns and would like to share those with me here on this forum, I'm open to any and all discussion. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Andrew

 

[Andrew Robinson]

If you don't mind me asking, what speakers did I review that you later bought? If you're happy with them (the speakers) then that is all that matters, for that is a conclusion you came to on your own. Perhaps I turned you on to a particular speaker, but I can't make you love it. I hope you continue to enjoy them.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

He puts forth a lot of red herrings and to my knowledge he's never run a high traffic site so he doesn't speak from experience. I could make ALL of our content void of opinion and purely scientific. It would still get the same results SEO wise b/c we have a clue how to get our articles well indexed on the search engines. We write the articles the way we do b/c we write based on facts and our educated opinions. By comparison Andrew's writing is purely subjective with no measurements, analysis or independent verification. It's always interesting when the pure subjectivist criticizes us for our methods.

Don't forget Andrew was also involved on the HTR website that defended Lexicon shoehorning an Oppo Blu-ray player into a fancy casing while we instead reported objective facts with measurements on what was being done.

Nod. I meant, if I take Andrew's article, and completely disect it, the only point he comes close to making that I agree with is - and he doesn't even really get there, is: When SEO/content marketing/etc/etc is too aggressive, it becomes irritating. That was the ONE semi-point he almost touched on that had any merit.

I'm speaking generally too, not just Audioholics. If Audioholics bothered me that much I'd probably not be here hehe. I think you've got a pretty good balance. You have to do what you have to do to run the site and have it support the digital infrastructure (bet you pull some bandwidth and use some IOPS!), the staffs time, and also make money. I have no gripes with that.

I argue that a lot of content manipulation isn't very effective. Writing interesting articles is. Also, to your point, if you really wanted to drive traffic to the site, the search term you'd pick would NOT be 'Dolby Atmos' hehe. At least in the short run.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Had Audioholics or Gene himself demoed Atmos first and come away disliking it, then I would take no issue with any criticism...

Oh, I'm sure you and some people would still criticize even if Gene and everyone had demoed Atmos a million times.

If you haven't realized by now that there is always more than ONE side to every story, then you're in the wrong business. I figured this out when I took a Debate class in high-school.

On the plus side, I have read some of your reviews, and I agree with most of your positive opinions (including Definitive Tech BP7000SC, Crown XLS2000, B&W Diamond, etc.). There are many good things out there for sure. Probably more good than bad. But it's okay to disagree.

 

[Adam]

I don't agree that positive coverage should be given if it isn't believed. If the emperor has no clothes, don't compliment his shirt.

Also, I don't know Andrew and haven't read any of his articles to my knowledge, but I do think his first post here was courteous and well stated. I agree that it's better to reserve judgement until you've had a chance to try something out.

Speculation, though, is just fine. Often times, people rave about something new coming out before they have any real idea of if it's going to be any good, and I have no problem with people saying why they think it won't be any good. I'm a big boy and can make up my own mind. I've even got my big boy pants on. Well, shorts. It's summer...

 

[rojo]

Greetings Forum Members,

I realize I'm a visitor in your house, so thank you. I appreciate Gene opening this discussion up to you and this forum, however, I believe my larger point may be misinterpreted. I do not believe all AV coverage going forward needs to be purely positive as the title of this thread would have you believe. I just believe that one should not, or at least try hard not to, pass judgement, good or bad, prematurely. Gene and the staff at Audioholics are smart, capable people who obviously know their stuff, however, that doesn't excuse the fact that no one on the Audioholics staff has heard Dolby Atmos in the home, for themselves. And still they persist on drawing a great many conclusions without having first-hand knowledge or experience on the subject. Had Audioholics or Gene himself demoed Atmos first and come away disliking it, then I would take no issue with any criticism, jab or whatnot that he cared to lob in Dolby's direction. But to lob based on no first-hand experience is, in my opinion, irresponsible. And Gene is not alone, all publications do this from time to time, even I have done it in my 10 plus years working in and around this industry. It's human nature to a certain extent. This was the point I was trying to make in my article, for it is this type of reporting or pot-stirring that can, over time, damage the hobby.

If any of you have questions, comments or concerns and would like to share those with me here on this forum, I'm open to any and all discussion. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Andrew

Hey Andrew,

Welcome, and thanks for stopping by to clarify your meaning.

Gene and other AH contributors' observations about Atmos make a lot of sense. If they were denigrating Atmos out of spite or bandwagon jumping, I daresay we forum members would have put them in their places very quickly. I like to think we are critical of the information we read, valid or not.

Truth of the matter is that Gene et. al. have expressed a positive interest in Atmos from an object-oriented mastering standpoint. Allowing engineers to develop one mix to rule them all sounds like a great thing. Atmos in the studio is exciting.

It's Atmos in the home that causes concern. There are so many potential problems with it that it becomes a tech support nightmare. What happens when someone wants Atmos height effects in a room with a vaulted ceiling? With a ceiling fan? With an irregular-shaped room? With an Atmos-enabled speaker bar? And, perhaps of most relevance as a response to your post, how would the AH staff's having listened to a well-designed and implemented demo address any of these concerns? Such demo-room conditions rarely exist in the wild. Speaker placement is often a dubious ordeal even with a simple 5.1 system for a great bulk of home users. And now we have to help users improve their bank shot off the ceiling? I shudder at what lies ahead.

I think Dolby's biggest problem is that they've been pushing the height effects thing, having us all believe that Atmos = height effects, which I don't think is accurate. I get it that a lot of R&D went into the speaker beanies (you know, those 3" paper cone drivers in a sealed plastic enclosure that sit on top of your grown-up speakers) method of producing height effects. But Dolby marketing should've downplayed that to an optional feature, take it or leave it; not as the main attraction. In my mind, the main attraction is the single mix for any speaker config, whether 3.1 or 24.2. That's what's wrong with Atmos. The marketing has been misguided thusfar. What Dolby should've focused on was, "Hey! You geeks with 11.1 setups! You no longer have to rely on virtual surround modes to upmix a 5.1 mix. Rejoice! Native multichannel for as many channels as you have!"

Perhaps if Dolby had been clear about this, AH's predictions wouldn't have been so dire. As things are, it's no wonder criticism of Atmos is so rampant.

But I'm not clear on how criticism of Atmos is going to hurt Dolby or the industry as a whole. It's not like AVR / Prepro manufacturers are going to refuse to implement it. They get to deal with Dolby's scientists, who I have a suspicion have a better idea of how things are supposed to work than Dolby's timeshare salesmen. And it's not like consumers are going to boycott devices containing Atmos features. Atmos will be in the home, criticisms or not. But it could just be that Gene and the Gang's criticisms result in improvements of implementation. Paradigm or RBH might read the criticisms and say, "You know? There's a market for higher quality speaker beanies. The ones that are out now, suck. Let's make some good ones."

Just my $0.02.

 

[Steve81]

I just believe that one should not, or at least try hard not to, pass judgement, good or bad, prematurely. Gene and the staff at Audioholics are smart, capable people who obviously know their stuff, however, that doesn't excuse the fact that no one on the Audioholics staff has heard Dolby Atmos in the home, for themselves.

Hi Andrew,

I think it's worth pointing out that most of our critiques are centered around practicality as opposed to sound quality.

I don't think it's a big leap to say that most people aren't going to jump on the bandwagon of in-ceiling / ceiling mounted speakers, regardless of how much better such a system might sound over a conventional 5.1 setup. It's also fair to point out that Atmos HTiB systems aren't a great idea because:

a. HTiB's generally suck. Is it better to add more of the same with some additional speakers and amp channels, or go for a qualitative upgrade and save Atmos for later?

b. As pointed out in Tom's DOA article, have you seen how most people set up their HTiBs? It's not pretty...

Alright, so what about our mockery of Atmos Elevation speakers? There are a couple facets to this. First and foremost, several of the options we've seen thus far are simply garbage. I don't need a demo to know the inherent issues behind utilizing a 3" paper cone full range driver. That said, I'm willing to reserve judgement on the technology as a whole until I hear "better" implementations. Now the other facet is/was information, or the lack thereof. Manufacturers started announcing Atmos gear including these Atmos speaker modules in late June give or take, but precious little was released about how these things worked. All that was being said at the time was "hey look, we're firing some drivers up at your ceiling to create virtual height channels." If that's all you're going to tell us in your press releases...yeah, you're going to get mocked.

 

[markw]

To be honest, for most of the world, 5 (or 7).1 is more than adequate and it's hard enough to place into a normal familys environment, much less trying to correctly place these additional speakers which depend on room reflections.

It's just another ploy in order to get Joe Sixpack to convince himself he needs a new toy and to give the audio industry another shot in the arm. How many REVolutaniary improvements have there been since discrete digital replaced matrixed DPL. OK, Bly-Ray (and it's need is debatable to many) is one but, on the whole, once one gets to that point, most everything else is simply a ploy to spend a lot more to replace a perfectly fine, working system for one with a minor improvement. It's well beyond the where the PODM is almost flat. One would think that 3D has proven that out. Let's not even talk about SACD.