I thought I'd said what I had to say from the distance about Munich HighEnd 2025. Then reader Patrick threw a spanner into my worx with this email: Dear Srajan, in your pre-show cover of items that you were curious about in Munich, Aequo Audio's new speakers came first on your alphabetical list. I also read your background article on the chemistry behind their new cabinet building material. Like you I didn't attend Munich so sought out various online reports to learn more about Aequo's showing. I just came across this from Roy Gregory's report. It features in his Duck for Cover section: "With so many of the perennially over-achieving horn systems (at least as regards this category) mired in mediocrity this year (and with Silbatone debarred by dint of their Lifetime Achievement Award) the field was wide open for new contenders. The Wilson WAMM system put up a strong showing as did Electrocompaniet/Ø Audio. The smaller Aries Cerat/AudioNec set-up was certainly worthy of mention while newcomers Aequo Audio had an impressive(ly bad) debut. Paired with a Taiko Extreme server, Playback Designs transport/streamer and DAC and Westminster Labs electronics, listening to this system was like listening in a meat locker. Cold as charity and devoid of any spark of life or musical intent, this was just unconnected noise, shorn of its last vestige of harmonic warmth or human agency. Not so much Duck For Cover as Frozen In Place." Saying that he didn't like the sound is a massive understatement. My question to you is, doesn't this approach character assassination? If one has nothing nice to say, isn't it better to say nothing? I was curious what your journalistic sense of ethics makes of it because personally, I find it repulsive enough to strike Mr. Gregory from my monthly reading list. Thanks in advance, Patrick
Hmm. I'd have expected something like this from a newbie blogger trying to make a name by playing the 'brutal-honesty card' where nobody else would dare so he must be special. I did not expect it from old hand Roy. Mind you, I'm a self-made publisher. I have zero formal journalistic training so no accredited knowledge of its rules 'n' regs. Just applying common sense and my own sentiment, I do find this quote problematic indeed. What does it serve other than golden-ear posturing? The chosen language and listing of 'co-criminals' indeed feels like wilful negativity piled on by agenda. Why go out of one's way to hand out anti awards other than click bait? I'm rather with you that in the informal setting of show commentary where exhibitors deal with behind-the-scenes issues nobody else knows about, if one has nothing nice to say, saying nothing is much preferable. Would Roy verbally butcher a formal review sample in the same manner? If not, why do it with a momentary show sighting? Consider me befuddled. I'll check with Paul Rassin of Aequo to see whether for some reason, they were unhappy with the sound they made there. Show conditions can be brutal. Srajan
Hi Srajan, I didn't see that. To your question, our new Ensium sounded amazing, like a big non-resonant Ensis on steroids. We had the whole delegation of The Absolute Sound and Stereophile in our exhibit and every single one was incredibly impressed. Mr. Andrew Quint said our system was in his top two. The response from interested distributors, dealers and customers alike was tremendous so no worries, we were very pleased with our participation. Paul
I'm glad I checked in with you, Paul. I know that tastes in sound differ but those descriptions suggested a complete fail. I'm happy to hear that you and the visitors who actually talked with you thought the opposite. Srajan
Live rather than static show exhibits afford their visitors opportunities to sample systems they often couldn't in their own markets. They also open exhibitors up to criticism in social and online publications like gutted fish. The old adage "if it sounds too good to be true" should probably be expanded to "if it sounds too bad to be true". Having followed the genesis story of Aequo's new Diluvite models and reviewed their two earlier models, I had a hard timing believing they would sign off on sound from a meat locker. Whilst I presently only have Paul's word to the contrary, I side with his take on things over Roy's. But if we weren't there, we only have other people's impressions. On what basis do we decide whom to believe? Thoughts for a rainy day perhaps. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who calls Aequo newcomers when my review of their first speaker dates back to already 2016 hasn't paid attention. Now their bitter words taste more of agenda caca than genuine cocoa…
