3 arena hall and Oates sound quality

Wrongway1985

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

3Arena specifically promote the acoustics of their venue on their website "A stunning, state-of-the-art entertainment venue, with the kind of world-class acoustics that great music deserves". If you're going to promote it, you have to deliver it.

This goes back to sound being subjective, as you know promotional tools are used to flog a product "9 out of 10 dentists recommend", "fight of the century" these are not entirely true most of the time.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

H&O didn't 'give up their time'. This wasn't charity - they are providing a service to paying punters.

They came to Dublin specifically to play this show and they did, sadly it was a stinker.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The old 'best of luck in securing other acts' is BS too. This is a question of adequate quality. The vast majority of acts provide adequate quality sound - nothing like the quantity and extent of complaints that arose for this one act at this one gig. These acts would have no problem signing up to a contractual commitment to that adequate sound, because they do it every night.

While I agree with everything there, the first part...it's not BS by any means repercussions for very possible problems would be off-putting particularly in our case it's very expensive to play here logistically in the first place.

Mrs Shuttleworth

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Something went wrong here. The sound was good for the support act but not for the main act. The sound was good for the main act at the Monday gig, but not the original gig. Someone screwed something up.

At the risk of throwing a curveball into the thread, I was at Steely Dan Monday and parked in exactly the same spot as for Hall & Oates. Being conscious of the complaints about Sunday I didn't think Monday's sound was in any way different and in fact I thought Donald's vocal, Wurlitzer and the backing vocalists were very muted.

It seems as if the bass and kick drum are cranked to the max in the 3Arena for acts that aren't straight rock and it drowns out the other elements.

The buzz on Sunday down there it has to be said was insane. The Monday felt like a high class music lesson in the tech in the depths of winter.

Royal Blood later this month with only two lads will be a real acid test.

AndrewJRenko

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

This goes back to sound being subjective, as you know promotional tools are used to flog a product "9 out of 10 dentists recommend", "fight of the century" these are not entirely true most of the time.

Misleading advertising is illegal, and could lead to a compensation claim in itself;

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/consumer_advertising.html

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

While I agree with everything there, the first part...it's not BS by any means repercussions for very possible problems would be off-putting particularly in our case it's very expensive to play here logistically in the first place.

It is hard to see that this would have a significant cost impact. The vast majority of acts in the vast majority of venues get the sound sorted without difficulty the vast majority of the time. The extra cost arising from guaranteeing this ALL of the time should be fairly minimal, and would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall cost.

And in fact, there would be a long term payback, as with most quality improvements. There will be people who will NOT go back to the Point after that mess, or will not go to Hall and Oates again. This small investment in quality would avoid that kind of alienation.

Wrongway1985

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Misleading advertising is illegal, and could lead to a compensation claim in itself

A brief description of their assessment of the venue is hardly misleading, you know full well a compensation claim would fall well on it's arse I don't know why you insist on suggesting such things tbh.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It is hard to see that this would have a significant cost impact. The vast majority of acts in the vast majority of venues get the sound sorted without difficulty the vast majority of the time. The extra cost arising from guaranteeing this ALL of the time should be fairly minimal, and would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall cost.

And in fact, there would be a long term payback, as with most quality improvements. There will be people who will NOT go back to the Point after that mess, or will not go to Hall and Oates again. This small investment in quality would avoid that kind of alienation.

I was referring to punishing acts financially for being deemed not complying to having adequate quality as was suggested by you.

AndrewJRenko

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

A brief description of their assessment of the venue is hardly misleading, you know full well a compensation claim would fall well on it's arse I don't know why you insist on suggesting such things tbh.

There is no basis to suggest a claim for refund (not compensation) would fall on its arse. It really could go either way. There is a chance that the promoter would simply go ahead with a refund, as the cost of refund would be less that the cost of attending the Small Claims Court with a solicitor. This would especially be the case if you get your claim in early, before a flood of claims.

And if they do contest a claim for refund, there is a chance they would lose that contest. How big a chance? I don't know and I'm pretty sure you don't know either.

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

I was referring to punishing acts financially for being deemed not complying to having adequate quality as was suggested by you.

Yep, so was I. It is would be a very minor cost issue, given that most acts in most venues provide adequate quality most of the time.