R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.  (Read 29916 times)

crm0922

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #105 on: November 27, 2006, 06:19:06 PM »

wwittman wrote on Sun, 26 November 2006 15:25

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 24 November 2006 08:18

...(Fletcher and I) admit we made a mistake by allowing Dan to disassociate his forum from reality - that we work in a business that is almost entirely subjective and to divorce the 'art and science' of design from how it actually sounds doesn't help much...



sounds utterly reasonable to me.
In fact, after being told once or twice that my experience didn't matter because the forum wasn't "about" what things sound like... that's why i just stopped ever looking at that board.

I think i said, in one of my last posts there, that in my view the great technical people explain why we hear what we hear; the not so great ones try to tell us what we hear is "wrong"




You were simply asked to discuss your subjective opinions elsewhere.  The forum was about the technical side of things.  I don't understand why this was offensive or difficult to abide by.

Is it just unbridled arrogance that makes people unable to "stick to the facts" and unable to comprehend how some of us might not care about what your subjective opinion is?

Chris
Logged

crm0922

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #106 on: November 27, 2006, 06:21:40 PM »

wwittman wrote on Sun, 26 November 2006 13:14



and:
anyone who thinks 96k digital recording doesn't sound better than 44.1 needs to spend less time selling gear and moderating forums and more time making records (or watching people make them)




This is exactly my point.  Having a place to get away from entirely subjective, blanket statements like this was really nice.

Chris
Logged

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #107 on: November 27, 2006, 06:48:15 PM »

danickstr wrote on Sun, 26 November 2006 16:57


And I think Dan's point about converters was 96/88.1 vs 176.2/192 was not a necessary jump.


NO, I think his "point" had to do with 96k being "not really better" than 44.1

or something along the lines of there being "no REASON it should be better..."


Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #108 on: November 27, 2006, 06:52:23 PM »

crm0922 wrote on Mon, 27 November 2006 18:19

You were simply asked to discuss your subjective opinions elsewhere.  The forum was about the technical side of things.  I don't understand why this was offensive or difficult to abide by.



and I did so.

and ultimately the 6 people who think this makes for a better discussion had a great time.

I guess I also benefited by "getting away from" snarky passive agressive comments like yours.
huh?

If I hear something as "better", telling me, in essence that,  I'm "wrong. it's not" is pointless.

That's not being "technical". That's being arrogant.

Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

crm0922

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #109 on: November 27, 2006, 09:11:19 PM »

wwittman wrote on Mon, 27 November 2006 18:52

crm0922 wrote on Mon, 27 November 2006 18:19

You were simply asked to discuss your subjective opinions elsewhere.  The forum was about the technical side of things.  I don't understand why this was offensive or difficult to abide by.



and I did so.

and ultimately the 6 people who think this makes for a better discussion had a great time.

I guess I also benefited by "getting away from" snarky passive agressive comments like yours.
huh?

If I hear something as "better", telling me, in essence that,  I'm "wrong. it's not" is pointless.

That's not being "technical". That's being arrogant.




I don't think the comment was passive-aggressive.  It was meant to be taken literally, so I'm not sure how that could be passive-aggressive.

There were a lot more than 6 people involved in the clocking and sample rate discussions.

Without a proper ABX double blind test, comments about 96k "just sounding better" are totally meaningless in real life.  Do you really disagree here?

Chris
Logged

Ashermusic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 684
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #110 on: November 27, 2006, 09:27:18 PM »

wwittman wrote on Mon, 27 November 2006 23:48

danickstr wrote on Sun, 26 November 2006 16:57


And I think Dan's point about converters was 96/88.1 vs 176.2/192 was not a necessary jump.


NO, I think his "point" had to do with 96k being "not really better" than 44.1

or something along the lines of there being "no REASON it should be better..."





What I took form the discussion is that  above 60 there were things gained but also things lost so around there would be the ideal.

I don't think he really was  that negative about  96 but 192 he dismissed as  marketing hype, which it surely is.
Logged
Composer, Logic Pro Certified Trainer, Level 2
Author of "Going Pro with Logic Pro 8"

www.jayasher.com

Ashermusic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 684
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #111 on: November 27, 2006, 09:30:45 PM »

wwittman wrote on Mon, 27 November 2006 23:52

crm0922 wrote on Mon, 27 November 2006 18:19

You were simply asked to discuss your subjective opinions elsewhere.  The forum was about the technical side of things.  I don't understand why this was offensive or difficult to abide by.



and I did so.

and ultimately the 6 people who think this makes for a better discussion had a great time.

I guess I also benefited by "getting away from" snarky passive agressive comments like yours.
huh?

If I hear something as "better", telling me, in essence that,  I'm "wrong. it's not" is pointless.

That's not being "technical". That's being arrogant.




Well count me as one of the six.

There are a gazillion forums where people can talk about what subjectively they think is better.

Dan would frequently say and I am paraphrasing, "I am not telling you that you  do not hear what you hear and think is better I  am only telling you that there is not a scientific reason to support it so something else must be going on."

I learned a lot from Dan and his forum.
Logged
Composer, Logic Pro Certified Trainer, Level 2
Author of "Going Pro with Logic Pro 8"

www.jayasher.com

Tomas Danko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #112 on: November 27, 2006, 09:47:02 PM »

Mr. Lavry pointed out that theoretically one should not need more than 44.1 kHz.

However, in reality implementation will change things as always. And he was up front regarding this, stating a higher sample rate due to practical reasons in respect to this.

Mr. Lavry said that around 50-60 kHz would be good, but in the real world people are already using 96 kHz as a standard and since it's the closest figure that's what he does.

He never said a converter will not sound better at 96 kHz compared to 44.1 kHz, in practice.

Now, enter the statement that Mr. Lavry allegedly insisted on having his own CD mastered at 192 kHz and THAT is one helluva can full of worms.  Rolling Eyes
Logged
http://www.danko.se/site-design/dankologo4s.gif
"T(Z)= (n1+n2*Z^-1+n2*Z^-2)/(1+d1*z^-1+d2*z^-2)" - Mr. Dan Lavry
"Shaw baa laa raaw, sidle' yaa doot in dee splaa" . Mr Shooby Taylor

studiojimi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1232
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #113 on: November 27, 2006, 09:47:49 PM »

Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 27 November 2006 18:27


I don't think he really was  that negative about  96 but 192 he dismissed as  marketing hype, which it surely is.



i have done 2 classical guitar cds

i used 3 mics on the guitar and mixed to taste

my client and i feel we love 192

even thought it is bounced to 44.1

when we compared the sound quality it to the other classical guitar cds we had....it just was so much clearer than the competition.

we didn't even consider mastering....it just satisfied us.

as momma said though

to each his own, said the lady who kissed the cow.
Logged
CAZADOR RECORDING
STUDIOJIMI'S PSW SONG FORUM
MY MYSPACE
How very good and pleasant it is
when kindred live together in unity!
Psalm 133:1

PookyNMR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #114 on: November 27, 2006, 10:25:33 PM »

wwittman wrote on Mon, 27 November 2006 16:48

danickstr wrote on Sun, 26 November 2006 16:57


And I think Dan's point about converters was 96/88.1 vs 176.2/192 was not a necessary jump.


NO, I think his "point" had to do with 96k being "not really better" than 44.1

or something along the lines of there being "no REASON it should be better..."




Actually we had several conversations on several threads where 96k was shown to be better than 44.1, particularly for processing the signal.

Logged
Nathan Rousu

Revolution

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #115 on: November 27, 2006, 11:20:56 PM »

wwittman wrote on Tue, 28 November 2006 10:48



NO, I think his "point" had to do with 96k being "not really better" than 44.1

or something along the lines of there being "no REASON it should be better..."





William can you post a link to the thread involving this post?

It's not much point arguing about what Dan "may" have said without the facts.

I guess that is exactly what Dan's forum was about. Sticking to the scientific facts and not what we thought may have been possibly the truth.

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #116 on: November 27, 2006, 11:24:25 PM »

I doubt it as it's probably years ago now.

But does it MATTER anymore?



and just for the sake of clarity - I meant the 6 people (sarcastically) who really enjoyed having all "subjectivity" banned.


Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

Revolution

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #117 on: November 28, 2006, 12:26:27 AM »

OK now this is quite sad.

Dan has accused Fletcher of instigating or at least having a significant roll in his departure.

Yes the same person who posted this slur over at gearsluts.

If the person who posted this has a saying in the running of this forum them all credability must now be lost.

I also like the request to lock the thread at the end. Just like Apogee's reply on Dan's forum.

Fletcher;991827

Wow.

Okely dokely... I will be as brief as possible.

David Manley was part of a company called "Vacuum Tube Logic", I believe his son still has something to do with it.  

Somehow they parted ways and "Manley Laboratories" was born.  David decided that the inside of a bottle was more attractive than wife and company so he fell off the face of the earth in said bottle leaving the wife behind with a bunch of debt [which David didn't help very much by buying a warehouse full of Neve

crm0922

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #118 on: November 28, 2006, 01:04:36 AM »

I dunno.  Fletcher is a very close friend of EveAnna.  So he is entitled to have his opinions about the shitty things that he knows happened with her and David, etc.

Obviously he takes her side, and it is probably the right side from the sound of it.

Why does that post bother you so much?  I have friends who have been in relationships with drunk shitbags and I wouldn't hesitate to call them out as such either.

Chris
Logged

Revolution

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
Re: Mr Lavry's forum is gone.
« Reply #119 on: November 28, 2006, 01:15:22 AM »

crm0922 wrote on Tue, 28 November 2006 17:04

I dunno.  Fletcher is a very close friend of EveAnna.  So he is entitled to have his opinions about the shitty things that he knows happened with her and David, etc.

Obviously he takes her side, and it is probably the right side from the sound of it.

Why does that post bother you so much?  I have friends who have been in relationships with drunk shitbags and I wouldn't hesitate to call them out as such either.

Chris




Just don't think it's appropriate to either side to have this stuff brought up in internet forums.

I think it just shows lack of character.

While im not saying Dan Lavry, David Manley, John Oram, EveAnna  are good people or not.

It's just cheep.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Up