Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wwittman]

Larrchild wrote on Sun, 03 December 2006 17:58

I want coloration in mics, consoles and recorders. Just not converters. Viva La Difference.

i agree, but no converter sounds identical to the original signal.

so as they ALL "colour" the sound, it becomes a question of what sounds better.

[wwittman]

UnderTow wrote on Sun, 03 December 2006 09:20

wwittman wrote on Sat, 02 December 2006 18:36 sorry.. it's not just being dispassionate and 'technical' when you imply that the only reason I like something is that "it's distorted", for example. THAT is the condescending part. It isn't condescending if it is the truth.

right.
but it's NOT the truth... so it's condescending.

[danickstr]

distortion is an abstract concept in that it doesn't seem to be reproducable from system to system in definable quantities. I like distortion and have always wished that a U47, for example, could be measured for its distortion factor, since it's sound is not just EQ curves, as  they are able to be created in any box.  I have run things through channels just for the distortion of the box, as have many.

I also agree that all converters to date add coloration, although the test of the digidesign stuff last year seemed to grey that out.  I would not really want to do an ear test of stuff due to the potential for fatigue and confusion from switching to many times, sort of like buying perfume.

If we could measure and quantify distortion we would be on the right track.

[Malcolm Boyce]

wwittman wrote on Sun, 03 December 2006 20:47

if it really sounded like the A800 then 'countless poeple" wouldn't have any reason to say it "sounds different"

My point is that people don't need a reason.  We live in a world where people "hear" a difference between identical digital files, and files copied from one hard drive to the next.

[wwittman]

I've never seen anyone claim two truly identical files sounded "different.

Where have you?

but i DO "live in a world" where guys like Geoff Emerick and Shelly Yakus hear things that are supposed to be inaudible by humans.


SO if Shelly told me that the digital "clone" sounded different, I'd take him a lot more seriously than what the 'test results' say.

it would simply mean they're not testing for the right thing.

[sui-city]

wwittman wrote on Mon, 04 December 2006 08:38

but i DO "live in a world" where guys like Geoff Emerick and Shelly Yakus hear things that are supposed to be inaudible by humans.

Sorry William,

But if i am not mistaken, even Rupert later questioned what it was that Geoff heard during the test.

This is again an example of something being offered up as true, with still way too many unanswered questions.

[bblackwood]

Peter Poyser weighs in on the subject (thanks, Peter!):

Quote:

William Wittman: “ONE more time... we've all heard the stories and I've seen it first hand of some engineers hearing things in a verifiable repeatable manner that are either un-measurable or allegedly beyond the range of human hearing. Instead of telling me that nothing up there "matters", maybe it would be more useful to figure out why it OBVIOUSLY DOES. I don't need to be agreed with. And I'm all for a technical explanation.” This is my position concisely presented. Malice: “I feel you need to get over this Lavry thing” I have no ill will toward any one, have the greatest admiration for Mr Lavry’s brilliantly musical Father, and have a deeply enduring respect for Mr Lavry’s many highly creditable accomplishments. Nothing has ever changed about that, and it never will. Dan Manojlovic: “He has only stated that the claims from some are scientifically unverifiable. Yet they attempt to put their claims across as scientifically verified.” When I was a boy during science lessons I was taught many scientific laws. Many of these scientific laws strongly supported the views of the religious establishment. During the 20th century however, (and I have been around for quite a lot of it), scientists emerged that lacked the religious convictions of their forerunners. They were excellent at forwarding new theories, but with increasing regularity as the century wore on, could not actually, prove them. Coincidentally, often their theories appeared greatly at odds with the religious establishment. And as their ideas coincided with the spirit of the age, for most people, this did not seem to matter anymore. In an increasingly secular society, this movement thus hastened the rapid demise of the scientific law, as taught in previous generations, in favour of the scientific theory’s we are so familiar with. And scientific theories came to be continually mooted, as if they were the more reliable scientific laws of old. They are not. William Shakespeare: “Thou dost protest too much methinks” You can’t have it both ways. This is an argument you can only lose. For when is something ‘scientifically verifiable’?   For according to the science we have today, much of what was, scientific law yesterday, was wrong, if we believe what they tell us. In truth, and I was always taught that science is the search for truth. All we can say is that what we understand today, (and often, we really can’t prove it), will need to be greatly amended, and further modified in the future, to accommodate new advances in our understanding. (Or more new theories). Such is the absolute ludicrously that is often passed off for science, that I am constantly amazed, that no enterprising West End or Broadway writer, has yet written a fast paced plot for an entertaining farce around this potentially hilarious subject matter. As many scientists seek to carve out a name and career for themselves, via some controversy or another. Many don’t, but an increasing number do. So you had better face the fact that what you ‘verify’ today, to your absolute satisfaction, will be quickly superseded tomorrow, by far lesser men in every respect, probably. And any science that chooses to ignore, or fails to take account of, overwhelmingly strong evidence, that is very readily available, will be the first to be surpassed. If, in a court of law, the police withheld evidence that could undermine their case, against a defendant and this was later discovered by the defence attorneys. Any verdict any against their client, would be likely to be overturned as unsafe. And a re-trial would commence. To exclude users of a device, from a discussion regarding that device, or fail to take into account, the many manufacturers whose views, wildly differed, from ones own. And then claim one’s own views, as purely being the only view allowable that was to be regarded as scientific technical and verifiable.   Is clearly preposterous. It is nonsense. Especially when so many competitor manufacturers take a different line I have never believed that Mr Lavry was ever wrong in anything he claimed. He is not. But I have always believed that what he claimed was but a very small part, of a much larger story altogether. That this is the case is overwhelmingly verifiable, by a careful study of his competitor’s products. And who chooses to use them. Capitol http://www.capitolstudios.com/cshome.html A/D Converters: Apogee http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/ Abbey Rd http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/studio1/ Prism http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/microphones/add-equipment.doc Air http://www.airstudios.com/technical/lists/equiph.shtml Prism 192 http://www.prismsound.com/music_recording/studio_products.ht ml http://www.avatarstudios.net/index.html Apogee Weiss 192 http://www.avatarstudios.net/gear/outboard.html In Mr Lavry’s scheme of things, many of these products would never have ever seen the light of day.   Would that be good? I think not! Moreover, if the experts in these top studios, having budgets that enable them to choose more or less whatever they wish. Choose to purchase products that do not accord with the narrow interpretation of the matter, that Mr Lavry’s understanding and insistence demands. Surely, in any truly scientific scenario that could be imagined, this important information, the view of real experts that use the equipment on a daily basis, must be taken into account, at some point in the scientific process. If it really is one? It may not be? How else could it be scientific without their input? If it chooses to deliberately ignore all the evidence that is to the contrary? Are then all these other manufacturers unscientific in their understanding and approach? http://www.prismsound.com/music_recording/studio_home.php http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/ And the many of other manufacturers of converters. I have spent a lot of my life talking with high flying scientific types, but all the ones that were any good, were willing to listen, just as much as I was willing to listen them. Here’s one of the good ones that was a contemporary of mine at Oxford. He’s one of the most notable figures in the history of audio. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/elentrib.htm Here’s an interesting paper of his on ‘why equalisers sound different’. http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Why_do_equalisers_sou nd_different_A4.pdf “Let’s look at what determines the subjective sound of an equaliser. Unlike others, I do not claim to give definite answers. My aim, rather, is to make some tentative conjectures, report some rules-of-thumb that have often been used with some success and to raise some questions so people can give some intelligent thought to the problem and maybe eventually find some answers. We will rapidly enter the treacherous areas of hi-fl subjectivism, however, unlike the woolly-minded approach of many in the hi-fl press, I believe that ultimately one needs no magic pseudo-science to explain the mysteries. The problem with most ‘objectivists’ who demand measurable reasons for subjective differences, is that they are very narrow-minded about what kind of measurements they will consider. They often demand that measurements can easily be done on conventional audio test setups. We shall see that it is highly unlikely that some of the most audibly important aspects of equaliser response can be measured either in the amplitude or the phase response but that we shall probably have to look elsewhere.” This guy was as scientific and technical as it possible to be. But he has a brilliant innovative mind, nothing short of genius. He is open, and searching, asking questions, discovering new truths, and breaking entirely new ground in audio research. This to me this is real science. And it takes into account the kind of things that experienced pro audio engineers have encountered. Dan Manojlovic: “One can also not design a circuit subjectively. When comes time for making FINAL decisions on what to put into the circuit, it is a very objective decision-making process. Prior to the final decisions, one can use subjective thoughts to attempt new ideas.” With the utmost respect possible. I think this is wrong. Very wrong indeed. Many of the most useful tools ever produced in the recording industry have been designed very subjectively indeed, but by greatly experienced designers, that had a clear understanding of what they were trying to achieve. The history of audio is literally strewn with them. We even have digital versions of them these days. As I have many, many decades of understanding manufacturing industry, I can with some substantial authority tell you, that when the time comes to make final decisions, original design ideas are often overtaken by process manufacturing concerns, and the cost of components. Although this is more likely in a large conglomerate, and less likely in a small company, none the less, in all sizes of companies from time to time, the supply of necessary components (or their lack) can cause all kinds of compromises to an original design just as a price hike in a particular component, might cause a change to a cost effective alternative. Anyone with any experience of life or business will recognise the ring of truth here. Mr Lavry, I’m sure would admit, that very often a designer is faced with a genuine compromise. He tries to achieve the best compromise he is able to achieve, to find a place of balance, among many different competing factors that oppose each other. Good designers like Mr Lavry, find the best possible compromise. But think about this… Factors such as any product which is the work of a single designer, necessitate by their very nature, the inclusion of personal subjectivity, because ultimately, one individual alone, will make the decision about every component, in the final event of the design being completed. Yes, they will test the design, and seek others opinions, before finally releasing the product. But ultimately, their design is subjective, however objective they seek to be about the measurement of particular parameters and individual components. The competed product is by its inherent nature, subjective. The result of an individual vision. In the end, even guided by solid measurement, it involves wholly subjective decisions. I like Mr Lavry, and so believe he will make very good, but ultimately, subjective decisions about his products designs. But it is nothing short of self delusion to imagine that one designer alone is purely objective and all the others subjective. (They do have good brains in Cambridge). To be fair, I have been involved with some of the most notable designers of products on the face of the planet. And have to tell you that an overall design produced by a single individual, is normally far superior to a design, produced by a committee. Better altogether. But that doesn’t make the design decisions objective. In fact it make them hugely subjective, but if the designer really knows what they are about, their training, sound understanding, depth of experience and base instincts, lead them in the right direction, to good conclusions to eventually achieve a notable design. To believe that there is no room for subjectivity here, is plainly wrong. Alistair Johnston: “If you don't like no non-sense scientific discussions, stay out of such a forums.” Judging by the slow movement of the forum, this is precisely what many did. Frankly, personally, I always was glad to read any post by Mr Lavry and was only sorry that he could not spare more time than he could, to regularly post. But I have to admit I have heard a few scientists, and indeed technologists talk a barrel load of non-sense in my time. To believe modern science incapable of this is to really believe non-sense. Science is more than a mere mathematical measurement. That it may involve such a phenomenon is extremely likely. That there is more to understand and appreciate in the fullness of the matter is equally likely. How can it be ‘scientific’ to exclude all the manifold factors, a subject may encompass, and limit discussion to only that which coincides with one particular narrow view point. It is hardly a truly scientific approach. I have particular religious beliefs, but am none the less happy to listen to His Holiness The Dahli Lama views. He talks a lot of sense….. The Dahli Lama 1. Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk. 2. When you lose, don’t lose the lesson. 3. Follow the three R’s: Respect for self Respect for others and Responsibility for all your actions. 4. Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck. 5. Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly. 6. Don’t let a little dispute injure a great friendship. 7. When you realize you’ve made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it. 8. Spend some time alone every day. 9. Open your arms to change, but don’t let go of your values. 10. Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer. 11. Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you’ll be able to enjoy it a second time. 12. A loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life. 13. In disagreements with loved ones deal only with the current situation. Don’t bring up the past. 14. Share your knowledge. It’s a way to achieve immortality. 15. Be gentle with the earth. 16. Once a year, go someplace you’ve never been before. 17. Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other. 18. Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it. 19. Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon. Although my personal religious beliefs are different, I am none the less, able to benefit from this great man’s wisdom and insight. Don’t tell me science is beyond such things. Our experience of life, informs science. Ask any social scientist. “I am reminded of a conversation overheard between Rupert Neve and a young digital designer. The young man said he had invented a new EQ algorithm. “How does it sound?” Rupert asked. There was a long pause and the inventor restated, as if Rupert did not hear him correctly, “….uh….it’s an ALGORITHM” It’s important some of you younger guys do grow up you know. We need transparent audio equipment. Equally we need coloured audio equipment. Taken together these complimentary factors (two sides of the same coin) can achieve a higher, more authentic sounding result than either can ever manage alone. Our experience of music, sound and audio should inform any science that embraces it. The science needs the art. The art needs the science. These are mutually dependant factors. They are like a husband and wife. And as they lovingly embrace each other, their resultant offspring, is the future forward development of the creative species. For that is how we are made. To create. P

[Ashermusic]

wwittman wrote on Mon, 04 December 2006 06:38

I've never seen anyone claim two truly identical files sounded "different. Where have you? but i DO "live in a world" where guys like Geoff Emerick and Shelly Yakus hear things that are supposed to be inaudible by humans. SO if Shelly told me that the digital "clone" sounded different, I'd take him a lot more seriously than what the 'test results' say. it would simply mean they're not testing for the right thing.

William, everyone's ears, including yours, change constantly due to a thousand factors including the room they are in, the air conditioning/heating system, allergic reactions, frame of mind on that day, even how much sleep they got, etc.

And I am sorry but if "guys like Geoff Emerick and Shelly Yakus hear things that are supposed to be inaudible by humans" it is more likely to be a delusional perception by the observer due to a combination of the factors I listed plus a hundred others.

Great ears are a wonderful thing to have and no one admires these kind of guys more than me and I have been fortunate over the years to work with some great ears but that does not negate proven laws of physics.

When science and subjective perception collide I will trust the science. To not do so gives us oxymoronic things like"creation science."

[Revolution]

It's really starting too look like the ones who are trying to defend  Church Magazine's PSW forum's decision to sack Dan Lavry are the ones who are against Dan Lavry's ideas.

So if you disagree your out.

Not a great way to run a public forum. I wonder what else goes on behind the scenes.

Whilst I was not a regular reader I knew that Dan's information could be trusted and wouldn't change from day to day or person to person.

Too many ideas and beliefs are trusted because of ones status in society.Sometimes these people feel too threatened by science.

[Mark Herman]

For what it is worth.
There is no Church Magazine. And nothing about church was ever involved.



I assure you that no one at PSW was ever threatened by Dan Lavry ideas.

The reason for the Dan Lavry forum being closed has already been explained very clearly in a former post by me.

MArk Herman
ProSoundWeb

[UnderTow]

wwittman wrote on Mon, 04 December 2006 07:38

I've never seen anyone claim two truly identical files sounded "different. Where have you?

Here is an example: http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=88010

There are more...

Quote:

but i DO "live in a world" where guys like Geoff Emerick and Shelly Yakus hear things that are supposed to be inaudible by humans.

Is that the story of the EQ at 40KHz or so? The one which people ascribe to phase changes in the audible range? If people can repeatedly spot a difference, there is usualy a very logical scientific explanation for what is going on. No voodoo, no magic.

But the explanation might not be obvious at first glance. That is why we need to be able to discuss and research things objectively like in reproducable tests. In such tests, a reproducable result is not subjective and so it belongs in a forum like Dan Lavry's.

In the end it is still the ears determining what we do and don't like but it has to be framed in a methodical approach to be able to do anything with the results.

Quote:

SO if Shelly told me that the digital "clone" sounded different, I'd take him a lot more seriously than what the 'test results' say.

Really? In that we differ. If the files are bit for bit identical and someone is claiming to hear differences all other things being the same, I would just attribute it to human error and if they insist, human folly.

If they can actually create a valid reproducable experiment then it is worth investigating (which has to follow rigorous scientific criteria to be deemed valid). So far I havn't seen, read or heard about such an experiment.

Quote:

it would simply mean they're not testing for the right thing.

So you see you have allready drawn your conclusions. It seems that you are not interested in finding out the truth. If there is one thing that is sure in the world is that no human is 100% reliable. But you seem bent on refusing that reality as it also applies to you.

Alistair

[PookyNMR]

Or Emerick and Yakus could have been smoking something.  Heck, given the right chemicals, I have friends who claim to have seen colors that do not normally exist....  

[UnderTow]

Peter Poyser wrote on Mon, 04 December 2006 17:06

When I was a boy during science lessons I was taught many scientific laws. Many of these scientific laws strongly supported the views of the religious establishment.

That doesn't bode well for those laws...

Quote:

During the 20th century however, (and I have been around for quite a lot of it), scientists emerged that lacked the religious convictions of their forerunners.

Unshackled from dogma? Good for them.

Quote:

They were excellent at forwarding new theories, but with increasing regularity as the century wore on, could not actually, prove them. Coincidentally, often their theories appeared greatly at odds with the religious establishment. And as their ideas coincided with the spirit of the age, for most people, this did not seem to matter anymore.

Oh it does matter. But not in the way you seem to believe.

Quote:

In an increasingly secular society, this movement thus hastened the rapid demise of the scientific law, as taught in previous generations, in favour of the scientific theory’s we are so familiar with. And scientific theories came to be continually mooted, as if they were the more reliable scientific laws of old. They are not.

So the old scientific laws that have been proven wrong are more reliable? Or do they fit your religious world view better than the modern ones?

I don't think anyone is claiming that we are at the end of science. I certainly wouldn't agree with such a statement.

But some people seem to want to ban science if it implies that they are less than perfect in some way or if it conflicts with their world views ...

In is in the nature of science itself to keep evolving. Sticking to old ideas because they please us more is as far from science as one can get.

Quote:

For when is something ‘scientifically verifiable’?   For according to the science we have today, much of what was, scientific law yesterday, was wrong, if we believe what they tell us. In truth, and I was always taught that science is the search for truth. All we can say is that what we understand today, (and often, we really can’t prove it), will need to be greatly amended, and further modified in the future, to accommodate new advances in our understanding. (Or more new theories). Such is the absolute ludicrously that is often passed off for science, that I am constantly amazed, that no enterprising West End or Broadway writer, has yet written a fast paced plot for an entertaining farce around this potentially hilarious subject matter.

What is ludicrous about that? Adapting one's ideas in the light of new information is anything but ludicrous unless one is anchored in the passt and refuses to move on.

What is happening though is that as understanding gets deeper and more complex it gets less and less intuitive for the laymen which then feel a need to ridicule that which they can not possibly understand ...

Quote:

So you had better face the fact that what you ‘verify’ today, to your absolute satisfaction, will be quickly superseded tomorrow, by far lesser men in every respect, probably. And any science that chooses to ignore, or fails to take account of, overwhelmingly strong evidence, that is very readily available, will be the first to be surpassed. If, in a court of law, the police withheld evidence that could undermine their case, against a defendant and this was later discovered by the defence attorneys. Any verdict any against their client, would be likely to be overturned as unsafe. And a re-trial would commence.

Any scientist worth their salt will be willing to adapt their ideas in light of new discoveries. You are sketching a strawman of the scientifc world and then, with the obvious ease that that entails, are burning it down.

No points for you.

Quote:

To exclude users of a device, from a discussion regarding that device,

Or to exclude the knowledge of psychology and how utterly fallible and influencable the human mind is ...

Quote:

or fail to take into account, the many manufacturers whose views, wildly differed, from ones own.

Or to forget that such manufacturers all have commercial agendas and thus fail to ask for actual scientific explanations for their marketing claims ...

Quote:

And then claim one’s own views, as purely being the only view allowable that was to be regarded as scientific technical and verifiable.

And backing up one's claims with science and maths and being open to any refutation of the maths and science,

Quote:

Is clearly preposterous. It is nonsense.

Makes perfect sense.

It is the only valid approach in such a discussion.

Quote:

I have never believed that Mr Lavry was ever wrong in anything he claimed. He is not. But I have always believed that what he claimed was but a very small part, of a much larger story altogether.

So where is the rest of the story? So where are the tests that back those sotries up? They are sorely lacking.

Such claims are so easy to make because they don't actually say anything. If you have any solid evidence, any verfiable theories or ideas, please share them.

Quote:

That this is the case is overwhelmingly verifiable, by a careful study of his competitor’s products. And who chooses to use them.

Which could just as well fit in a psychology, sociology or marketing course.

[name dropping snipped]

Quote:

In Mr Lavry’s scheme of things, many of these products would never have ever seen the light of day.   Would that be good? I think not!

Maybe other products that are not so driven by marketing might have seen the light of day instead.

Would that be good?

Hard to tell as everyone is so bent on fighting against a healthy technical discussion of such things.

Quote:

Moreover, if the experts in these top studios, having budgets that enable them to choose more or less whatever they wish. Choose to purchase products that do not accord with the narrow interpretation of the matter, that Mr Lavry’s understanding and insistence demands.

Arn't these studios populated by human beings? And arn't these studios catering to even more human beings with possibly even less knowledge and experience and even less chance to compare products side by side? And arn't quite a few of those clients reading magazines and drooling over products that they then expect these studios to have without ever even having heard them?

Quote:

Surely, in any truly scientific scenario that could be imagined, this important information, the view of real experts that use the equipment on a daily basis, must be taken into account, at some point in the scientific process. If it really is one?

Sure. But there comes a point where the differences are so small that they are lesser than one's changing perception day to day. So then people make decisions based on entirely different things like mood, looks, price and reputation even if those mental processes are not conscious ones.

You can not claim this to be otherwise without having to explain why so many companies spend so many billions on advertising and marketing if people are so objective about their decisions. (This obviously applies to any field. Not just audio).

Quote:

It may not be? How else could it be scientific without their input?

Leaving out human psychology would be just as unscientific.

Quote:

If it chooses to deliberately ignore all the evidence that is to the contrary?

But there is no evidence. Show me the repeatable test that show we need 384 Khz converters. On the other hand there are literaly millions of tests and papers that proove without a possible doubt the power of the placebo effect.

All things being equal, the evidence is heavily stacked in favour of trusting measurement above varying subjective opinions.

Quote:

Are then all these other manufacturers unscientific in their understanding and approach?

In their marketing? Yes very often they are!

Quote:

I have spent a lot of my life talking with high flying scientific types, but all the ones that were any good, were willing to listen, just as much as I was willing to listen them.

As far as I can see, Dan Lavry is always willing to listen to anyone that comes with a well constructed argument and some real evidence. Unfortunately, the people opposing usually lack both.

Quote:

Here’s one of the good ones that was a contemporary of mine at Oxford. He’s one of the most notable figures in the history of audio. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/elentrib.htm Here’s an interesting paper of his on ‘why equalisers sound different’.  http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Why_do_equalisers_sou nd_different_A4.pdf

Thanks for the links. More stuff to read.  

[Some stuff snipped for brevity]

Quote:

But it is nothing short of self delusion to imagine that one designer alone is purely objective and all the others subjective.

I don't think anyone is claiming that including Mr Lavry himself. That is why it is good to have a place where things can be discussed openly without the influence of marketing. Or at least as little as possible.

There seems to be alot of resistance to that. Are you against it?

Quote:

To believe that there is no room for subjectivity here, is plainly wrong.

No one is claiming that either. The only thing that Mr Lavry didn't want in his forum were subjective opinions about taste because they are not quantifiable. They don't make much sense in dicussing the technicalities.

Also, most people don't feel offended when someone tells them that what they seem to like is a certain level of euphonic distortion. So far I have only seen a very few people that feel personaly attacked by such a comment.

Quote:

Alistair Johnston: “If you don't like no non-sense scientific discussions, stay out of such a forums.” Judging by the slow movement of the forum, this is precisely what many did.

Yes. That is true. But is that the way to judge the usefullness of a forum? There will always be less designers of gear than their are users of gear. Does that make the technicalities less important? I would say, on the contrary, that makes them even more important.

The only reason this discussion was going on for so long is because some people want to ban what they don't like instead of just changing the channel ...

Quote:

Frankly, personally, I always was glad to read any post by Mr Lavry and was only sorry that he could not spare more time than he could, to regularly post. But I have to admit I have heard a few scientists, and indeed technologists talk a barrel load of non-sense in my time. To believe modern science incapable of this is to really believe non-sense.

Entirely agreed. One should not confuse the scientific method with individuals claiming science or technology to be on their side. Many a people claiming to be scientists are nothing of the sort.

Quote:

Science is more than a mere mathematical measurement. That it may involve such a phenomenon is extremely likely. That there is more to understand and appreciate in the fullness of the matter is equally likely. How can it be ‘scientific’ to exclude all the manifold factors, a subject may encompass, and limit discussion to only that which coincides with one particular narrow view point. It is hardly a truly scientific approach.

That isn't science but who is doing that? Subjective judgement can only go so far as to say that we like the sound of something at which point more technical and scientific approcahes are needed to analyze why we like something.

No one in their right mind is saying we should choose a certain product over another because some specific aspect of that product measures closer to some theoretical ideal.

What Lavry's forum was about was finding out and discussing how things works. Not taste. There are many other forums where one can discuss taste.

Quote:

Don’t tell me science is beyond such things. Our experience of life, informs science. Ask any social scientist.

Of course it does. Is anyone claiming the opposit?

Quote:

“I am reminded of a conversation overheard between Rupert Neve and a young digital designer. The young man said he had invented a new EQ algorithm. “How does it sound?” Rupert asked. There was a long pause and the inventor restated, as if Rupert did not hear him correctly, “….uh….it’s an ALGORITHM”

I'm sure there are many exmaples of such people that "don't get it" but I fail to see your point in reference to the closure of Dan Lavry's forum.

Quote:

It’s important some of you younger guys do grow up you know.

Stop being condescending. You are projecting all sorts of stuff on to people that isn't being said or thought.

One of the points of Lavry's forum was to stick to the things that could be conveyed and discussed on a forum and stay away from things that are so subjective that every reader would interpet it differently.

It takes a type of mind to read exactly what is written without making all sorts of assumption about the alledged limitation of the originator... You don't seem to have such a mind.

Quote:

Maybe you should take the time to

And maybe you should loose the blaze attitude. Your assumptions are misguided.

Quote:

We need transparent audio equipment. Equally we need coloured audio equipment. Taken together these complimentary factors (two sides of the same coin) can achieve a higher, more authentic sounding result than either can ever manage alone. Our experience of music, sound and audio should inform any science that embraces it. The science needs the art. The art needs the science. These are mutually dependant factors. They are like a husband and wife. And as they lovingly embrace each other, their resultant offspring, is the future forward development of the creative species. For that is how we are made. To create. P

Thanks for stating the obvious. Now, what was your point about Dan Lavry's forum being closed?

You whole post is figthing some paper tiger of your own creation while not addressing the topic of this thread: The closure of Dan Lavry's forum.

Alistair

[Barry Hufker]

Not to confuse the thread but this has come up a couple of times.  I heard Rupert's explanation about Geoff directly from Rupert.

The channel sounded different because a transformer in it hadn't been terminated correctly.  Geoff heard a difference.  It turns out the difference showed up as a ringing at 50,000 Hz. when inspected by an oscilloscope.  It was never claimed Geoff heard the ultrasonic.  Geoff heard the ultrasonic interacting with the sonic and that difference was noticeable from the rest of the channels.

Barry

[wwittman]

well exactly...

I didn;t say Geoff could hear 53k

what the point was is that everyone said what goes on at 53k "doesn;t matter" (just as they say with convertors).. whereas it DID to Geoff's ears.

the Shelly story is that he brought in maint. one day at Record Plant and said "there's a bad power amp on the low end on the right side"

they checked it, couldn't find anything wrong. Put it back.
Next day Shelly complains again. They take it out.
They send it back to Crown.
Crown ALSO can;t find anything wrong with it but goes through it and tweaks it up and sends it back.

RPS puts it back into service but in another room, on the 10th floor, instead of in the ground floor studio where is it was.

Months have gone by, and Shelly walks into the mixroom, turns on the speakers, hits stop, points at the right speaker, and says: "there's that fucking amp again!"

now if that's "smoking something" or whatever that ultra-clever rejoinder was, then I and more of you should smoke that.

what that IS, is hearing things that don't show up in tests.
It doesn't mean it CANNOT be found.
it DOES mean that just because someone "technical" says it doesn't MATTER, doesn't mean some people can't hear it.

bringing me back to: it's USEFUL for someone techie to figure out what Emerick heard, what Shelly heard, what I hear in convertors.
It's NOT useful to tell these people they're 'smoking" the wrong thing because their ears don't agree with your marketing plan.