Print

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

[UnderTow]

I'm very disapointed in the way PSW handled the whole Lavry forum debacle. I'm absolutely not convinced by what has been written by Fletcher and others about the whole topic. Fletcher closing the topic here in the Saloon is bad form IMO and rather childish. It can even be construed as censorship.

And is Fletcher really the right person to moderate these forums when he writes stuff like "Lavry can go fuck himself.". I think that immediately disqualifies him for the job.

I also find it very bad form to let Apogee post one last post in the "Proper word clock implementation" thread in the Lavry forum. The only good thing I can see about that is that Apogee are making fools of themselves with the comment "By adding dither we actually reduce the dynamic range, yet we improve the perceived noise floor by masking the annoying noise of rounding errors." That is quite worrying from a Sr. Design Engineer with the title written in his signature.

Does Apogee really think that dither is about masking errors? If so, why on earth would one want to noise shape it out of the sensitive ranges of our ears?

With all due respect to Bruno Putzeys, I don't think his forum entirely fills the void of Dan Lavry's forum. One of the good things about Lavry's forum was the "no ear arguments" approach. There are enough places where people can talk about their subjective, placebo induced, perception of sound. There are very few open places to the public where the technical aspects can be discussed in a no non-sense manner.

Sadly,

Alistair

[Kris]

Being that R/E/P is not a free country, they (admins) can do whatever they want... though we are free to like it or not, leave or stay... or complain for that matter...

[Larrchild]

I am far more interested in what imperfections to leave in a circuit, than how to beat them all out with a math-mallet.

Thats the forum I'm looking for. Something that allows the right and left brain hemisphere of this trade to interact without suspicion and namecalling.

But you need perfect sounding circuits and imperfect ones in your audio-spicerack, so being verrry scientific and non-subjective has it's place.

I would rather spend time at this point trying to quantify with numbers, what is "euphonic".
That is so rarely achieved.

Knobturner/Designers like Geo. Massenburg have gotten close to dual-hemisphere thinking. But usually it's one or the other.

[studiojimi]

i'm disappointed too many threads are on this topic.

[Barry Hufker]

EDIT: As I've thought more about this, I've decided I need to be better informed before posting an opinion.

Barry

[maxdimario]

..well I don't believe in euphonic distortion either to tell you the truth..

but I do believe in AUDIO being something exclusively for human ears, and looking at the great circuits made by engineers who actually were specialized in audio circuits decades ago, I can see that they knew what they were doing and why... as opposed to knowing what you are doing period.

Here's someone who should be glad to achieve better audio, and take interest in understanding the needs of the people who use his gear, but in the end he'd rather just be right and not have to re-tool.

[feedback]

his forum was the coolest thing on this board
let him be free to say whatever he wants
rock & roll

[John Ivan]

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 30 November 2006 20:52

..well I don't believe in euphonic distortion either to tell you the truth.. but I do believe in AUDIO being something exclusively for human ears, and looking at the great circuits made by engineers who actually were specialized in audio circuits decades ago, I can see that they knew what they were doing and why... as opposed to knowing what you are doing period. Here's someone who should be glad to achieve better audio, and take interest in understanding the needs of the people who use his gear, but in the end he'd rather just be right and not have to re-tool.

So, he needs to re-tool? His converters don't sound good? Do you think he never thinks about the music part? Or how we all hear things differently? Or is it just that for the purpose of his forum, a tech only forum to discuss the science that leads to great audio, he didn't want to talk about subjective opinion. All other forums here already deal with what we hear or think we might be hearing on the output jacks of all this gear.

He's a musician too so I'm sure there's a side to him that just listens..

I wont pretend to understand what went down here except to say that everyone involved handled it badly. IMHO, Max handled it worse than everyone else.

It's amazing to me also that this gets reduced to talking about which credit cards and/or checks will or will not be taken by someones audio Company.

When one considers what Mr. Lavry has to offer, I'm surprised that they didn't just deal with the fact that they didn't like some of his behavior. Look around at what people will except. Name calling, 'this piece of gear is a pile of shit' comments all over the place. But,, when Dan says something that amounts to 'these people are full of shit and they simply don't know what they are talking about OR they will say what ever they need, to get you're money' Well, we can't have that..??

I don't understand this considering the level of personal, mean spirited bull shit that goes on sometimes. It's not like anyone has come even remotely close to showing that what Mr Lavry said,is not true. That's because, it in all likelihood, IS true.

The whole thing is pretty sad....

Ivan...............................

[PookyNMR]

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 30 November 2006 18:52

but I do believe in AUDIO being something exclusively for human ears, and looking at the great circuits made by engineers who actually were specialized in audio circuits decades ago, I can see that they knew what they were doing and why... as opposed to knowing what you are doing period.

Dan's goal was transparency, not euphonic distortion.  Transparency is something that can be measured (as can distortions).  Transparency is something that takes a lot of thought and care.

If people want to make distortion boxes and use them because they subjectively 'sound good', good for them.  But if you are looking for a transparent audio device, you'll need solid science and measurement to back it up.

[Tidewater]

I am glad he's gone. He knows more than me, and it shows.


M

[wwittman]

PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 01 December 2006 11:04

If people want to make distortion boxes and use them because they subjectively 'sound good', good for them.  But if you are looking for a transparent audio device, you'll need solid science and measurement to back it up.

that's a "when did you stop beating your wife" argument.

in other words, anytime someone says I like this better, it's "BECAUSE" of its alleged "distortion"... whereas if I don't prefer this other one it's becasue it's "so TRANSPARENT and that's not what you want"

maybe box A just sounds better than box B and "transparency" has nothing to do with it?


this keeps coming back to that feeling that someone is saying "if you don't like this you're WRONG because I have the math to show why it sounds better"
even though it doesn't.


it's the same crap that comes up in the analogue recording discussions... people who need to disparage analogue recording invaribaly say "well all it is is you like all that distortion"

yet no one has created all that "distortion" in a digital box that sounds like analogue.
NO ONE.

it's great when smart people try to figure out what it is that creative end-users like about something and then recreate it or improve it.

It's not so great when the designers try to DRIVE the marketplace.


I do think a certain personality type seems to be attracted to this "I've made my audio decisions SCIENTIFICALLY" approach.

I don't know any record buyers who buy that way.
They still seem to care about what sounds good.


anyway... if i AM "looking for a transparent audio device" I'll pick the one that SOUNDS the most transparent.
to ME.

I won't read the white paper.
or the ad copy
or the forum

[maxim]

"I won't read the white paper..."

how can you read white paper, anyway?

invisible ink?

sorry...

[PookyNMR]

wwittman wrote on Fri, 01 December 2006 15:01

anyway... if i AM "looking for a transparent audio device" I'll pick the one that SOUNDS the most transparent to ME.

Ultimately, subjective preference is ususally the deciding factor.  

And we may prefer one that we think sounds more transparent no matter how it measures.

But if the goal is true transparency, then why not investigate units that measure well also?
Why the fear over measuremnts?  
Why ignore measurements?  
Are our ears more consistent, more presice and more objective than highly sophisticated measuring devices?

Scientific measurements AND listening must go hand in hand.  The moment you separate them, you are more likely to get a lesser result.

[wwittman]

because the "goal" is better sounding records..

not better test results

the reason people hire me is for my judgment and taste...

if they'd rather have Dan produce their records, they should.

[PookyNMR]

wwittman wrote on Fri, 01 December 2006 20:13

because the "goal" is better sounding records.. not better test results the reason people hire me is for my judgment and taste... if they'd rather have Dan produce their records, they should.

And when does properly designed (and tested) equipment in experienced hands like yours not produce better sounding records?  If it doesn't I have a Mackie mixer I can sell you for cheap.  

You produce great sounding records cause some design engineer learned his/her math, physics and tests ciricuts with an osciliscope and thier ears to make you great and properly functioning products.

We need the nerds.