Print

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

[minister]

william,

it is not a question of who is a better producer/audio engineer between you and dan lavry......  it was his attempt to take all of the subjectivity (private felt) out of his forum and try to discuss things in an objective (publicly available) and verifiable way.  yes, you and your clients can verify (or testify) that they like what you do. but if everyone solipsistically claimed, 'well, i hear what i hear and screw you!', then no one would learn or listen to anyone.  

is there a point at which your ears apprehend (in the platonic unfetterd sense) a ready-made reality?  is there no room for error of perception?  and, besides, there are plenty of forums where you can discuss what SOUNDS good to your ears.  i rarely wander into 'repair' forums.  by your reasoning, i should say, 'well, how is knowing how these things work and how to repair them make better sounding records?'

[wwittman]

I feel we go round in circles on this

so I'll say it once more and then I am all Meher Baba on the subject...but:

we need "the nerds" to figure out what we, the people who make the records, LIKE... and how to make it.

what we DON'T need, is to be told what we, the people who make the records, hear is "wrong" because the tests say so.


that's the crux of it.

"I like this amp"

"no you don't. this other one looks better on the bench..."

"yes, i DO"

"well then it's because you like its imperfections... (you moron). you SHOULD like this other one..."

etc.

there's no POINT in removing subjectivity form the DISCUSSION.
from your design phase? from the actual bench testing? fine.
but sooner or later, you're selling gear to people who have to like the way it SOUNDS.

my feeling is there's a lot of chest thumping about how it SHOULD sound going on hear.

ONE more time... we've all heard the stories and I've seen it first hand of some engineers hearing things in a verifiable repatable manner that are either unmeasurable 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.
it's the condescension I won't put up with.

[malice]

wwittman wrote on Sat, 02 December 2006 08:15

I feel we go round in circles on this

I feel you need to get over this Lavry thing

malice

[malice]

Not that you don't make valid points here william, don't misenderstand me, but when I read you, I feel that you are dissmissing Lavry's converters just because he has a 100% technical aproach in his designing.

To me, it is as wrong as dismissing some other designer that would have a more empirical approach.

My point is that what counts is the final product and how it sounds to your ears.

I think Lavrys are great, I really don't care if there is a scientifical explanation for that fact.

If now some shmuck assembles a great converter for 300$ in his bedroom without any technical knowledge and kiks ass: more power to him, I'll buy it if I like it.

But I can't understand the "Lavry is too much of a nerd to make musical converters" recent posts I have seen here...

Makes no sense to me

malice

[sui-city]

William,

Dan never questioned what people HEAR.

He has only ever questioned the rather unscientific justifications for why people hear the things they hear. He has never stated that what you hear is wrong. He has only stated that the claims from some are scientifically unverifiable. Yet they attempt to put their claims across as scientifically verified.

He would just like to know what it is that DOES make something sound good. And he would like to be able to measure it, so that it can be repeated and improved without unnecessarily relying on luck.

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.

If Dan was as unrelenting as some make him out to be, then they are implying that he just pulls complete designs from thin air, that there is no research in his research and development. But we know that is not the case.

Again, i will agree that at times Dan worded his arguments poorly. But he was always upfront, honest and on the money.

[wwittman]

I'm not dissing Lavry products...

but I feel he WAS dissing his competitors when a large number of people PREFER his competitors products.


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.


for example:
If they KNEW how to make digital recording sound exactly like recording on 456 on an A800 they WOULD.
because EVERYONE would want it.

they DON'T know how.. so they tell you how "you just like that crappy analogue distortion" or whatever.

they DON'T know.

[wwittman]

malice wrote on Sat, 02 December 2006 05:48

Not that you don't make valid points here william, don't misenderstand me, but when I read you, I feel that you are dissmissing Lavry's converters just because he has a 100% technical aproach in his designing.

not true on either count.

I'm not dismising his convertors or his methods for his company.

I'm "dismissing" his ability to run a forum.

a "100% technical approach" is pointless on an audio discussion board.


more accurately it's OFF point.

I think Klaus Heyne is the perfect model.
he does an admirable job of explaining things on a technical level and welcoming technical discussion and he WON'T just let anyone mouth about what they "think they heard" or know.

but he ALSO knows it's ultimately about how it SOUNDS.
And that sort of discussion is also welcomed.

[malice]

wwittman wrote on Sat, 02 December 2006 18:40

I'm not dismising his convertors or his methods for his company. I'm "dismissing" his ability to run a forum.

ok, I got you

malice

[UnderTow]

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. The way I have read all the comments from Dan Lavry is that he doesn't judge your taste. He tries to find the reason why someone likes something. If it is distortion then he wants to measure that distortion so it can be reproduced in a consistent manner.

You seem to be taking the fact that the thing you like is distortion way too personaly. You seem to feel it implies there is something wrong with your hearing, perception or taste. This is something that you are interpreting from those words. Not something that Dan Lavry or others are saying.

Quote:

they DON'T know how.. so they tell you how "you just like that crappy analogue distortion" or whatever.

No they don't. That is your mistranslation of a technical assesement.

Quote:

they DON'T know.

I don't think this is true and even if it is, you seem to be very much against them finding out if it implies that you like a certain level of distortion.

Nobody is forcing you to partake in a technical forum but you seem to be in favour of censuring such a forum if things are discussed that you don't like. That is very bad form IMO.

Alistair

[UnderTow]

wwittman wrote on Sat, 02 December 2006 08:15

what we DON'T need, is to be told what we, the people who make the records, hear is "wrong" because the tests say so.

And that was the whole point of the Lavry forum. By leaving out subjective descriptions in the discussions, there is no right or wrong when it comes to taste.

No one is telling you it is wrong to like distortion. That is your own view.

Quote:

"I like this amp" "no you don't. this other one looks better on the bench..." "yes, i DO" "well then it's because you like its imperfections... (you moron). you SHOULD like this other one..."

Again, how can someone be telling you what to like or not to like if subjective taste is excluded from the discussion? When someone writes that a particular device has more ditortion, YOU are infering that people mean it sounds worse. That is your hang-up. Not the writer of the comment's.

Quote:

there's no POINT in removing subjectivity form the DISCUSSION. from your design phase? from the actual bench testing? fine. but sooner or later, you're selling gear to people who have to like the way it SOUNDS.

And no one on Lavry's forum ever contested that. (Well there might have been the occasional fool posting something). But saying that there is no point in removing subjectivity from the discussion is ... errr ... not particularly smart.

There are so many places where subjectivity is king. If you don't like no non-sense scientific discussions, stay out of such a forums. Stick to the other forums where any old opinion is valid ...

Quote:

my feeling is there's a lot of chest thumping about how it SHOULD sound going on hear.

Again, no. You entirely missed the point of Lavry's forum.

Quote:

ONE more time... we've all heard the stories and I've seen it first hand of some engineers hearing things in a verifiable repatable manner that are either unmeasurable or allegedly beyond the range of human hearing.

Stories indeed ... promoted by snake oil salesmen or people that can't accept that their hearing is subjective and changes from day to day and hour to hour. That is just insecurity.

Quote:

Instead of telling me that nothing up there "matters", maybe it would be more useful to figure out why it OBVIOUSLY DOES.

Says who? Based on what?

Quote:

I don't need to be agreed with. And I'm all for a technical explanation. it's the condescension I won't put up with.

First, you don't need to put up with anything, just stay out of a place you don't like. Second, the condescension is purely your own misinterpretation of words. Not that of the authors.

It is amazing how some people will want to ban anything they don't like...

Alistair

[wwittman]

"says who" IS the question.


YOU say I "like distortion"

I say you don't know WHAT it is about it that I like.


but it makes you feel better to think you do.

[Malcolm Boyce]

wwittman wrote on Sat, 02 December 2006 13:36

for example: If they KNEW how to make digital recording sound exactly like recording on 456 on an A800 they WOULD. because EVERYONE would want it.

They could come up with a box that reproduces every measurable quality that 456 on an A800 has, and countless people like yourself wouldn't buy it because it "sounds different" and they won't be able to give a technical reason for it.  By your opinion, they don't have to because all that matters is what your ears tell you.

We have seen many examples of equipment of identical design, with no difference but something cosmetic, getting panned as "sounding different"...

For designers, it must be like a dog chasing it's tail.

[UnderTow]

wwittman wrote on Sun, 03 December 2006 20:16

"says who" IS the question. YOU say I "like distortion" I say you don't know WHAT it is about it that I like. but it makes you feel better to think you do.

Well if this is how you distort what is being written, no wonder you didn't like Dan Lavry's forum. It seems that place wasn't for you. Fine, no one forced you to go there.

Btw, I like quite a few different types of distortion but I want to have control of when and where I apply it to a signal. I don't want something like converters to impart it on everything that goes through them. (Unless it is a seperate set bought specificaly for the task). For this to be possible, things need to be discussed and measured scientificaly.

Alistair

[Larrchild]

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

[wwittman]

Malcolm Boyce wrote on Sun, 03 December 2006 14:18

wwittman wrote on Sat, 02 December 2006 13:36 for example: If they KNEW how to make digital recording sound exactly like recording on 456 on an A800 they WOULD. because EVERYONE would want it. They could come up with a box that reproduces every measurable quality that 456 on an A800 has, and countless people like yourself wouldn't buy it because it "sounds different" and they won't be able to give a technical reason for it.  By your opinion, they don't have to because all that matters is what your ears tell you. We have seen many examples of equipment of identical design, with no difference but something cosmetic, getting panned as "sounding different"... For designers, it must be like a dog chasing it's tail.

have we?
like what?

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