The Fremer lays an ostrich egg thread
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
+1 - its all about having the most fun with the sound. But I would say that, I'm an engineer...
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Sounds like a LARES system. (Lexicon Acoustic Reinforcement and Enhancement System).
The mastering engineer has already made it sound like it's supposed to. He's just making it sound the way HE wants it to sound.
Am I the only one to appreciate the irony here? SM has been hanging out on WBF for a few months and for sure, his tone has by and large been dismissive of what's available. But in the past day or so he's started describing the system he's built and he's suddenly an 'armchair engineer'? How did he put together such a system from his armchair? Or are you saying he's fabricating the whole story?
Steve's post should serve as an indication that the admin team has received information that SM has a relevant and traceable background in EE. Whether or not other members choose to be interested in his discussion, please remember that we should treat fellow members with courtesy.
Lee
Lee
i take 'armchair' engineer as offering strong and controversial opinions without having any skin in the game. 'big hat, no cattle' as they say in Texas.
SM's 'project' is likely real; but is he credible about what current SOTA systems can do? there is no evidence that he is. yet he speaks as an authority.
A little different from how I take it - an armchair engineer to me is an engineer without a soldering iron. By 'skin in the game' do you mean he should have a commercial enterprise turning out product to be taken seriously?
I take his repeated dismissals of the high end as 'the man doth complain overmuch' yeah, but don't go by 'authority' go by results is my maxim.
no; a commercial product is not important. only that to criticize with frequency and degree you need to have some personal experience with what you are talking about. some depth. know gear, live with some of it. something like that. how can you really understand what is possible without spending the time?
I agree about the intensity and frequency of the criticism, but the irony I noticed was that that diminished slightly when the focus was moved on to his own-built system...
So SM - have you played your system to others and if so, any of their impressions to report to us?
So SM - have you played your system to others and if so, any of their impressions to report to us?
One does not need to have Mike's experience with high-end gear to understand the limitations, or one's opinion of the limitations, of stereo. The difference between what a SOTA system, whatever that may mean to you, and a quality "midfi" stereo is incremental compared to the difference between any stereo and surround. I imagine it is pretty incremental compared to SM's system as well.
Yes, SM's dismissal of high end, and stereo in general, has been harsh at times. It's the opinion of a man who doesn't believe the basic technology is adequate for the task; how could his opinion of that technology pushed into the 100s of thousands of dollars be anything other than dismissive? But it's just an opinion. Try not to take it personally.
In the final analysis, SM has put together something that attempts to reinvent the entire system without altering the most important element in the system, the recording. He has no benchmark for that system's performance beyond his own experience. He has no reference beyond his own auditory memory, and he probably reads enough to know how fleeting that is. He tinkers and fine-tunes his system to play what he feels is closer to the sound of the classical concert halls he visits, and does that from the perspective of a self-proclaimed reverb lover.
He may have used oodles of engineering in getting to this point, but here, he has nothing but his own preference.
He has put so much time and effort into it that I'm glad he likes it. I'm even glad for him that his opinions are so strong about it. But really, it does not inform a discussion of listening to stereo, SOTA or otherwise, particularly with a broad variety of genres and recording styles. We are still left with the same choice of pursuits:
A) Fidelity to the recording
B) What we find to be pleasant
SM has clearly chosen B. I personally choose A, but only because, in my experience, to my ears, it makes more recordings sound better. Which means I choose B, and YMMV.
Tim
Yes, SM's dismissal of high end, and stereo in general, has been harsh at times. It's the opinion of a man who doesn't believe the basic technology is adequate for the task; how could his opinion of that technology pushed into the 100s of thousands of dollars be anything other than dismissive? But it's just an opinion. Try not to take it personally.
In the final analysis, SM has put together something that attempts to reinvent the entire system without altering the most important element in the system, the recording. He has no benchmark for that system's performance beyond his own experience. He has no reference beyond his own auditory memory, and he probably reads enough to know how fleeting that is. He tinkers and fine-tunes his system to play what he feels is closer to the sound of the classical concert halls he visits, and does that from the perspective of a self-proclaimed reverb lover.
He may have used oodles of engineering in getting to this point, but here, he has nothing but his own preference.
He has put so much time and effort into it that I'm glad he likes it. I'm even glad for him that his opinions are so strong about it. But really, it does not inform a discussion of listening to stereo, SOTA or otherwise, particularly with a broad variety of genres and recording styles. We are still left with the same choice of pursuits:
A) Fidelity to the recording
B) What we find to be pleasant
SM has clearly chosen B. I personally choose A, but only because, in my experience, to my ears, it makes more recordings sound better. Which means I choose B, and YMMV.
Tim
Last edited:
Hi
Let's increase the signal to noise ratio. SM has his views, his ways of doing things. I am not sure I agree with them for starters adjusting a system for the way one remembers is not a very accurate way IMO. Much has been said about auditory memory. We can't be sure about things we have heard a few hours ago and now we adjust a system according to what we remember from a concert hall? I agree that we remember certain things well, the voice of friend for example or the sound of an instrument but not too many would agree to even eq a system based on what you remember having heard somewhere let alone adjusting the numerous items that compose his/her system. I am not convinced. Not yet anyway. It is no different from another person using his expensive equipment to color the sound a way he/she find pleasing... That is very far from the accuracy I wish in music reproduction. One that would take me closer to a live event.
Concerning the Mastering engineer. We too often forget that a record, is a creation. the work of a creative team with intentions and goals. The mastering (and recording engineer) is part of this team who wants the creation a certain way. He/she (I am on PC mood today) has access to the artists, to the creative team he/she is part of the creative tram and the results are hopefully those the creative team wished. The best a system can do is to allow us to understand the artistic message and for that it mus be out of the way .. a lot ... I am not sure how SM system accomplish that without knowing the artists intent without being privy to the way the artistic team wanted their output to be. It also introduces a degree of heavy work in what is for most a recreation. We all fiddle with our system sometimes.. I hope we, for the most part after the fiddling and tinkering , just sit down and listen ... His system which requires adjustment for individual records or even to pieces on the same record seems to remove most of the recreation from the process of listening to music .. If it works at all... The data is not yet known of how to measure its efficaciousness or its results .. is all too subjective so far IMHO.
Let's increase the signal to noise ratio. SM has his views, his ways of doing things. I am not sure I agree with them for starters adjusting a system for the way one remembers is not a very accurate way IMO. Much has been said about auditory memory. We can't be sure about things we have heard a few hours ago and now we adjust a system according to what we remember from a concert hall? I agree that we remember certain things well, the voice of friend for example or the sound of an instrument but not too many would agree to even eq a system based on what you remember having heard somewhere let alone adjusting the numerous items that compose his/her system. I am not convinced. Not yet anyway. It is no different from another person using his expensive equipment to color the sound a way he/she find pleasing... That is very far from the accuracy I wish in music reproduction. One that would take me closer to a live event.
Concerning the Mastering engineer. We too often forget that a record, is a creation. the work of a creative team with intentions and goals. The mastering (and recording engineer) is part of this team who wants the creation a certain way. He/she (I am on PC mood today) has access to the artists, to the creative team he/she is part of the creative tram and the results are hopefully those the creative team wished. The best a system can do is to allow us to understand the artistic message and for that it mus be out of the way .. a lot ... I am not sure how SM system accomplish that without knowing the artists intent without being privy to the way the artistic team wanted their output to be. It also introduces a degree of heavy work in what is for most a recreation. We all fiddle with our system sometimes.. I hope we, for the most part after the fiddling and tinkering , just sit down and listen ... His system which requires adjustment for individual records or even to pieces on the same record seems to remove most of the recreation from the process of listening to music .. If it works at all... The data is not yet known of how to measure its efficaciousness or its results .. is all too subjective so far IMHO.
Let's examine the ridiculousness of SM's bone of contention that all the recordings that we [audiophiles] listen to were made by audiophile engineers. Are you kidding? That patently ignores the history of recording engineers who until recently all had their roots originally as musicians and then switched to recording. That also ignores the fact the sound produced is in large part dictated by the producer (and artist), who in every case I know of, is or was a musician.
Let's look deeper. Were Rudy van Gelder, Roy DuNann, Robert Fine, Lewis Layton and crew, Kenneth Wilkinson and Arthur Haddy, Mark Aubort, the Columbia 30th St. jazz team, and the teams from many other labels musicians or audiophile engineers first? The musical theme extends all the way down to the mastering engineers.
Finally, isn't the recreation of the original event what these renowned individuals strove for (then not now) --not some wowee zowie, special effects?
Nice to read the part I quote in bold - we agree on this one.
SM has chosen an individual way of listening to reproduced sound. But the only opinions we have on it are his own, that are strongly biased - he his at the same time the defendant, the promoter, the defense attorney, the judge and the executioner. It says it all.
The problem of not knowing the artist intentions or the original conditions of the recording can be overcome - but once again it needs statistical analysis and proper experimentation.
Can you clarify what you mean by this sentence? Most people will tell you that the difference between current implementations of multichannel and the best implementation of stereo (that you call SOTA) is decremental. I am just addressing existing domestic systems.
And yes, I am not a full A member , but I appreciate them when they participate in B.
What I'm saying is incremental is the difference between good "midfi" (a term of questionable value) and "SOTO" (equally dubious). For the sake of clarity, let's bipass those subjective, judgemental terms altogether. Let's just say the differences between quality stereo systems are minor compared to the difference between stereo and surround. I suspect the difference between conventional stereo and what SM is doing are as significant. Now, we will get lots of people come in here behind this statement to defend their investments by insisting that the difference between a high-end system and an ordinary "quality stereo" is stunningly obvious to anyone with ears. OK. Not the point.
Tim