Reviewing a "Reviewer"

[Fletcher]

In chatting with one of my clients a while ago, he mentioned that I should read the August edition of Mix from cover to cover. Having had a small bout with the Stomach Flu, I tried my damnedest to make positive use of my increased bathroom time that day, so I read the whole book from cover to cover. It was shortly after reading Michael Cooper's review of the Pendulum Audio ES-8 that I realized the book was making my stomach problem worse, much worse. The 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processors' article was the first of his pieces that caught my eye. Filled to the brim with nothing but regurgitated press releases, I was as shocked at the lack of actual product use as I was by the omission of some of the arguably best examples of 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processors'. At least he didn't beat the word "vintage" to death. Starting with the ADL-1000, Michael writes, "is closely based on the famed Teletronix LA-2A optical leveling amplifier and employs that unit's original T4 electro-optical cell." I've got $50 says this guy has never touched one of these units, never mind tried one on a session, nor run his precious '62 Strat through one. For some unknown reason he mentioned his 1962 Stratocaster in his reviews of the Pendulum Audio products as much, if not more than the units he was making an attempt at, errr, umm, "reviewing" (note to self: buy 1962 Stratocaster so as to be as cool as Michael Cooper). Michael neglected to mention whether Anthony was making an attempt at a T4-A or T4-B (it neither sounds nor works like either), so I was a bit curious to which version of the "T4-x" he might have referred. The input and output transformers are also completely different from those of the original Teletronix LA-2A, or even the reissue of the Teletronix LA-2A. Frankly, I've gotten an Empirical Labs "EL-8" as well as a Crane Song LTD. "Trakker" to sound closer to an original LA-2A than I have ever gotten with an ADL-1000, maybe Michael knows something about this stuff that I need to learn? The Universal Audio 're-release' of the LA-2A is based on a T4-A optical attenuator cell as well. I know, I loaned them my LA-2A (a gray painted face plate model built in Sunnyvale, CA; Serial #383, that I purchased from Record Plant Studios, Los Angeles in about 1991) so they could do the final tweeze on the re-release, which frankly, they got spot on. Though I still think they should have used 'Dymo Label Tape' for the compress/limit switch, which wasn't on the original, but was brought to the front panel by damn near every studio that owned one. In those days 'Dymo Label Tape' used often used to label the newly added 'compress/limit' switch. Whadda y'all think? The bit he did on API completely left out the 560 equalizer. Of all the products currently manufactured by API, this is the one that is truest to the original unit made back in the 70's. The article does reference the API 7600, and understandably so as that unit won a "TEC" award before there was as much as a functioning proto-type of the thing. Michael also mentions the 7800 'master section'. The last I heard about that unit, they were just about to start the design process-- its release may be a couple of years off. Maybe it should have been on this year's TEC award ballot just to keep it in line with its sister product? Whadda y'all think? "Fairchild type" seems to be all the rage in this article as Michael goes on to mention the EAR 660, the Fairman TMC and the Mercury 66. While I haven't heard the Fairman (and the Mercury 66 hasn't actually been released yet, which obviously isn't an impediment for press in "Mix-world"), I have spent a considerable amount of time with the EAR 660, which has an entirely different tone than the "F word" unit. It is far clearer, with a much larger sounding low end, other than that, it's very "F word" like. In his later "review" of the Pendulum Audio ES-8, I'm curious how this two channel unit could possibly "employ six ES8 tubes, one per channel" (a direct quote from the article). In fact, someone was so proud of that quote, they made it bold and put it under the picture of the unit!!. Somehow, either Michael can't do math, or someone at MIX has a sense of humor, or maybe someone who knows absolutely nothing about audio was the 'proof reader' (editor?) for the article. I don't see how you can use '6 tubes, one per channel' in a "stereo", as in left and right, as in channels 1 & 2 unit. Perhaps, and I'm going out on a limb here, he may have meant the 6ES8 tubes (one per channel) that you will actually find in the unit. Michael continues with; "The only big beef I have with the ES-8 is that its inputs lack headroom. Pumping +26dbu mixes into the unit from my Yamaha 02R's analog outputs, I had to lower the input level about 8 db down from unity to avoid audible distortion." [b]Well duuuhhh[/b], that's why there is an input control as well as a threshold control and an output control. So Werner Von Cooper can exercize his knowledge of "gain scaling". As for the Pendulum's inability to work and play well with -10 stuff, what do you expect, it's a "pro" piece. If you want a 'semi-pro' piece, think "Behringer", that crap'll do -10 all day long. Later in the "review" we see the "F word" being bantered about as if it were the only limiter worth modeling, yet no mention of the Pendulum product in the 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processors' article. How come? If I may be so bold, Michael should really start talking to himself, at least to get his story straight. Is it ‘neo-retro’ or ain’t it? I found it interesting that the Manley Stereo Variable-Mu was mentioned as a 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processor' yet the Pendulum ES-8 was not? That magical "F word" unit was also a variable-mu design. Does this not make every unit with a variable-mu gain reduction cell a 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processor' purely by default? Is every unit based on an 'optical attenuator' a redux of the LA-2A? I don't think so, whadda y'all think? While we're on the Manley section of his brilliant set of reorganized press releases and catalog clips, it mentions that "Manley Laboratories is the only authorized manufacturer of the original Western Electric passive EQ circuitry that was used in the highly sought after vintage Pultec" (not to be confused with the non-vintage Pultecs?). Hey, I count EveAnna as one of my most cherished friends, but frankly, while Manley Labs sought the authorization and the blessing of Eugene Shenk (the original Mr. Pulse Techniques), and to this day acknowledge the work of "Pultec" on their units, the fact of the matter is that the circuit has been out of patent longer than the vast majority of Mix readers have been alive, so no authorization was actually necessary. The use of "P word" was a 'tip of the hat' in terms of recognition of accomplishment (and 2/3rd's an excellent marketing idea) but the Western Electric filter circuits have been 'public domain' for decades. Manley Labs was the only firm that sought "authorization" for its use, an unnecessary, yet respectful act. The "authorization" line in Michael's article, was entirely lifted directly from the Manley catalog. Nice article research , wish I could get paid for reprinting advertiser's catalogs. Hey Michael, news flash for you, only the filter circuits were derived from the 'P word' / Western Electric camp, the input transformer, the output amplifiers, power supply, etc. are all Manley (which is a good thing in my book). If you're looking for a real 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processor' of the Pultec flavor, what's wrong with a Tube Tech? Has their version of the Pultec EQP-1A been out so long it's not 'Neo-Retro' but actual 'Retro'? or is it chopped liver? I'm confused, whadda y'all think? Should I ask Doug Fearn? Somehow it seems that while Michael was missing the Tube Tech, Michael was doing his best “Bill Buckner” impersonation as the DW Fearn "Vacuum Tube LC Equalizer" went right between his legs. Just for your dining and dancing pleasure, the DW Fearn coincidentally employs an "enhanced version" (as in a few extra frequencies, like the Manley) of the filter network found in 'vintage Pultec Equalizers', or for that matter, vintage Lang Equalizers (as opposed to the non-vintage Lang EQ's?). Golly, as long as we're talking about DW Fearn, Doug's mic pre came out in 1993, so it shouldn't have come as a surprise to our friend Michael "the dog ate my homework" Cooper. I don't think this one could have really snuck up on him, unless he really wasn't paying attention. As long as 'regurgitating press releases' is the call of the day, he's a little regurgitation from the DW Fearn propaganda: "The VT-1 recreates the sound of classic tube preamps of the 1960s. Modern components and computer-optimized circuitry, unavailable during the vacuum tube era, elevate this design to a new level of performance." Sounds like that qualifies as a 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processor' to me. Whadda y'all think? Then as a final insult to 60's injury, the folks over at TAB-Telefunkenwerk" were placed right at the very top of Michael's "pay no mind" list. These guys are definitely in the 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processors' scene. They are recreating the world famous, German made, "V series" modules, the ones that brought you the Beatles live and in hard panned faux stereo!! The one and only modules that were the sole reason for the popularity of those 4 mop top kids from Liverpool, and they're omitted. For shame. Then Michael went from the "F word", on to the "N word". While the AMS/Neve "1081 Classic" is indeed in every way an exact replica of a Neve 1081 (sans the almost 30 year old switches), the Neve 33609/J has about as much to do with a "classic Neve 2254 limiter/compressor, circa 1969" as a Drawmer 1969 has to do with the "F word" thing. If anything, the original 33609 was closest to the 31114a compressors found in 51 series broadcast desks in the 80's, or the earlier 2264, which were most commonly seen as a 32264a in Neve 8068 (including the 8058, 8066 and 8088 versions) and 8078 desks of the late 1970's (boy I love it when numbers fly by that fast, I wanna do some more!!). Also in the "N word" category are mentioned the Shep product, and the Vintech product, but for some reason the Great River MP-2NV microphone amplifier was ignored like a red headed step child. This unit is directly based on the Neve 1064,1066, 1073, 1076, 1079, 1080, 1084 (do you get the idea? or should I keep going?) design, yet not worthy of a mention? Hmmm, starting to smell like fish around here. Not that accuracy matters much at this point, but the "improvements" Vintech made with their EQ points on the X73, makes it closer to a 1084 than a 1073 (FYI, that's a good thing from the perspective of function, I've not heard the unit, can't comment about the faithfulness of the execution of the "N word" tone and texture... the literature says it uses the same stuff inside, which I'm sure is good enough for Michael). During the time when the original "N" company was making the "N word" stuff, a couple of towns over some guys were making their own desks. At least as desirable as a vintage "N" would be a vintage "T" [Trident]. The Trident-MTA "A-Series Dual Discrete Channel Module" is mentioned, which frankly is a wonderful unit. I took one and A/B'ed it with my favorite A-Range desk. It sounded close enough for Rock and Roll... though the 'boost/cut' faders on the Neo-Retro unit has center detents (the originals didn't), and uses 60mm faders for the 'boost/cut' faders (the original used 75mm faders). I didn’t get a chance to use the mic-pre’s in it, just the equalizer, but something tells me the mic-pre would qualify for ‘neo-retro’ as there really hasn’t been any radical new approach to mic pre designs in a few decades; OK, a lot of decades. Mentioned shortly thereafter is the Other Trident, as in the non-Malcolm Toft Trident [Malcolm, who was a principle in the original "Trident Audio Developments" (and may still own that name, who knows, it's probably for the courts to decide someday), worked at Trident Studios, engineered "Hey Jude", subsequently starting the fore mentioned MTA version of Trident...is this confusing or what?]. The Other Trident has released (at least pictures of) a version of the 80 series stuff, called the S80. Though Michael missed the boat on this one too, seems Trident-MTA also has a version of the 80 series mic amp and equalizer. Somehow, I must have been engaged by a stomach flu spasm, so I missed the part about Geoff Daking's 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processors'. Seems Geoff was the first guy to do a 'Trident A-Range' re-release thing with his 52270 module. Those modules come individually (or in sets), require an external power supply, and sound the balls. Come to think of it, I didn't see mention of the Daking 91579 compressor/limiter either, which to my ears and purposes is way closer to the 'N word' 32264a than the AMS/Neve 33609/J. Seeing as this stuff was based on old stuff, but is really new stuff, it must be a 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processor' stuff, I think, whadda y'all think? The Universal Audio reissue of the 1176LN is mentioned, as is the Purple Audio MC-76. Michael mentions that the UA re-release is based on the "D and E" revisions of the 1176LN. I was under the impression it was based on the "E and F" revisions, but there are so many other things wrong with Michael's article(s), why split hairs on that minor point. The MC-76, while similar to the 1176's of olden days and reissue, have undergone several improvements. Michael mentioned this as something about "hardening" improvements. Being a novice in the field, I didn't know what that meant, it sounded like a gay thing to me (not that there's anything wrong with that), but perhaps it wasn't, whadda y'all think? If it were a 'gay' issue, then surely Michael would have mentioned the 'Joe Meek' line of products. You can't get much cooler than having been a 'gay record producer from the '60's that killed his landlord, then ate a shotgun', which is exactly how cool Joe Meek, the man, was. Ted Fletcher (no relation) of Fletcher Electro-Acoustics has built a substantial line of products based on the work of this legendary maniac, yet it warrants less than a peep from Michael Cooper, what's up with that? I mean you can't get a whole lot more 'Neo-Retro Analog Signal Processor' than recreating the work of a dead, gay, homicidal, suicidal, 1960's record producer, can you? ------------------ Fletcher Mercenary Audio http://www.mercenary.com Or being redundant to here at: [url=http://prosoundweb.com/recpit]prosoundweb.com/recpit[/url]

[saucyjack]

ALLRIGHT! thats the most on target/funniest thing ive read on these here boards we need more of that;educational and sarcastic at the same time. Jack

[spookmuzik]

Fletcher! Thanks man. If I had any money I would pay you to respond to all the "reviews" in all the trades, though I would hate to inflict any further discomfort on your stomach. The 'f' word! The 'n' word! This here is one grinnin f n. Julian

[KHAN]

* "10" * ------------------ KHAN (Always hopeful, yet discontent) [url=http://www.floydtribute.hpwebhost.com]www.floydtribute.hpwebhost.com[/url]

[lwilliam]

LOL! That was good... I also get a laugh out of this one reviewer who shall remain nameless (I don't think he reviews for Mix) who tests EVERY preamp and large diaphram mic he gets with his "trusty Martin" and compares them all to an SM81. ------------------ Larry W.

[PlugHead]

Thanks, Fletcher, for your time devoted to debunking the "gear-speil" we so often find in audio mags. I think anyone who bases their purchasing decisions on a review better catch their wits and think again. As far as I'm concerned, ALL, and i mean ALL AUDIO MAGAZINES are flunkies to sell product. I'm not slagging the mags, just waiting to find a review(er) that doesn't candy-coat a turd. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img] What the audio world needs is a Fletcher, Massenburg, type publication - pull no punches, the Howard Cosell of audio - "tellin it like it is" to the devoted, and highly interested audio public: Too bad you'd have to advertise to pay the bills 'tho. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img] Jay PlugHead Productions

[jnorman]

wowee - many thanks fletcher. what an excellent bunch of information! jnorman sunridge studios salem, oregon

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

And now, a counterpoint: Okay, though I know it's politically correct to bow and kiss Fletcher's ass on any possible occasion, I do know that Michael Cooper has a real working studio that has produced some good-sounding stuff. Unlike many, he's not some editor who has no actual experience recording. He's been a writer for several audio mags for at least the last 7-8 years, which doesn't mean anything on its own. However, at least he made a couple subjective comments...something most audio magazine writers don't do for fear of stating an opinion which may piss off an advertiser. And Michael Cooper spends much more of his time recording than writing, so maybe his opinion shouldn't be written off so easily. At the same time, I do understand Fletcher's comments on the factual inaccuracies of the article, and yes, the fact that much of [b]everything[/b] you read (including "news") is re-hashed press releases. So, your other choice is to hermetically seal yourself in a hole where no biased or inaccurate info gets in. Or, to automatically believe everything some charismatic critic suggests. Personally, the next logical thing to do would be to pick apart Fletcher's review, and do a review of a review of a review...but it's a never-ending race, and I'm too damn busy, rather tired and cranky, and honestly don't care. Anyway... I recommend that those of you who feel too jaded to believe anything you read in any glossy music/audio magazines check out Tape Op. Not that it's any better, but the difference is at least interesting. - Jeff P.S. I think Robert Heinlein, speaking via his Lazarus Long character, said "Of course the game is rigged. But if you don't play, you can't win."

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

And one more thing (to rebutt my rebuttal): though I can't say what everyone "should" do, it's my policy to not just accept everything I read in a magazine...on a newsgroup...on a forum...in a newspaper...et cetera. What Fletcher is doing here is good. It's too bad that not everyone shares his passion for having true expertise on a particular subject (in this case, vintage high-end audio gear), and people do benefit from his sharing of knowledge. In fact, he wrote a pretty damn good article on this topic in one of the major trade mags himself awhile back. Okay, I feel better now. - Jeff

[alphajerk]

tape op can shove their cassette 4tracks up their collective asses. that rag bores me to death.

[GuitarMan]

[quote]Originally posted by Jeff, TASCAM Guy: [b]And now, a counterpoint: Okay, though I know it's politically correct to bow and kiss Fletcher's ass on any possible occasion,[/b][/quote] Yessireebob! I picture a redneck good 'ol boy butt that's covered in biker leather and stinks like hell! But then, I never was attracted to gear fetishists. As to credibility and advertising etc... isn't 'ol Fletch' a merchandiser his ownself and therefore even more suspect than a mere audio engineer and part-time journalist? Gee... I wish I had the market cornered on truth! Especially something as ephemeral and subjective as high end audio. This message has been edited by GuitarMan on 10-22-2001 at 09:41 PM This message has been edited by GuitarMan on 10-22-2001 at 09:42 PM

[spincyclesprynet.com]

For me the audio rag thing comes down to this...If the articles they printed were more like Fletcher's post I might actually read the damn things. Hey I might even get a subscription. Bill

[Curve Dominant]

MY GOD!!! THE AGITA!!! THE FUCKING AGITA!!! Twenty two paragraphs, all to bash a little product review in the back of an outdated issue of an audio trade rag, ending with a homophobic epitaph of Joe Meek. Fletcher, you didn't have to go to all of that just to promote your new moderating gig. Just post the link, and we'll come visit ya, bro! E [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

[Fletcher]

[quote]Originally posted by GuitarMan: [b]As to credibility and advertising etc... isn't 'ol Fletch' a merchandiser his ownself and therefore even more suspect than a mere audio engineer and part-time journalist? Gee... I wish I had the market cornered on truth! Especially something as ephemeral and subjective as high end audio.[/b][/quote] You bring up a valid point, yes, my day gig is that of a pimp. However, I still do a pretty fair amount of engineering, it's what helps me stay current with what's out there, what's cool, and what's stool. There was a little compilation record that came out of the MPER forum, it has a selection I engineered and produced on it. Pick up a copy, then you can make your own decision whether I'm an 'engineer', or just a 'pimp' (plus, the proceeds go to a worthy cause). My comments were directed at a job poorly done, not to flog hardware. I dunno, call me old fashioned, but when you're paid to do a job, I've always kind of felt that you should actually do the job. Michael at best did a cursory glance over a small stack of press releases/catalogs/brochures and had the balls to call it an article. This should be left unnoticed? The guy is a "professional engineer", but doesn't grasp the concept of 'gain scaling'? I'm having a difficult time understanding how (A) an industry publication allows this drek to be published. Do their editors have no clue of mundane things like 'gain staging' too? George Peterson seems to love to make a big deal out of his studio [he's got a Soundcraft, does that make him cooler than Michael Cooper and his 02R?]. (B) how the man could do an article on 'Neo-Retro' gear and leave out some of the oldest and most respected names in the 'Neo-Retro' gear business. My little commentary was based on my frustration as an audio engineer trying to pull anything of use from these magazines. If really want to try and tie that to my day gig, notice that M-A doesn't sell Tube Tech, nor Joe Meek, nor Universal Audio, nor TAB/Telefunkenwerk, etc. This wasn't about me trying to hawk shit, it was about me being pissed off at a piss poor job. Yeah, maybe I did flex the 'Neve number knowledge' thing a bit too much, but shit, there is more to "N" stuff than 1073's. Learn a new number or two...[to quote Roger Rabbit] Ppaaallleeeeaaase. The fact that the brother runs a 'professional studio' adds insult to injury in my opinion. Does he pay as little attention to detail in his recording work as he does with his writing? I find that scary. As Jeff pointed out, he did offer an opinion or two in his article, I heartily commend that, and if you'll notice, didn't go near any of his subjective observations in my piece. I made no statements regarding Michael's "subjective" observations. That would have been stupid and pretentious on my part, something I try to avoid whenever possible. A man's opinion is a man's opinion, period. I certainly would never presume to argue any man's perception of any piece of equipment. In the case of someone saying something like an 'alesis 3630 is an awesome sounding compressor', I would probably respond with something like, "have you ever tried anything else?"...which is about as close as I'll ever get to ever questioning anyone's subjective evaluation of a piece of hardware. My intention was not to make it seem like I had "the market cornered on truth" (wish I did, my life would be a shitload easier), my intention was to point out the degredation of the crap that passes as a 'respected trade journal' these days. I guess to be truly fair, I should rip into some UEM book next...the problem is I'd have to actually pick one up and read it...which is just so painful to do. The bottom line is, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. MIX (and I'm quite sure the UEM books) pays like shit (I know, I've written for them), so it's not really worth anyone's time to turn in a decent article. The problem is that people will take this half assed spew as 'gospel truth'. If this guy had taken a little more time researching the article than he had verifying the serial number of his Stratocaster, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. If he's too busy engineering to write the full article, don't take the gig. But if he's going to take the gig, he might as well do the gig. If I were to grade that article, I'd give it a "C-". There may be room for "C-"s in acedemia, but there really shouldn't be "C-"s in life. I don't want a doctor who got a "C-" in heart surgery giving me a heart transplant. I don't want a plumber who got a "C-" in plumbing school working on my septic system. I don't want a barber who got a "C-" in barber school cutting my hair. There is no room for "C-" work in my world...obviously, your mileage may vary. ------------------ Fletcher Mercenary Audio http://www.mercenary.com Or being redundant to here at: [url=http://prosoundweb.com/recpit]prosoundweb.com/recpit[/url]

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

[quote]Originally posted by Fletcher@mercenary.com: [b]In the case of someone saying something like an 'alesis 3630 is an awesome sounding compressor'[/b][/quote] ARRRRGGGHHHHH! Coffee out the nose in a reflexive snort of disgust. Luckily, no one has ever said that, so the point is moot. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] Yes, I fully agree with Fletcher on this point. The minute someone comes up to me and says, "I think this thing sounds great," no amount of arguing, cajoling or otherwise pressuring the person to feel differently will change this. It's a sublime exercise in futility. Oh, by the way (and totally off topic): the little Alesis NanoCompressor is actually much better sounding than its big brother, the 3630. Newer (and in this case, better) VCAs. And the FMR RNC is better than both by about a mile, if you're looking at low-cost hardware compressors. This is only my opinion...YMMV. Now I'll clean the nose-filtered Starbucks off my keyboard. - Jeff

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

[quote]Originally posted by alphajerk: [b]tape op can shove their cassette 4tracks up their collective asses. that rag bores me to death.[/b][/quote] Really? I like the interview format and the approach of having non-writers do much of the writing. Alpha, just cause you've piqued my curiosity, are there audio magazines that you [i]do[/i] enjoy or respect (or both)? If so, what are they? - Jeff

[AmadMozart]

[quote]Originally posted by Jeff, TASCAM Guy: [b]And now, a counterpoint: Okay, though I know it's politically correct to bow and kiss Fletcher's ass on any possible occasion, [/b][/quote] Wow....are things really that slow on your side of town? [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Cheers, Mark ------------------ http://www.broadjam.com/artistprofile/artistindex.asp?artistID=936 or listen at... http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/294/mark_coming_project.html

[halljams]

I have trouble taking anyone who doesn't appreciate Steely Dan seriously.

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by Fletcher@mercenary.com: [b]The problem is that people will take this half assed spew as 'gospel truth'.[/b][/quote] The HEART of the matter...in all 'reviews'...with dollar-flows and disappointments following, (as well as time/money lost to redos or production delays) hence the need for such a quality-critiquing reviewers' review as this. [quote]Originally by Fletcher@mercenary.com: [b]...to grade that article, I'd give it a "C-". There may be room for "C-"s in acedemia, but there really shouldn't be "C-"s in life. I don't want a doctor who got a "C-" in heart surgery giving me a heart transplant. I don't want a plumber who got a "C-" in plumbing school working on my septic system. I don't want a barber who got a "C-" in barber school cutting my hair. There is no room for "C-" work in my world...obviously, your mileage may vary.[/b][/quote] Despite the fact that Texas' most reportedly successful big-dollar torts lawyer got a "C" in Torts at UT law school (says it didn't interest him, probably the source of a lot of C-'s in academia), I fully agree. Big (to some) money outlays and professional trust are often based on reviewed performance of gear most of us don't have the opportunity to check out in a studio environment (decidedly different from a store aisle). That shouldn't be based on hokum or pre-digested re-published re-reviews.

[Anderton]

I'm not going to comment on the original article, or Fletcher's comments. Both speak for themselves and I see no need to translate. But all this really makes me wonder why I bother putting so much time into writing reviews, and debate over just about every word, if everyone is just going to think that it's BS anyway. It's so easy to bash magazines and say "well they take advertising, therefore the credibility of any review is suspect." How many of you are willing to pay $60 a year to get a magazine that has no advertising? That's exactly what Sound on Sound is offering with its international edition, and apparently, they're not being deluged with takers. So, you want to get the mags for free or at cost, you want them to have big budgets for freelancers (or staff members who spend weeks looking over gear instead of actually producing magazines), you want reviews that come out immediately after the product ships but you want the reviewer to exhibit the insights that come only from working with something on extended projects...and then you want to bitch not only about the mags, the reviews, and the authors, you want to bitch about Fletcher's credibility because he happens to sell gear, even though in a fairly lengthy history of posting, I've never seen him take advantage of this forum to push specific pieces of gear. Okay then, I'll make it real easy. Magazines all suck. They all get reviews spoon-fed to them from advertisers, who say nothing but good things. This is why no advertiser has ever cancelled ads in magazines. This is why you see so many links in manufacturer web sites to reviews that appeared in UEM publications, because no manufacturer ever has considered UEM reviews to be "too negative, we don't want to link to them." Authors all suck. They're just parasites, because they're not full-time engineers or producers. They accept bad pay because their talents are so limited that they are incapable of finding any other type of work, not because they love the business and the people in it. Also, because they are journalists, it is impossible for them to have any musical or technical talent. If they did, they'd be professional musicians or engineers, right? Manufacturers all suck, because they put out trash at exorbitant prices. None of the stuff works, and so while you're at it, you're perfectly welcome to rip off software because they're just stealing you blind anyway. Some software manufacturers actually put out products with bugs, and then have the effing NERVE to offer free updates! Wow, what scumbags!! And because the music industry is so small, there's no competitive pressures. That's why prices never come down on all this trash they're selling, and why digital recorders cost just as much as they did 10 years ago. And this forum sucks too, because there's no way to screen the credibility of everyone who posts. Hey, the sky is green!!! See? I just said some BS and no one can stop me! So yeah, everything sucks. Have a nice day [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Can we please talk about how to make better music now?

[halljams]

There are several "posts" on this forum that are equally as stupid and non productive as this one, i would like to see them Shut down with the same authority also, but why should Craig have to do it. Can we not try to have a constructive, enthusiastic, helpful enviorment here where we teach each other and help each other to get better at what we are so passionate about? I understand times are stressful but lets try to keep positive attitudes and lift each other up. I believe that these forums are a real chance for people to express their opinions and actually have others hear what they are saying and then get good feedback. Not all of our feelings are positive but can't we at least refrain from ripping each other apart? Jesus, we're all the same, remember that, we all have feelings and are affected by direct attacks like the one in this thread and a few others. Even if you don't like someone, it's not gonna make things any better by making them feel even shittier about themselves! And it makes the attacker look like an asshole to all of us watching from the sidelines. Isn't this type of thing the reason for the state of world affairs right now. Lets stop it on a smaller scale first, empathize.

[gearmike]

AHHH hell...I had a long post and for some reason all that posted was the quote...well I'm not gonna sit here and bitch about the software...it must've been something I did...I'll have to rewrite it tonight...darn. -Mike This message has been edited by gearmike@yahoo.com on 10-23-2001 at 06:57 PM

[Curve Dominant]

CRAIG! YOU FUCKIN' KILL ME, BRO!!! I CAN'T BREATHE, I'M LAUGHING SO FUCKING HARD!!!!! I've been a member of this site for exactly a year now, and it still slays me how some peeps still think the quality of music is affected by the kind of gear you use to create it! As if there really is a fucking difference between the sound of a $1K Drawmer compressor, and a $95 Alesis Nanocompressor! Do you really think that MINUTE difference you hear in solo mode will add up to anything when the whole mix is booming out of Jeep stereos? Because if you do, the lobotomy you paid for definitely got you your money's worth. One of the reasons I was so hell-bent on getting FATCo done and out, was to demonstrate how the cheap little home rigs CAN actually produce music that is MORE contemporary and relevant than the "pros" in the "real" studios. But I guess if you've already drowned in De-Nile, you're just never going to admit that fact in public. I just came from a meeting, where I was hired to score and produce the soundtrack for a feature-length film. I demo'd the scene I scored with a $475 Korg E-Tribe•S. No VS, no ProTools, no help from Rupert, nor Trident, nor the gay ghost of Joe Meek was necessary. Just the E-Tribe, sitting on my lap, plugged into their board, going into the Avid rig. Hired. I'll post when the film comes out, so you can bitch about how it just doesn't have that "vintage" sound, and you'll be right, because it won't, at least not for another 25 years or so. May your varying mileage have a nice day. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Eric Vincent Curve Dominant Sound&Vision curvdominant@earthlink.net

[filmfsc.edu]

Well another problem that some mags, such as UEM's pubs. have is that they send the articles to the manufacturers for a fact check. I'm convinced that when something gets panned, the manufacturer squashes the article by not returning it from the fact check. I wrote a review of the Behringer Truth monitors for UEM that hasn't come up for print yet. Last I heard was that Behringer hadn't gotten back to anyone at UEM about the fact check. So, this could be part of the reason why you never see truly negative reviews. Dan Roth Otitis Media dannchrisr@netscape.net

[Anderton]

<> Well, speaking only for reviews I've done, in the very rare instances when the fact check didn't come back, the magazines just went ahead and ran the review as it was on the assumption that the company didn't find anything wrong. The vast majority of the time, though, the mags just keep buggin' 'em until they respond. If you'd care to email me privately about the magazine and such, I can check into the situation if it's a magazine with which I'm involved.

[Anderton]

<> Well I'm glad you got the humor (I was just in one of those [i]moods[/i], y'know?), but I didn't intend to slam high-end gear or anything. My point is that it's the most entropic route to just think everything sucks, and it's easy to look at things that way if anyone desires.

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by Curve Dominant: [b]I've been a member of this site for exactly a year now, and it still slays me how some peeps still think the quality of music is affected by the kind of gear you use to create it! As if there really is a fucking difference between the sound of a $1K Drawmer compressor, and a $95 Alesis Nanocompressor! Do you really think that MINUTE difference you hear in solo mode will add up to anything when the whole mix is booming out of Jeep stereos? Because if you do, the lobotomy you paid for definitely got you your money's worth. One of the reasons I was so hell-bent on getting FATCo done and out, was to demonstrate how the cheap little home rigs CAN actually produce music that is MORE contemporary and relevant than the "pros" in the "real" studios. But I guess if you've already drowned in De-Nile, you're just never going to admit that fact in public. [/b][/quote] Well, I must have gotten my money's worth on the lobotomy. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Yes, there IS a difference in the results you can obtain with different gear. Using your example, by using one compressor with a "minute" difference in sound (noise levels, overall tone, whatever) but using it on 16 - 24 + tracks, you're GOING to have a decrease in sound quality. Those noise differences are cumulative, and IMO WILL be noticed and detrimental to the overall quality of the finished work. To say otherwise is to deny reality and science. What is "acceptable" performance and what sounds "good" is purely subjective, and not worth arguing about. Use what you like and what sounds good to YOU. But I DO agree with you that it is possible to do excellent work with less than state of the art gear. But it's harder and requires someone who really knows how to get the most out of the gear. Someone with a Roland VS who really knows the limitations and capabilities and how to get the maximum from the potential offered by that machine will ALWAYS get better results than someone with a multimillion dollar setup but who doesn't know what they're doing. But assuming that the knowledge levels of the engineer / producer are equal, and that you've given the same song, performers, instruments and the same quality of the actual performances, my money is on the guy with the Neve. Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html pokeefe777@msn.com

[batman forgot his cape]

[quote]Originally posted by halljams: [b]I have trouble taking anyone who doesn't appreciate Steely Dan seriously.[/b][/quote] Are you seriously serious??!! This has turned out to be an engaging little thread..... I loved Craig's faux cynical post....you should really blast-off occasionally man....it's wonderfully cathartic.... I fully empathise with Fletcher's original post.....glaring inaccuracies, sloppy attention to detail and second-hand, regurgitated press-room fodder can render me apoplectic, and promote a chronosyclastic infidiblium, causing me to appear in the reviewer's domicile for a moment in time just long enough to administer a dry slap upside-im-'ead.... Having written reviews for a mag over here in England recently, I've experienced, first hand, the pressures of not upsetting advertisers, not going into too much, boring technical detail (what am I writng for...Gardeners Monthly?!), and introducing some "humour" into the text (the reason that they employed me in the first place....although it's invariably the first thing to be edited out....they're scared to chop any of the technical stuff in case of "egg-on-face".... All this for a meagre financial remuneration, the tyranny of the deadline and smug abuse from one's peers..... Just wait for my new tome..."Harry Potter and the Digidesgn Audio Engine"... I should be able to shift a mil, b4 I get rumbled......... Peace and ..a robust dialectic t'all Ade [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

[Anderton]

<> Yeah, well I thought it sucked. What a pathetic excuse for a post. And you suck for thinking it's any good. Okay, can I stop now?!? <> According to Dave Barry, the next book in the series is titled "Harry Potter and the Great Big Royalty Check."

[KHAN]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b] Okay then, I'll make it real easy. Magazines all suck. Authors all suck. Manufacturers all suck, And this forum sucks too So yeah, everything sucks. Have a nice day [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] [/b][/quote] I did a quick search on the word [b]SUCK[/b] in the interest of [i]real[/i] journalism. Here are some other things that suck:" [quote]Originally posted by many: [b] What I think does suck is the endless stream of alternative pop bands out now I would go as far to say anyone who doesnt write their own songs, sucks. at least 99% of the time. however, sting sucks. in fact if you work with puffy, you suck. Being ignored sucks god music sucks these days. those people [n'sunk, brittany, hackstreet noise, et al] plain suck, for real. all of a sudden Cocaine became addictive...then the 80's started to suck. The eighties in my book sucked. i have to admit that i thought sweetwater sucked before this happened but this is blatently missleading People can't be more specific than: "It sucks" when the 80's is the subject. All of that gear sucked! PC's suck No one has told me my music sucks, though I suspect the worst In any case the quality of Mp3's suck if you want shallow music, there is plenty of it [n'suck, et al] Eminem is a punk and his "songs" suck. [/b][/quote] KHAN (I SUCK...)