Reviewing a "Reviewer"

[alphajerk]

[quote]Originally posted by Curve Dominant: [b]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] uh, thats why fletchers tune sonically wiped the asses of all the other submissions right? [especially the bass guitar... too bad the vocalist sounded like that hack crowes guy [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]] dont get me wrong, i thought just about every submission sounded [b]great[/b] BUT a lot of submissions were done based on sampling/synths/drum machines which is easy to make sound good with minimal gear and the rest didnt have scott hull master it. i didnt necessarily find fletchers tune more contemporary but i didnt find a lot of submissions more contemporary either... some were downright stylized in authenticity [and very well done i might add] i do agree with you to a degree, i too was STUNNED on how good shit sounded even with the most modest gear. but using my own song for example, i found the gear to be crapping out in certain areas when i tried pushing it too hard.... if i just had better gear, i could of made it sound much much better, ESPECIALLY the low end. if i had better reverb, i could make it sound sweeter and less dry. if i had better EQ, i could of extended out the top end smoother. if i had a million dollars id spend it all [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] but you do the best you can with what you got and move on. a gaurantee that what you do with your digi001 will KILL what you did on your roland. regardless, i love the fact of what fletcher posted. arent these reviewers supposed to GET IT RIGHT??? shit, its what i HATE about reviews, they DO read like pr collage... ever wonder why you basically read the some review in every different magazine? almost the same fucking wording? shit, i wouldnt put it past some reviews not even having the damn product and simply writing it off some pdf form the company. some reviews come DAMN CLOSE to the press releases actual wording.

[batman forgot his cape]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]<> 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."[/b][/quote] Steady-on, old chap... This is either getting very post post modern, or you're suffering from the early stages of clinical depression... I don't give a shit about being called a sucker...hell..it goes with the territory It wasn't a pathetic excuse for a post..you had a wee rantette...don't feel bad/guilty about it...revel in it! And...no...you can't stop now.... look after yourself, bro, and thanx for a great forum (truly...no kidding) Ade P.S. your mate, Dave Barry (loved his 60s single "The Crying Game" BTW), has got half a wit on him....That book will actually be entitled.."Harry Potter and The Fat Old Geezer Who Tried To Shag Jane Rowling For Her £22m"!...

[Marvster]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]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.[/b][/quote] And it would cost even more if they weren't repurposing reviews from the UK edition. (Which confuses the hell out of me, by the way. I like SOS, but isn't the perceived benefit of an ad-free rag that there's absolutely *no* possible conflict with review credibility and ad revenue? So if you're simply taking reviews written for an ad-supported mag and sticking them in a sub-supported mag, what's the point?) Marv

[spincyclesprynet.com]

[quote]So yeah, everything sucks. Have a nice day Can we please talk about how to make better music now? [/quote] OK. I realize that your post was sarcastic in nature but I think part of your point was "Don't just say stuff sucks, offer some suggestions as to how to make it better." If I'm off I apologize. I don't want to put words into anyones mouth. Well, since I said I don't read audio mags I figured I should offer suggestions as to what would make me want to read them. So, I did a couple of quick searches. I've heard that your a pretty good writer so I searched for some of your reviews. Here's what I found and here's what I think. http://www.musicplayer.com/CDA/Player/Main/1,2228,Lessons--5161649,00.html First up was a piece on Battery. This article was useful. I now [B}know[/B] what this software can do. And to boot I've heard examples of it. I've had a virtual tour of Battery. The only thing better would be in I actually had a demo. But then I would have to figure the software out...you did that for me. Good work. This is what I want in Audio Gear Journalism. http://www.musicplayer.com/CDA/Player/Main/1,2228,Reviews-Guitarist-5000470,00.html Second. A review of the POD v2.0 update. This article was more of a straight up review imo. You've got the facts. Important ones too like "you'll lose your patches when you put the new chip in, so back them up". You've got some personal observations about the sounds. You have some things to say about the Soundiver software. It's all good. The info about the software is the most useful to me. Not because I want it to suck but because Line 6 won't tell me it sucks. I'm not trying to be a smartass here. You obviously don't need me to tell you what is good writing. The thing is I don't see this kind of writing being the norm. Maybe it's a lot like radio. One good song followed by ten that make you wonder if they are even trying. Usally I don't read Mix. Hasn't always been that way but the last couple of years I could care less. EQ once in a while. I usually check it out at the stand. If it has interviews with artists I like or something on a piece of gear I've been wanting to check out I buy it. Otherwise it's just gear porn to me. Flecther's post to me is a good thing. That was a crappy "review" and he pointed it out. I know sometimes it seems easy to find fault (that seems pretty universal) but I like that. It helps me strive for something beyond ordinary. If I write a crappy song (happens alot) I've got friends that say "Dude, what were you thinking!?!" Actually, that brings up a good point....I would like to see reviews with strong opinions followed up with reviews by people that completely disagree. The most important thing would be that they answer the question "why?". Anyway. Just some thoughts. Bill

[Hippie]

Fletcher, I appreciate your corrections on a poorly written article/review. However, what suprises me more than the innacurate info. in the article is your "greeness" that something written by a "paid" mag. staffer could actually be wrong! Hey, you been around this biz for a while (and this world for that matter), you must know the bullshit runs rampant! Hell, in my little microcasm of life, I work for a company of 200 employees, where I honestly believe 170 of 'em have no buisness being there. These people have been hired on "fiddlers invitations" or are really good bullshitters on their resumes', or something? I dunno. If you have no tolerance for C- work, you'd go fuckin' nuts if you worked for my company! Anyway, it sounds like you know more about the equipment than the guy who wrote the article. My advice would have been to flush the mag. along with the intestinal deposits. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Hippie

[soapbox]

[b]Ade[/b], I enjoyed your HALion review. I posted my (very brief) review of your review on 10-10-2001 in [url=http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002180.html]this thread[/url] . This message has been edited by soapbox on 10-24-2001 at 11:27 AM

[Fletcher]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]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. [/b][/quote] Yeah, it is easy to 'bash' the rags, it is easy to shluff it off on MFG. 'payola' for a glowing review, it is easy to say that 'all reviews suck'. I really enjoyed your post Craig, mostly because it pointed out that some folks really do give a shit. Guys like you, Eddie Cilleti, Bobby Owsinski, Mark Frink (did I spell any of those names correctly?) do great work (as do a bunch of other guys I've more than likely pissed off by not mentioning). Then there are guys that walk through the stuff like it isn't important...this is the source of my frustration. The original writing of the 'piece' was done purely as a 'Letter to the Editor' at MIX. It wasn't originally meant for "distribution via this medium". Granted, it's a bit longwinded for a 'letter to the editor', but that's exactly how it started. I then received a series of emails from Tom Kenny [nice guy, an editor at MIX], who basically admonished me as having made a career out of attacking MIX magazine. Ignoring the fact that M-A has been an advertiser in that book for nearly a dozen years, ignoring the fact that it's the only monthly book in which we advertise [we do "Tape Op" too, but that was done mostly to show support for a fledgling, and therefor still idealistic book]. When I pointed out to Tom that my intention was to give MIX an opportunity to get a little 'introspective', he told me to write a 250 word piece and they'd run it after they "edited" it. He wasn't going to hang 'his writer' out to dry. I thought that was a real stand up move on his part, but the fact remains that covering for incompetence is still covering for incompetence. There was some other genius, I think his name is Barry Rudolph that "reviewed" one of those 'Made in the PRC' mics. In the "review" was a line that went something like: (I swear I'm not making this up) 'on an electric guitar, I found moving the microphone as little as a foot made a big difference'. Here I am moving the damn things a half inch at a time, changing their angle by increments of like 5 degrees...and this genius said he noticed a difference in the tone when he moved the mic a fucking foot? This is "journalism"? Cooper's article on the "ES-8" was sent to Greg Gualtieri at Pendulum for 'fact checking'. He responded that the unit used 6ES8 tubes for the gain reduction cell. This comment was completely ignored, and it came out as "six ES8 tubes, one for each channel". This is just sloppy workmanship. This is why I get so pissed off. Guys like Craig and Eddie break their fucking balls to get through every aspect of the shit they review. They open it up, they ask questions, they throw it on the bench, they listen to it, they listen to it in context, they actually review the fucking unit. Then shitheads like Cooper and Rudolph walk through the fucking review like it was a 4th grade report on George Washington that's due the next day. To me, in my warped little world, that's just not right. If I were Craig, I'd be watching for shit like that like a hawk...because 'one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch'. I guess I'm just asking that more people who write for these books just do the job they took. I don't get EQ anymore, so I don't know if this feature still exists, but there was a time when they used to "spotlight" a piece of "vintage" equipment. I didn't see a single one of these "spotlights" that didn't have at least one, and usually more "facts" that were totally incorrect. Maybe it's better now, I don't know, don't get the book. Even if I did get the book, because things like that get me so pissed off, I wouldn't read the damn thing. It had it's chance, but historically, all the book has ever served to do was raise my blood pressure. Now, more than ever, I feel it is imperative that the magazines do the best job possible. The fact that we can sit around and discuss this crap in nearly real time makes it mandatory that the books do a better job, or become superfluous. In my mind, that would be a shame, but I don't work for these books, and I can't do shit to change these books...except throw a little tantrum from time to time in the hope that somebody in an 'editorial meeting' will "get it". Yeah, I know, I'm pissin' up a rope...but at least I gave it a fucking shot. ------------------ Fletcher Mercenary Audio http://www.mercenary.com Or being redundant to here at: [url=http://prosoundweb.com/recpit]prosoundweb.com/recpit[/url]

[Anderton]

Various comments on various posts... < >> Batman --you do know I was kidding, right? Hence the "Okay, can I stop now?" I greatly enjoy your posts, but obviously, I look much more cool if I say they suck . <> Mitch is starting to include "second opinions" in EQ's reviews. I think that's a good idea. <> Battery was the first online seminar I did for the site. It was sponsored by Native Instruments (as mentioned in the piece), so it was "advertorial." However, interestingly enough, in all the sponsored online seminars I've done, no manufacturer has ever told me what to say. The reason I did the Battery seminar was because I use the program and thought people didn't really understand how cool it was, so Joe McDonough pitched NI on the idea of a seminar, and they accepted. <> In this case, the reason for making it ad-free is to reduce the postage and printing costs, and because many of the ads aren't relevant outside of the UK. You know the size of the UK SOS -- it's a friggin' telephone book! The slimmed-down version costs much less to send. Otherwise subs would cost over $100. I used to joke with Ian (their publisher) that if I wrote too much for SOS, they'd go broke because they had to send me the issues in which my articles appeared. <> Well thank you very much for that. I DO stand by behind everything I write, either because I've had extensive personal experience with the subject matter (reviews), or I've done enough research to feel any opinions are valid, and any facts are accurate (feature stories). This applies even to any "advertorial" I've done, like some of the sponsored online seminars, as well as my "live" seminars. For example, when I did seminars on Panasonic's DA7, I didn't decide to like the mixer because I wanted to get paid for doing seminars on it. I had already bought the mixer, loved it, and used it almost every day. When Panasonic wanted someone to talk about the mixer, they decided -- correctly, I believe -- than an enthusiastic user with no connection to Panasonic would have more credibility than a Panasonic clinician, so they asked me to do the seminars. <> Au contraire, Fletcher. Posts like yours are inspiring to people like me, because it means some people actually DO read reviews, and DO care if someone takes the time to get facts right. I can't guarantee I'll catch every cool feature and every bug, but I sure try. What's interesting is that with most pieces of gear, even after using it for a period of time, I really wouldn't change my overall opinion from the original review. There are some exceptions, of course, but in general they veer toward if I could do the review over again, it would be MORE positive. Major bugs I tend to find fairly easily, but cool little applications that no one thought of -- not even the engineers who designed the unit -- are harder to flush out in a short period of time.

[halljams]

[quote]Originally posted by Fletcher@mercenary.com: [b] The fact that we can sit around and discuss this crap in nearly real time makes it mandatory that the books do a better job, or become superfluous. In my mind, that would be a shame, but I don't work for these books, and I can't do shit to change these books...except throw a little tantrum from time to time in the hope that somebody in an 'editorial meeting' will "get it". Yeah, I know, I'm pissin' up a rope...but at least I gave it a fucking shot. [/b][/quote] Uh, you may not "give a shit" about what some shmuck up in northern Canada thinks, but at least consider this With the amount of time and effort you have spent "throwing your little tantrum", You could have written and submitted 3 of these quality reviews you so crave yourself and made the few bucks that they do pay for yourself, and aslo written a productive letter to Micheal descibing how you would appreciate that he take a bit more time to get his facts strait. If you really are all that concerned about the welfare of the folks reading these mags, stop acting like a 12 year old and do something constuctive about it for fuck sakes!!!!!!! Are you really a moderator somewhere?

[seclusion]

Being still somewhat of a young cat at 31.. I fell into that oooohhhhh version 2.1 senerio.. So i'd actually wait, stall a couple clients so I could debug the new version to make sure it worked.. It is incredibly annoying turning into "The upgrade" guy.. Ya it'd be nice to invest $30,000 in some new thang that someone says is the next "Gotta have" toy.. But in the end.. It's still gonna come down to kik, snr, hats, toms, perc, bassdi, basscab, gtr1, gtr2, acc st, lead, bass, keys, b3, piano, sax, vox1, vox2, vox3, bgs's hi, bg's lo, smpte,strings n AUTOTUNE! the rest of it don't matter.. Later. Brian Sorry I can't submit tunes without Antares.. Brian

[clock]

I pity the poor guy who buys gear based on a review he read in a mag. reading various user reviews and comparing them to magazine reveiws is horrifying. I used to love getting my hands on mags to see the latest reveiws, but now that I know that its totally impossible to even read between the lines the way these guys cover up stuff, I just stick to the internet boards. I hate mix magaizine. This is because I am not into that that aspect of audio, and I hate the way they write. THe first issue I got was the one that fletcher talked about. I was dissapointed in the review he talked about. There was no meat to it. I thought it was all useless info, like most of the information I have got in the last three issues Its very amazing what users say about reviewed gear. I just have to ask myself, is it even legal to write a review like this? Anyone remembers reviews on the rode nt1, or the at 3035, or the sp c1? or come to think of it, reviews on the TLM 103, akg solidtube and rode ntk? I like sound on sound. You can at least read between the lines. I pity the poor guy who buys gear based on a review he read in a mag.

[Anderton]

<> I pity the guy who buys a review based solely on user opinions. I've seen plenty of misinformation on the net, and plenty of users who are truly clueless about how to use their gear. My favorite is people who bitch up and down about software not working, so I write back to help them, and find the software is cracked!! Gimme a break. Look, YOU have to decide what works for you. If you read enough reviews, listen to enough opinions, AND are educated enough to tell the difference between what's useful and what's not, then you stand a chance. I will readily agree that many magazines print blow-job editorial...but some do not, and some authors pay more attention to research than others. For example, when I wanted to test the Mackie MDR24/96's MTC sync capabilities, I tested it with SONAR. Fair enough, right? But then I also tested it with Vegas Video and Cubase, just to make sure, and tested it as both master and slave (BTW, it worked fine). Caveat Emptor -- the concept has been around since the Roman empire.

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by Curve Dominant:[b]... FATCo ... demonstrate[ed] how the cheap little home rigs CAN actually produce music that is MORE contemporary and relevant than the "pros" in the "real" studios. ... 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...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. [/b][/quote] [b]EV[/b], thanks for standing up for the John Q. Publics (gearwise) of our little group, tho I'm not sure if low-tech (my middle name gearwise) and "contemporary" and "relevant" are definitively conjoined in the definite definitionary sense :rolleyes: :D . As to the E-Tribe on your lap may I say "you da man!" ? It really does take vintage a while to show up doesn't it? ... hmmm. [b]]Craig[/b], I like the BBoard's new minor mods and the "instants" on reply posting!

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by Fletcher@mercenary.com: [b]Guys like you, Eddie Cilleti, Bobby Owsinski, Mark Frink (did I spell any of those names correctly?)...[/b][/quote] [i]This just in!: According to link #6 at the following site, [url=http://www.mercenary.com/mercenary-audio/ind.html](www.mercenary.com)[/url] Cilletti (a favorite pro audio dude of mine) is correctly spelled with two t's[/i]... that's [b]"two"[/b] t's ... "get it right", Fletch :D ! Btw, been to your ProSoundWeb debut...seems it has fresh forum promise. like the pics...a personal touch. your un-rules may be a little tight but I'll get used to the straight-jacket :) . [b]WHat?!![/b] "Barbeque, beer, hotrods, what you do to become quasi-normal after a gig...it's all good." but no politics or spitiuality [misspelling intended]? oh well...in the words of that great philosopher Scar...life's not fair is it? U've made a racy start there as HNIC :D . Preshate ya...i think....? thanks fa lett'n me have fun with all this...now i gotta get a valid e-mail address :D :rolleyes: [ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: lovesinger ] [ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: lovesinger ]

[Jim Aikin]

[quote]Originally posted by Jeff, TASCAM Guy: [b]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.[/b][/quote] Interesting thread. Of course we all try to avoid inaccuracies. Some of us try harder than others, but none of us is perfect. (A couple of months ago I confused China and Japan in print -- very embarrassing!) With respect to Michael Cooper's roundup (which I haven't seen) leaving out some important units, that's quite likely not Michael's fault. A writer sometimes writes a comparison of three or four products of a given type and only finds out when the issue shows up in the mailbox that the article has been repackaged with a headline that makes it appear far more comprehensive than the writer him/herself intended. Welcome to the wonderful world of inflated sales tactics. I'm sure equipment manufacturers never indulge in this practice.... Speaking strictly for myself, I seldom even read the press releases for a product I'm reviewing, so any resemblance between their wording and mine would be purely coincidental. I've never seen a review pulled because the manufacturer failed to respond to a fact-check, and I've been around for a long time. I have, on VERY rare occasions (like, maybe twice in 20 years) seen a freelance-written review postponed for a month or two because the manufacturer pointed out some very serious factual inadequacies in the review that had somehow slipped by the editors. And I ain't apologizin' for it. That's why we do fact-checks! On two occasions in the last 20 years I have seen the language of a review scrutinized very carefully before publication -- not just by editors; we scrutinize language as a matter of course; but by the suits. This was done not to hide the facts (the facts got published) but in order to avoid being inflammatory in our presentation of some very damning information. Would I prefer to publish more in-your-face, less carefully worded reviews? Sometimes, yeah. But I think there's a thin line between a reviewer who is willing to say "this software coughs up furballs" because it's true and a reviewer whose ego has gotten in the way of objectivity. I'd prefer to err on the side of objectivity, and check my ego at the door. --JA

[Mats Nermark]

Hi, I also write product reviews. In my case it's for the swedish guitar magazine FUZZ. Yes, it's also financed by ads from record companies and manufacturers/distributors of musical instruments and studio equipmet. It doesn't pay very well so I can't say I do it for the money. I do it because I like products, I like writing, I really like the people I deal with while doing it and the most rewarding aspect is the dialog I have with my readers thru e-mail, my web site and a swedish forum I'm active on. I often get the question why don't we write reviews that are more critical. To get to the point of this admittedly relevant question there are a few aspects we need to look at. First of all is the very limited space in each issue of the magazine devoted to product reviews. We generally get asked to do more reviews than we have space. Therefore we choose to review products we feel bring something new or something positive to the musician as our goal is to always strive to bring positive things to our lives. I see no use in giving space to bad products when there are so many cool products to review unless you are a product basher which we are decidedly not. When reviewing a product we definitely do not hide weak points or our disappointment if it doesn't fulfill what the manufacturer claims the product should do. We also point out shortcomings and we give our views on how a product could become even better. When we don't like something about a product under review it's very important to look objectively at our dislike. If it is because it doesn't do a thing we would like it to do we first have to see if it's intended to fill that function or have that feature. If not don't bash. Make a humble suggestion. If it's personal taste then check with a third party before bashing. If it's aimed at a category of musicians to which I don't belong check their point of view before committing your own views to paper or maybe turn the product over to someone who's really into that kind of thing. In short be objective, humble, positive and fair. I would like to compare this to reviewing CDs. We get a lot of releases from the record companies. It would never enter my mind to review a Metallica CD. Not because I don't like them (I do) but because that's not the music I'm really into and thus can not give it a proper framework in which to do it justice. There are other people on our staff or freelance writers who breathe that sort of music and they are of course the right folks to the job. We writers do realize we are a market force and we do take that honour and responsibility very seriously. Best regards, Mats Nermark [ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Mats Nermark ]

[Michael Hammar]

I could care less about most articles in Mix or EQ... Anderton's articles are always helpful as are a few others. It's been 6-7 years since I last subscribed to an audio magazine... I used to really take their articles seriously until I started to find out that my ears and their words usually didn't "match". That's why I absolutely LOVE these forums where real users share their experiences unbiased and, of course, a bit harsh at times... I feel that these forums are really encouraging in that the small hi-end manufacturers and us end users actually interact thus giving us the best products and features that we need. Fletcher, keep it up. Your advice has been very helpful to alot of us. Me? As usual, with way too much coffee (after all, I gotta stay awake in these 18 hour work days)

[Master Zap]

[quote]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. [/quote] A-freaki'n-men Curve, A-men. Pro gear, pricy gear, e.t.c. used to have one HUGE benefit. LOW NOISE. The price you paid was to get LOW NOISE. I have some gear which puts out some noise. And hum. And you know what... I dont give a shit!! Some digital profile-driven noise reduction - and its just... gone. Poof. Doesnt exist. -Inf dB of noise. (Well almost, Nika :) ) Secondly, while I mix inside my DAW, there [i]is[/i] no noise added. Scary world for the $1,000,000 studios it is. /Z

[Master Zap]

Allow me to play the tounge-in-cheek-mode [url=http://www.master-zap.com/studio]garage studio devil\'s[/url] advocate for a second. All in good fun with a grain of truth: [quote]Well, I must have gotten my money's worth on the lobotomy. 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[/quote] As stated in previous post, noise level of inferiour gear is totally irellevant with todays high-quality digital noise reduction algorithms. So then comes the quality of the "tone" and the compression in general. Well, the law of averages, IMHO, makes all compressions in a full mix kinda cancel eachother out in the end. Any heavy mastring compression mostly massages things anyway. And then there is the broadcast compressors on top of that, what a mess :) (With todays quality Opticom broadcast compressors, who needs mastering :D ) So while the difference MAY matter by playing the CD in an audiophile environment, to people who are "active listeners" (rare!), thinking the difference matters when playing in a $100 boom-box in the 13 year old girl bedroom, or through the broken speakers in your Toyota on a poorly tuned FM station in rush hour, is, IMHO, foolish. But thats just me :) "You can always have better [i]sound[/i], but what if what you needed was a better [i]song[/i]?" - me. /Z

[Fletcher]

Uhhh, Master Zap...in case this may have escaped you...as recording engineers, producers, the people who make the recordings [b]we're the ones who are supposed to fucking care!!!![/b]. If you don't that's fine. But I just happen to take my work seriously, and I happen to care. YMMV, I just hope I don't have to hear that mileage... ------------------------------------------ Ya know, this topic has wandered so far from where it started, it should probably be closed and allowed to die...maybe start a new one on how quality doesn't matter now that we have MP-3... ----------------------------------------- [ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: Fletcher@mercenary.com ]

[clock]

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 ------------------------------ Sorry ,but if you think that way, your music will forever be confined to the wasteland of mediocrity. Its true, if I feel a song, I am hardly concerned about audio quality. THat is until I hear a similar song with a much better sound. I dont care if it is rock or alternative or blues or any other genre. The better recorded song commands a certain respect that the mediocre recording does not deserve. And, you can hear improvements in a jeep. When you hear Enya's angeles in your jeep, you appreciate the extra dimension that the warmth of the vox and the space around it adds to the song. Listen to nickleback's how you remind me and you'll understand why your cheap compressor wouldnot cut it. Don't forget, many people have upgraded stereos in their cars and homes. MAny people listen on headphones that reveal more detail and clarity that average bookshelp speakers.

[Kris]

[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. 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[/b][/quote] I just wanted to say that if you were recording real drums it makes all the difference in the world. You shouldn't make statements like that if you haven't actually sat down and really heard for yourself the difference between say "a $1K Drawmer compressor, and a $95 Alesis Nanocompressor". If you did then you would have never said that. IMHO, I have found that for the most part... (not in all cases) you get what you pay for in this business. But you're absolutely right in saying that expensive gear doesn't automatically create great music... It's obvously a large part the guy(s) behind the wheel.

[Curve Dominant]

OK, now that I've offended my buddy Kris, I should probably own-up, an admit to a strong element of mischief and pranksterism that went into that statement comparing the Drawmer to the Nanocomp. I'm touched and flattered to find that after a year belonging to this sight, I'm still taken seriously here. That all having been said, I do sometimes work out of a studio that has Drawmer, Neve, UA, etc. Yeah, there's a difference, but more in versatility of usage than in pure sound, in my opinion - hence your allusion to live drum recording situations, where a Nanocomp wouldn't cut it (although I'd use one if forced to, and still get a good sound). The sarcasm of my original post was aimed at the apparent lack of investment in relevance that is made in high-end recording sessions. It's as if all of that time spent in the control room has insulated certain people from what's going on in the streets and in the clubs. The guy sitting at the Amek is going to get frustrated upon learning of the airwaves being dominated by the guy who rammed a groovebox through some cheap gear, but folks want to move ass. My experiences in large high-end recording houses always left me with the creeping feeling that all of that gear was being used to homogenize and pasturize and sanitize something that was once gritty and neon-soaked., and that the guys who were in command of that gear were downright clueless to the implications. Even with Stephen at Turtle sometimes, I have to remind him "Please do not make it too nice - push it. Be aggresive." The expensive front-end processors give engineers the ability to make everything sound "perfect." Well, guess what? PERFECT = BORING!!! Some of those FATCo tracks were positively flawless, and that's exactly what I hated about them: no edge. On the other hand, the thing that I positively loved about Julian's track was that I thought it was going to blow out my speakers at any second, or at least start clipping the convertors on my CD player. It felt like that singer was in my face, and I could feel her anger. Now, I know it's easier to get that with expensive gear than with cheap gear, but that is not usually what it ends up getting used for, and that's all that I was trying to say beneath my ironic joke. E :)

[Curve Dominant]

[quote][b]And, you can hear improvements in a jeep. When you hear Enya's angeles in your jeep, you appreciate the extra dimension that the warmth of the vox and the space around it adds to the song.[/b][/quote] I don't want to hear anything related to Enya in my Jeep, especially not her fucking "angeles," thank you very much. E :)

[batman]

[quote]Originally posted by halljams: [b] Uh, you may not "give a shit" about what some shmuck up in northern Canada thinks, but at least consider this With the amount of time and effort you have spent "throwing your little tantrum", You could have written and submitted 3 of these quality reviews you so crave yourself and made the few bucks that they do pay for yourself, and aslo written a productive letter to Micheal descibing how you would appreciate that he take a bit more time to get his facts strait. If you really are all that concerned about the welfare of the folks reading these mags, stop acting like a 12 year old and do something constuctive about it for fuck sakes!!!!!!! Are you really a moderator somewhere?[/b][/quote] You're SO right, halljams.... Fletcher's always acting like a twelve -year-old.. (Glenmorangie, Macallan, Talisker??)...... As for you, Mr Anderton...you almost had me going there....please try to be less subtle in future..remember. I'm a Yorkshireman..me..so...I say what I mean...and I mean what I bloodywell say!!..... Nice little ascerbic thread though..... :) Adam west P.S...."Canada"?..where's that???? [ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: adriencook@hotmail.com ]

[Curve Dominant]

[quote][b]adriencook@hotmail.com[/b][/quote] YO ADRIEN!!! So glad to see you back to you own self, bro. E :)

[clock]

[quote]Originally posted by Curve Dominant: [b] I don't want to hear anything related to Enya in my Jeep, especially not her fucking "angeles," thank you very much. E :) [/b][/quote] Is this perhaps why you cant hear the difference between a drawmer and a nanocomp? :D just kidding. I already saw your explanation for your post.

[Master Zap]

[quote]Uhhh, Master Zap...in case this may have escaped you...as recording engineers, producers, the people who make the recordings we're the ones who are supposed to fucking care!!!!.[/quote] Bwaha, fletch, now you are starting to take [i]me[/i] seriously as well, even though I labeled it "tounge in cheek with grain of truth" *grin* Yeah we are supposed to fucking care... but we aren't the one buying the records. If those who buy them aint fucki'n caring - why bother? Its just that when music is made by sound engineers for sound engineers something is becoming . . . strange. I thought we were supposed to be the people making music for those who wanted to hear music. But maybe thats just me :D *grin* (now dont start taking me to damned serious again) /Z

[olhhyperback.com]

I'd say the fact that we are seeing the tiniest percentage of new titles breaking even in history suggests that most of "the public" doesn't care enough for what they are hearing to make a purchase without being prodded into it by a million dollar video. The fact that people are using THIRTY year old recordings as their benchmarks speaks volumes to me about the role of audio quality.

[THE MIX FIX]

The truth must suffer, so lawsuits are not filed, or legs broken. [ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: THE MIX FIX ]