The Massassian "Music Hurr" Thread - Discussion Forum - The Massassi Temple Forums Archive

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

The Massassian "Music Hurr" Thread

2011-03-30, 7:36 PM #81

Cool Matty

Usuyami no Sekai

Posts: 15,246

Originally posted by Jon`C:

engineer ≠ "engineer"

Amar Bose is an "engineer."

The former doesn't exist in mainstream music. :downs:

(I am making crap up)

2011-03-30, 7:49 PM #82

dalf

Everyone's favorite alcoholic administrator!

Posts: 8,683

I honestly cannot tell the difference between various formats. CD sounds the same as MP3. MP3 sounds like DVD Audio. ****. I'm sure I'd be fooled with cassettes.

Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.

2011-03-30, 7:56 PM #83

Jon`C

Admiral of Awesome

Posts: 18,626

Originally posted by Cool Matty:

The former doesn't exist in mainstream music. :downs:

(I am making crap up)

I think that's true more often than not. A lot of people call themselves engineers when they really aren't, just because they do some kind of technical work.

I think it's totally possible for someone to be a sound engineer. I know there isn't accreditation in a lot of fields, but I think engineering is more a mindset than anything else. But instead you get sound "engineers" who build solutions that are empirically inferior to widely-available and cheaper alternatives.

2011-03-30, 8:09 PM #84

Tracer

El Duderino.

Posts: 6,321

Um guys, recording engineers aren't real science engineers, the term is just a holdover from back in the day when it really did take an actual engineer to build and run the console.

This is common knowledge. :confused:

COUCHMAN IS BACK BABY

2011-03-31, 4:56 AM #85

Emon

Imon, umon...everymon!

Posts: 19,022

Yes, that's our point. They are not real engineers with scientific backgrounds thus not credible sources for scientific information.

Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

2011-03-31, 8:25 AM #86

ORJ_JoS

Custom Title DENIED

Posts: 3,265

Originally posted by Emon:

It is exactly this kind of handwaving nonsense I'm talking about. I don't know much about signal theory but I'm pretty sure that's a load of crap. Less clinical? Warm sound? Common, you haven't even explained why it happens! No one can because the people that promote that don't know anything about it.

For what purpose? For reproduction (what I've been talking about), that's complete garbage. It's easy to make a completely transparent solid state amp. Hell they sell them as chips these days. And by completely transparent I mean measurable in every possible way. Tube amps are great for instruments but that's different.

Seriously. Listen to real engineers, not "recording engineers." I don't care how good results they get, it doesn't mean **** when it comes to understanding what they use. And even the smartest people can buy into audiophile nonsense.

If you don't have empirical evidence for a particular claim about audio, then it's worthless. It's no different than any other science.

Man.. chill out, haha.

I readily admit that I don't know the explanation for what I just said. I just hoped you would know what I was talking about. It's just something that I very vaguely remember from reading an excessive exchange years ago. Not making any claims whatsoever here.

As for the tube amps, yes I was talking about guitar amps. Should have mentioned that.

ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

2011-03-31, 9:20 AM #87