Print

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

[KeithBroughton]

I must say that I havn't read anything like this...ever    
Now if I could just figure out a way to place a mic under the stage to make this crapy band "disappear"...

[Eric Snodgrass]

KeithB wrote on Sat, 28 May 2005 13:12

Now if I could just figure out a way to place a mic under the stage to make this crapy band "disappear"...

There's an easier way to make the band disappear - take away the catering.

[Dave Stevens]

soundguydave23 wrote on Sat, 28 May 2005 00:09

I can't believe that NO ONE has an opinion on Jack's new article!  Was it the dressing down we got in the editors comments?

Dressing down?  I read it more like "bad people say bad things on Internet..."  Of course, had there been a proactive discussion by one of the editors or the author it might be a different story.

The original story contained some pretty loopy statements that could have been clarified or debated in follow up posts.  With a mag, it's all one way, save the four week publication cycle.  This is one instance where engaging the audience would have helped, instead of being non responsive.

[Eric Snodgrass]

Dave wrote on Sun, 29 May 2005 01:20

soundguydave23 wrote on Sat, 28 May 2005 00:09 I can't believe that NO ONE has an opinion on Jack's new article!  Was it the dressing down we got in the editors comments? Dressing down?  I read it more like "bad people say bad things on Internet..."  Of course, had there been a proactive discussion by one of the editors or the author it might be a different story. The original story contained some pretty loopy statements that could have been clarified or debated in follow up posts.  With a mag, it's all one way, save the four week publication cycle.  This is one instance where engaging the audience would have helped, instead of being non responsive.

I agree.  It seems to me that the general mood of the country these days is to not engage in debate, but rather attack the questioning parties, mostly in a personal manner.  This entire thread is a perfect example of this.  Public discourse and public debate, in general, are devolving back to so much feces-slinging (Seen an intelligent debate on television lately?  I haven't.)  I guess it's easier to brand people than to talk to them.  

[Mike Babcock]

Can we put it in a new thread and let this one die gracefully?
Mike

[Eric Snodgrass]

Mike Babcock wrote on Sun, 29 May 2005 13:52

Can we put it in a new thread and let this one die gracefully? Mike

Gracefully?  It didn't live gracefully.  I think it should die a fast, fiery death!!!

[Dave Unger]

I'm sorry guys, but I couldn't resist reviving this thread.  I do like the beating a dead horse GIF.  

[Grant Limberg]

So yea, I'm another one of jack's student's but I really hope you all dont place me with the rest of them that have come out here with their guns blazing after part 1 of the article.  I'll be the first to admit that some of the things he comes out with you do have to take with a grain of salt at times.  Especially the delay on the drum monitor thing.  I'm sorry, and I've told this to him, but after 20 years of playing kit, if you put a delay on my drum fills, you're my #1 enemy.  DONT DO THAT!

At the same time, I know the mic on the back of the speaker thing sounds weird reading it, but hearing it in person is a whole different story.  I just wish Jack wasn't so anti-measurement.  I come from an acoustics background.  After all, it's what I've been studying for the last four years.  Jack, however, does not come from the measurement camp.  He know's what sounds good and thats all he cares about.  His mantra is "if it measures good and sounds bad, its bad."  

Anyhow, I know this multichannel live surround thing does sound weird.  But with Jack coming from as much as a monitor world background as he does, the multichannel thing is his world.  And without measuring anything, all I have to say is it sounds damn good.  I wish I could help out more on the measurement part, but as i said, he's not from the measurement world so it won't happen.

[Tim McCulloch]

Hello Grant-

Sadly, Mr. Alexander's contribution (whatever it may be) will be disregarded by the scientific community simply because he refuses to allow measurement.

The funny thing is, nobody here attacked him because it sounds (take your pick): bad, funny, weird, good, or the same.  The people that posted, starting with Abdul, were asking for the information (that comes from measurement) to see how Jack's method worked, i.e., to see the physics behind the phenom he demonstrated, and to attempt the replication of his method and results.  That's what science, and peer review, does.

The rediculous posturing by some of his students made it look more like they were impressed with the granduer of Oz, and dismissed that there was man behind the curtain... or in this case, perhaps no man behind the curtain, but how is anyone who wasn't present able to discern this?  That is why we asked, in a nice way, "how does it work?"  Nobody was able to step to the plate to answer that question.  Mr. Alexander's disdain for systems that look good on the computer screen and sound like ass... well, I agree with him on that, and have been the 'victim' of band engineers that want to second-guess my system allignments or speaker placement.  Most of the time they go back to my settings and placements...  it looked nice on their laptop and sounded bad.  Those people are fools to some degree, but their misuse of a tool does not make the tool faulty, or to be disregarded.  In Jack's case, the measurment of both the method and result would have gone far to still the critics.  Rather than allow this, Jack allowed his students to be cannon fodder on this forum, and I think that's a chicken-shit way of doing things.. sending the un-armed into battle.

This really isn't the way Jack frames it... if we come in and make a variety of measurments, that fact won't change a thing that is being heard.  The results of measurement are to provide data for study... rather like looking at a map AFTER you've made a journey.  Why Jack will not allow this is beyond me.

I'm a 'formally trained' musician, and my degree is a BA in performing arts education.  Mr. Alexander seems unwilling (or unable) to actually explain the underlying pyhsics of his demonstration, and I think that's pretty poor performance from an education perspective.

Tim "physics happens" Mc

[Charles Johnson]

Grant Limberg wrote on Mon, 30 May 2005 03:09

At the same time, I know the mic on the back of the speaker thing sounds weird reading it, but hearing it in person is a whole different story.  I just wish Jack wasn't so anti-measurement.  I come from an acoustics background.  After all, it's what I've been studying for the last four years.  Jack, however, does not come from the measurement camp.  He know's what sounds good and thats all he cares about.  His mantra is "if it measures good and sounds bad, its bad."

Well, acoustic measurements aside (like data that can be gleaned from Smaart, SpectraFoo, SIM, etc), there is also a severe lack of the most basic documentation aside, such as where each speaker was placed in the room and then to what speakers each behind-the-speaker mic was sent. Also, I believe it was mentioned that he ran some (all?) of the behind-the-speaker mics through an Eventide Orville...yet nothing was said about just what he was doing to the signal via the Orville. That kind of documentation doesn't require measurement to produce Note: I'll grant you that in the second article, it was pretty clear as to where at least some of the speakers were in one room (the Mackie HR824s that ringed the stage lip), but I see that as more of an exception to the rule.

Quote:

Anyhow, I know this multichannel live surround thing does sound weird.  But with Jack coming from as much as a monitor world background as he does, the multichannel thing is his world.

Eh, actually, I think his calling this method "multi-channel" is rather misleading - not intentionally, perhaps, but what he's doing and what "multi-channel" generally translates to (IMHO) are two very different things. In my book, "multi-channel" systems would be LCR, LCRS, 5.1, and 7.1 systems. Translating "multi-channel" according to what seems to be his definition means that a L/R system with a couple of delay rings (or, just to be a bit closer to what I think he is doing, delays that fire into the audience from the side, rather than above and to the front of them) would be considered a "multi-channel" system.

Also, his statement that "multi-channel starts on the stage" (I believe that quote is correct - I don't have a copy of the article handy to reference)...well, I fail to see the meaning of that - perhaps you could help us understand that? (That's a sincere question, by the way - no sarcasm intended) Also, perhaps you could explain what he means by the "acoustic center of the stage"? I never did get that...

Quote:

And without measuring anything, all I have to say is it sounds damn good.

I think most of us that have participated in this thread are of the opinion that "If it sounds good, it is good" (I think that's in someone's signature line?). I know that whenever I'm setting up and/or tuning a system, I use Smaart as a tool to help me get from Point A to Point B. However, the final arbitrator in the matter is what I hear...and generally speaking, the final system DSP and/or EQ settings don't equate to a flat like on the Smaart transfer function trace But that's OK, since, as I said, Smaart (and other such systems) are tools not decision makers.

Quote:

I wish I could help out more on the measurement part, but as i said, he's not from the measurement world so it won't happen.

Just to be clear, are you saying/implying that even if one of his students had a measurement rig and wanted to use it for acoustic documentation (speaker frequency and phase response, etc), that he/she would not be allowed to do such a thing?

Also, unfortunately, I think Tim Mc was pretty accurate in his characterization of the students that defended Mr. Alexander's method being "cannon fodder". I don't know whether they were asked to defend him or they did it of their own accord, but since I'm willing to give Mr. Alexander the benefit of the doubt, for now I'm going to choose to believe that they did it of their own accord. That said, I still don't understand why he himself did not come forth to answer Abdul's questions (and subsequent other questions). I don't know his schedule, but if folks can find time to post on the LAB right before or even during a show (albeit perhaps a corporate speaking gig), then I should think that he could find the time to respond in person.

I look forward to your responses to my questions above.

Respectfully and my $0.02,

Charles Johnson

[ProSoundWeb Community]