Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna
Let's look at these statements, then, since you're not going to let go:
This is surely the problem here. None, and I do mean NONE, of the statements above are "100% definitive objective truths". Not only have I never made such a specious, ridiculous claim, I actually have been very clear throughout the discussion that they are exactly the opposite: my 100% purely subjective statements based on my experiences, nothing more. That you keep trying to puff my position up into dogma is a misunderstanding on your part, though after all that's been said I'm sort of at a loss for how you could possibly think this is a reasonable position. There's plenty of room to "move" and completely disagree, which you have, which I've repeatedly said is fine, good even; this whole discussion continues to hinge on your claim of objective provability when you've brought nothing resembling proof or objectivity.
Good day.
|
"Because having a VRM is in no way like having access to "the ACTUAL monitors" you keep listing. There is virtually no similarity in the listening experience. This claim that you keep making is very misleading at best (and utterly false at worst)."
"Yes, I'm clearly saying no model is "perfect", but I've gone farther than that: I've stated that no model is even useful in this task today. And unlike many of the more sophisticated offerings of this sort, VRM has no flexible HRTF control (although to me this is a moot point as even those which do don't come close enough to be very useful either)."
Saying VRM is in "NO WAY like having access to the ACTUAL monitors" and "no model is useful for this today" is just factually incorrect. You don't say things in this matter and expect them to be taken subjectively. They are stated and written as objective fact which you base on your experience. Those who read that in context think some audio engineer with 20 years experience thinks the VRM has literally no value and doesn't work AT ALL. Worded like that raises the bar that high. You don't get to state an "opinion" like that and then not get to be held accountable for it at the opinion or subjective level. Doing so is irresponsible, unprofessional and unethical. And it is actually harmful to Focusrite for you to do that. If it was worded so it appeared or looked like an opinion fine. But it is not.
An as far a convolution reverbs you said they "DO NOT sound like real rooms". You didn't say they don't sound enough like real rooms or that some sound like real rooms but not exactly or close enough to the target room etc. How do you know they ALL sound nothing like the original room or like some room close to what is being represented? Have you actually been in a all the rooms where the files were created, heard an instrument played, then listened back to it on a well set up system? (Curious do you find Reverberate OK?) And even if a mid hall really sounded like a small hall etc wouldn't they have value if what they were actually doing was understood and used properly? When you go as far as you do you invalidate what you say and your experience by being ridiculously extreme.