BLA: Explanation owed!

[joeq]

Originally Posted by mixman499

i would never judge the merits of a piece of AUDIO gear from a quick time VIDEO.

the OP is not judging the merits of the gear from a video. He is apparently judging the merits of their comparison which is perfectly legitimate criticism.

5 db is a lot, even in a Quicktime.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

Oh god, here we go again.

And brilliant, respected producer's like T Bone Burnett and inventors/developers like George Massenburg are just full of shit, right?

Dude, don't even take this thread there. Put down the mouse and walk away

Is that an order?

[Duardo]

I have never tested any BLA equipment myself, but I have never had any reason to believe anything they've ever said.

fwiw

It's not worth as much as the opinions of those who have actually used the gear.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

Oh god, here we go again.

And brilliant, respected producer's like T Bone Burnett and inventors/developers like George Massenburg are just full of shit, right?

Dude, don't even take this thread there. Put down the mouse and walk away

OK... so I had a chance to do a little research and I'm afraid I can't find any info on endorsements formal or otherwise of BLA mods by Massenburg or Burnett.

Could you please point me to further information.

Thanks in advance!

[anguswoodhead]

I have the BLA MicroClock - extremely happy with the results - one of the mastering engineers I sometimes use definately heard a difference in imaging, depth and reverb tails etc.
Long live BLA .

[goldenlotus]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

They proved to me they don't just talk the talk.

You sound like a political candidate!

[mixman499]

Originally Posted by joeq

the OP is not judging the merits of the gear from a video. He is apparently judging the merits of their comparison which is perfectly legitimate criticism.

5 db is a lot, even in a Quicktime.

yes...i get that. i got that.

i assumed he felt the same way i do....that judging the audio quality of a device from a quick time movie would not be too bright.

i agree whole heartedly with his criticism.

i only suggested that perhaps he make BLA aware of this issue.....rather than post it here on a board.....or...in ADDITION to posting in here.

thats all.

best,

jchristopherhughes

[DONNX]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

Oh god, here we go again.

And brilliant, respected producer's like T Bone Burnett and inventors/developers like George Massenburg are just full of shit, right?

Dude, don't even take this thread there. Put down the mouse and walk away

I just got biggest laugh going that I started to cry.

I just talked to Matt (BLA) not to long ago. He told me to send in my first generation Microclock (which I was very happy with compared to my internal clock) for the newest upgrade. I sent it off, he put a entirely new board inside (free upgrade), and got it back to me within days. BTW they have great customer support. All I can say is the results were very pleasing to my ears. What bothers me is that BLA is fixing things that should be already be up to standard.

[Yoga]

Originally Posted by joeq

the OP is not judging the merits of the gear from a video. He is apparently judging the merits of their comparison which is perfectly legitimate criticism.

5 db is a lot, even in a Quicktime.

hmm ... nope. the BLA guy is even warning you that their modded 002 is louder because well, it actually is after the mod.

I found that video absolutely useless in gauging the difference, regardless of gain. Whining about it on GS as some kind of imaginary breach of ethics is way too much ado about nothing, IMO.

[virtualsamana]

Originally Posted by Yoga

hmm ... nope. the BLA guy is even warning you that their modded 002 is louder because well, it actually is after the mod.

I found that video absolutely useless in gauging the difference, regardless of gain. Whining about it on GS as some kind of imaginary breach of ethics is way too much ado about nothing, IMO.

No, he does not disclose that there is a difference in level between the two clips, he uses the words "sounded louder"and "apparent increase in volume" as well as more low end extension, definition, detail, etc. The implications are that you are hearing these big differences because of the mods. The fact that you are probably only hearing a difference because of a well known but undisclosed psycho-acoustic phenomenon is misleading and if intentional is most certainly a breach of ethics.

I don't have a vested interest in BLA one way or the other. If I saw any audio company promoting a misleading shootout such as this one I would make the same call and inform the user community. That's what this forum is all about. You are welcome to take it or leave it.

[TurboJets]

Originally Posted by theblue1

OK... so I had a chance to do a little research and I'm afraid I can't find any info on endorsements formal or otherwise of BLA mods by Massenburg or Burnett.

Could you please point me to further information.

Thanks in advance!

I was commenting to the last part of your post where you make the following Generalization:

" Of course, lots of folks who've had these mods done swear by them.

Just like they swear by most of their purchases -- at least for a while. It's what behaviorists call confirmation bias.

There's a lot of tech ignorance out there, a lot of buzz-hypnosis, a lot of sheep-like, me-too behavior. If the last twenty years of discussing audio online (starting with the old dial up BBs in the late 80s) I've realized one thing: a lot of recording "engineers" don't know much at all about technology or science or understand how to set up rigorous, meaningful comparisons between pieces of gear." - theblue1

[theblue1]

Ah... OK... I was a wee bit on the cranky side yesterday. Er... crankier than normal.


So you brought Massenburg and T-Bone in just to kind of liven up things and not because they actually had anything to do with the subject of BLA mods, then, yeah? No prob... I was confused by context and thought you were suggesting they were formal or informal endorsers of BLA mods -- and from reading the comments of at least one or two other people (the spikey but knowledgeable Dan Lavry comes to mind) whose designs BLA offered to improve, I was decidedly intrigued by the notion of such an endorsement, particularly from Massenburg. (T-Bone's produced more than a few of my favorite albums and I always used to enjoy him in the old days on the LA new wave scene. I think of him more in an artistic light than a tech one, I guess, but I certainly give him deep props for the great projects he's helmed. And I'll always love him for sticking Beefheart's "Her Eyes Are a Blue Million Miles" into that scene in The Big Lebowski.)

With regard to understanding one's tools -- clearly there are producers and recordists who turn out stellar work without knowing precisely how their tools work -- or even the fine points of normal operation. They just twiddle until things sound right. Call it intuition, call it luck. I've got no problems with it if the results work for them and their clients.

That said, when people who don't understand their tools/technology seem to set themselves up as somehow holding expert opinions (and I am not referring to anyone in this thread, necessarily, though I'd certainly own up to at least some of that sin, myself), it can get problematic... at the very least it can muddy the waters. At the worst it can spread confusion and misunderstanding. (And I have no doubt that I've sinned there, too.)


Anyhow, as someone above said, the opinions of those who are have experience (even if not expertise)with a given subject should probably be given extra consideration. I outlined my concerns above but I don't really have any direct experience with the actual company or their mods -- and, in fact, the research I did into them and their mods was done several years ago. Companies, like individuals, grow and evolve. What I perceived from a distance then may well have very limited relevance today. So rather than waste any more space in this thread, or create any more distraction, I'll just toodle off somewhere else and let folks continue their discussion.


BTW, while I do stand behind the rather cranky and uncharitable generalizations I made (which I think I qualified enough so as to have at least arguable accuracy), as I hinted at above, I don't think that means the tech-challenged can't do excellent work. They may have a tougher time of sussing out some issues, they may get confused by some tech considerations -- but this is not rocket science... it is a practical art.

So, even if someone is a technical yobbo, it does not mean that he can't get a great drum sound, can't do a great mix, can't be an excellent helmsman in the studio.


How's that for a nuanced view.

[virtualsamana]

Originally Posted by joeq

the OP is not judging the merits of the gear from a video. He is apparently judging the merits of their comparison which is perfectly legitimate criticism.

Thanks, that's exactly what I am talking about.

[iomegaman]

Without going to far into this it might be important to define our terms.

I've been testing A/D converters and clocks for a while now, and in the name of honesty I have purposely avoided "reverse engineering" of all the gear I have purchased to do comparisons...

That being said...a lot (if not all) of the mid-grade equipment that gets modded up has serious inadequacy in the analog side of things.

There is no way you can seriously consider upgrading (modding) a stock piece of gear's digital side if you are ignoring mistakes on the analog side, of which there are numerous shortcuts in all the gear I have opened up...

...so I find NO SURPRISE that customers would hear a difference in a modded piece of gear especially if stock analog parts have been upgraded to better response type capacitors etc...

Consider that the average "pro-sumer" gear maker probably buys parts in huge bins at discount prices, the attention to tolerances probably escapes the scrutiny of the original design..."quality drift" is a common problem as a matter of fact almost all electronic parts are labeled according to the tolerance spec in the first place.

Where these discussions get into trouble (fighting over sonic differences on the internet) is when a generalized assumption is made that the "mod" in fact improves "everything" because it sounds better...ie; if you change out the caps on the analog side does that imply the jitter goes down? Of course not...does it sound better? Probably...

And I think that drags back around to the OP challenge about the way the test was presented...if the test is suggesting that the analog side is better...well who's to argue, its definitely louder...but does it automatically make the A/D side better? Not without some serious science...


ps: I am late to the table in deciding that the opamp side of things is far more critical than the A/D side, especially if it is improperly implemented.

You can take a stock A/D and beef up the opamp side to quality design and components and you will hear an immediate difference, that is not always the case on the digital side of things...

[Cato]

Originally Posted by iomegaman

Without going to far into this it might be important to define our terms.

I've been testing A/D converters and clocks for a while now, and in the name of honesty I have purposely avoided "reverse engineering" of all the gear I have purchased to do comparisons...

That being said...a lot (if not all) of the mid-grade equipment that gets modded up has serious inadequacy in the analog side of things.

There is no way you can seriously consider upgrading (modding) a stock piece of gear's digital side if you are ignoring mistakes on the analog side, of which there are numerous shortcuts in all the gear I have opened up...

...so I find NO SURPRISE that customers would hear a difference in a modded piece of gear especially if stock analog parts have been upgraded to better response type capacitors etc...

Consider that the average "pro-sumer" gear maker probably buys parts in huge bins at discount prices, the attention to tolerances probably escapes the scrutiny of the original design..."quality drift" is a common problem as a matter of fact almost all electronic parts are labeled according to the tolerance spec in the first place.

Where these discussions get into trouble (fighting over sonic differences on the internet) is when a generalized assumption is made that the "mod" in fact improves "everything" because it sounds better...ie; if you change out the caps on the analog side does that imply the jitter goes down? Of course not...does it sound better? Probably...

And I think that drags back around to the OP challenge about the way the test was presented...if the test is suggesting that the analog side is better...well who's to argue, its definitely louder...but does it automatically make the A/D side better? Not without some serious science...


ps: I am late to the table in deciding that the opamp side of things is far more critical than the A/D side, especially if it is improperly implemented.

You can take a stock A/D and beef up the opamp side to quality design and components and you will hear an immediate difference, that is not always the case on the digital side of things...

I think you missed the point of the OP. It's not the analogue components or the ADA he was challenging. It was the deceptive shootout comparison. Any shootout comparison, especially one done by gear manufacturers, should be level matched. If there is a 5 DB difference then the comparison is not fair.

[DONNX]

Originally Posted by Cato

I think you missed the point of the OP. It's not the analogue components or the ADA he was challenging. It was the deceptive shootout comparison. Any shootout comparison, especially one done by gear manufacturers, should be level matched. If there is a 5 DB difference then the comparison is not fair.

Then re-adjust thats an easy fix. Volume fader

[Cato]

Originally Posted by DONNX

Then re-adjust thats an easy fix. Volume fader

Again, you are missing the point of the OP. Though I think it would be really interesting to level match and post them up as a blind shootout to see if anyone could reliably identify the two.