Re: new Manley "FLURB" surround processor?

[William Sommerwerck]

Then don't make claims about it being the result of "pioneering" work, when
there's nothing the least-bit original about it.

EveAnna Manley wrote...

> Manley Labs is not trademarking or patenting anything to do with this
> FLuRB. It is Mike Sokol's gig. Take up any legal issues or questions
> you have with him.

[EveAnna Manley]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> Then don't make claims about it being the result of "pioneering" work, when
> there's nothing the least-bit original about it.

So quick to judge with so little information... take it up with Mike,
not me, if you question his work.
--EveAnna Manley

[William Sommerwerck]

EveAnna Manley wrote...

> William Sommerwerck wrote...

>> Then don't make claims about it being the result of "pioneering"
>> work, when there's nothing the least-bit original about it.

> So quick to judge with so little information... take it up with Mike,
> not me, if you question his work.

So quick to believe -- and promote -- someone else's claims without
understanding them...

[LeBaron & Alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> EveAnna Manley wrote...

> > William Sommerwerck wrote...

> >> Then don't make claims about it being the result of "pioneering"
> >> work, when there's nothing the least-bit original about it.

> > So quick to judge with so little information... take it up with Mike,
> > not me, if you question his work.

> So quick to believe -- and promote -- someone else's claims without
> understanding them...

Why not just **** in your own boot, William, and call it a rainstorm?

--
ha

[Scott Dorsey]

EveAnna Manley > wrote:
>"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>> Then don't make claims about it being the result of "pioneering" work, when
>> there's nothing the least-bit original about it.
>
>So quick to judge with so little information... take it up with Mike,
>not me, if you question his work.

I'd just like to say that, in spite of being in this business for a long time,
I have only occasionally seen anything that wasn't in the RCA Radiotron
Handbook.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote...

> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> EveAnna Manley wrote...

>>> William Sommerwerck wrote...

>>>> Then don't make claims about it being the result of "pioneering"
>>>> work, when there's nothing the least-bit original about it.

>>> So quick to judge with so little information... take it up with Mike,
>>> not me, if you question his work.

>> So quick to believe -- and promote -- someone else's claims without
>> understanding them...

> Why not just **** in your own boot, William, and call it a rainstorm?


That would not make it so -- any more than a simple matrixing system -- whose
principles have been around for at least 60 years -- would be "pioneering" work.
Or "work," for that matter.

Shall I tell you a story? Yes?

Almost 20 years ago I discussed this very issue with one of the founders of
Mobile Fidelity (who passed on a few years later -- sorry I can't think of his
name). He'd assembled a four-mic cardioid array to make quadraphonic recordings.
(I'm surprised these haven't been reissued on surround SACD or DVD-A.)

I pointed out to him that it would make more sense to record just three
signals -- mono, left-right figure-8, and front-back figure-8 -- which could be
later matrixed to produce any number and combination of patterns, pointing in
any direction.

The idea made no sense to him, because he'd never taken trig. In fact, he hadn't
even graduated high school. I suggested he ask other people in the industry what
they thought. Several weeks later he told me everyone he'd asked laughed at the
idea.

I have never seen a profession like professional recording, whose practitioners
are (almost) universally devoid of an understanding of the basic technical
knowledge that governs their work.

[Andrew M.]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> LeBaron & Alrich wrote...
>
>
>>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>
>>>EveAnna Manley wrote...
>
>
>>>>William Sommerwerck wrote...
>
>
>>>>>Then don't make claims about it being the result of "pioneering"
>>>>>work, when there's nothing the least-bit original about it.
>
>
>>>>So quick to judge with so little information... take it up with Mike,
>>>>not me, if you question his work.
>
>
>>>So quick to believe -- and promote -- someone else's claims without
>>>understanding them...
>
>
>>Why not just **** in your own boot, William, and call it a rainstorm?
>
>
>
> That would not make it so -- any more than a simple matrixing system -- whose
> principles have been around for at least 60 years -- would be "pioneering" work.
> Or "work," for that matter.
>
> Shall I tell you a story? Yes?
>
> Almost 20 years ago I discussed this very issue with one of the founders of
> Mobile Fidelity (who passed on a few years later -- sorry I can't think of his
> name). He'd assembled a four-mic cardioid array to make quadraphonic recordings.
> (I'm surprised these haven't been reissued on surround SACD or DVD-A.)
>
> I pointed out to him that it would make more sense to record just three
> signals -- mono, left-right figure-8, and front-back figure-8 -- which could be
> later matrixed to produce any number and combination of patterns, pointing in
> any direction.
>
> The idea made no sense to him, because he'd never taken trig. In fact, he hadn't
> even graduated high school. I suggested he ask other people in the industry what
> they thought. Several weeks later he told me everyone he'd asked laughed at the
> idea.
>
> I have never seen a profession like professional recording, whose practitioners
> are (almost) universally devoid of an understanding of the basic technical
> knowledge that governs their work.
>
Why are you insulting people? I take great offense to your claim
William. Please take your great wisdom elsewhere where it can be better
appreciated by more intelligent people.

BTW...trig looks great on paper but the proof is in the sound. Book
smarts is only the beginning to gaining wisdom. Maybe the reason your
idea made no sense to the man you speak of is that you are terrible at
explaining things?

[Bob Cain]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> I pointed out to him that it would make more sense to record just three
> signals -- mono, left-right figure-8, and front-back figure-8 -- which could be
> later matrixed to produce any number and combination of patterns, pointing in
> any direction.

This is 2-D ambisonics. Did your idea predate Michael
Gerzon's work? FWIW, there is a whole lot more than trig
necessasary to understand why the scheme works. See:

http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~shr97psc/Thesis.html

If intuition and trig led to your observation you are to be
congratulated.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[William Sommerwerck]

> Why are you insulting people? I take great offense to your claim
> William. Please take your great wisdom elsewhere where it can
> be better appreciated by more intelligent people.

I am only returning the insult to someone who wants us to believe that simple
trig is "pioneering work."

I resent people claiming credit for trivial "inventions," and I intend to "stick
it to them" -- as hard and often as possible -- when they do.


> BTW... Trig looks great on paper but the proof is in the sound. Book
> smarts is only the beginning to gaining wisdom. Maybe the reason your
> idea made no sense to the man you speak of is that you are terrible at
> explaining things?

No, I have a reputation for explaining things clearly. We're talking about stuff
that's, in principle, as old as the Egyptians, who invented trigonometry.

The trig I'm talking about -- which, if you are a recording engineer, you should
be thoroughly familiar with -- is exactly the same trig that explains how a
first-order (omni) and second-order (figure-8) response can be combined to
produce a cardioid pattern -- or any number of other patterns.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I pointed out to him that it would make more sense to record
>> just three signals -- mono, left-right figure-8, and front-back
>> figure-8 -- which could be later matrixed to produce any number
>> and combination of patterns, pointing in any direction.

> This is 2-D ambisonics. Did your idea predate Michael
> Gerzon's work? FWIW, there is a whole lot more than trig
> necessasary to understand why the scheme works. See:

> http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~shr97psc/Thesis.html

It's not Ambisonics (though I was thoroughly familiar with Ambisonics and the
SoundField mic at that time). Ambisonics dates from ca. 1970.


> If intuition and trig led to your observation,
> you are to be congratulated.

Not at all. We're talking a trivial application of commonly understood
principles, not any sort of profound insight. I deserve no credit for stating
the obvious.

[ThePaulThomas]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message >...
I have never seen a profession like professional recording, whose
practitioners are (almost) universally devoid of an understanding of
the basic technical knowledge that governs their work.

I have! I've been involved with the vitamins/"nutritional
supplements" industry and/or worked as a "personal fitness trainer"
for nearly five years now. :(

[Tonebarge]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Almost 20 years ago I discussed this very issue with one of the founders of
> Mobile Fidelity (who passed on a few years later -- sorry I can't think of his
> name). He'd assembled a four-mic cardioid array to make quadraphonic recordings.
> (I'm surprised these haven't been reissued on surround SACD or DVD-A.)
>
> I pointed out to him that it would make more sense to record just three
> signals -- mono, left-right figure-8, and front-back figure-8 -- which could be
> later matrixed to produce any number and combination of patterns, pointing in
> any direction.
>
> The idea made no sense to him, because he'd never taken trig. In fact, he hadn't
> even graduated high school. I suggested he ask other people in the industry what
> they thought. Several weeks later he told me everyone he'd asked laughed at the
> idea.
>
> I have never seen a profession like professional recording, whose practitioners
> are (almost) universally devoid of an understanding of the basic technical
> knowledge that governs their work.

You're leaving out a bit of the story. I was there, so, if I may, I'll fill in the
gaps. First: He didn't assemble anything. Those mic arrays were developed by Carl
Countryman and David Baskind. Second: He graduated from high school and attended
college. Third: you are conveniently omitting the word "discrete" which was
requisite for the process. Fourth: His name was Brad Miller (unless you are
referring to Gary Giorgi but he didn't do the live recording stuff that Brad did).

Cheers,

TB
--
All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true"

[Andrew M.]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>Why are you insulting people? I take great offense to your claim
>>William. Please take your great wisdom elsewhere where it can
>>be better appreciated by more intelligent people.
>
>
> I am only returning the insult to someone who wants us to believe that simple
> trig is "pioneering work."
>
> I resent people claiming credit for trivial "inventions," and I intend to "stick
> it to them" -- as hard and often as possible -- when they do.
>
>
>
>>BTW... Trig looks great on paper but the proof is in the sound. Book
>>smarts is only the beginning to gaining wisdom. Maybe the reason your
>>idea made no sense to the man you speak of is that you are terrible at
>>explaining things?
>
>
> No, I have a reputation for explaining things clearly. We're talking about stuff
> that's, in principle, as old as the Egyptians, who invented trigonometry.
>
> The trig I'm talking about -- which, if you are a recording engineer, you should
> be thoroughly familiar with -- is exactly the same trig that explains how a
> first-order (omni) and second-order (figure-8) response can be combined to
> produce a cardioid pattern -- or any number of other patterns.

So I just read the Manley web site Flurb info. You have a problem with
Mike Sokol, not Manley. They just said " based on pioneering work by
Mike Sokol who developed techniques to use an array of 4 cardioid mics
and matrix them into 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 surround.".

[William Sommerwerck]

Tonebarge wrote...

> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Almost 20 years ago I discussed this very issue with one of the founders of
>> Mobile Fidelity (who passed on a few years later -- sorry I can't think of
his
>> name). He'd assembled a four-mic cardioid array to make quadraphonic
recordings.
>> (I'm surprised these haven't been reissued on surround SACD or DVD-A.)

>> I pointed out to him that it would make more sense to record just three
>> signals -- mono, left-right figure-8, and front-back figure-8 -- which could
be
>> later matrixed to produce any number and combination of patterns, pointing in
>> any direction.

>> The idea made no sense to him, because he'd never taken trig. In fact, he
hadn't
>> even graduated high school. I suggested he ask other people in the industry
what
>> they thought. Several weeks later he told me everyone he'd asked laughed at
the
>> idea.

>> I have never seen a profession like professional recording, whose
practitioners
>> are (almost) universally devoid of an understanding of the basic technical
>> knowledge that governs their work.

> You're leaving out a bit of the story. I was there, so, if I may, I'll fill in
the gaps.
> First: He didn't assemble anything. Those mic arrays were developed by Carl
> Countryman and David Baskind. Second: He graduated from high school and
> attended college. Third: you are conveniently omitting the word "discrete"
which
> was requisite for the process. Fourth: His name was Brad Miller (unless you
are
> referring to Gary Giorgi but he didn't do the live recording stuff that Brad
did).

Thanks for the clarification. I'd forgotten about the Countryman mics.

The person I spoke with was the "ridiculously handsome" one of the pair (Brad
Miller?). He told me in so many words that he had never taken trig, and had not
graduated high school.

The "discrete" part was implied, which is why I didn't describe it in detail.
Obviously the signals from the four mics could be dematrixed and rearranged
whatever way you wanted in "post-production." Doing it "in the field" would save
a recording channel, but require schlepping additional electronics.

[William Sommerwerck]

> So I just read the Manley web site Flurb info. You have a problem with
> Mike Sokol, not Manley. They just said " based on pioneering work by
> Mike Sokol who developed techniques to use an array of 4 cardioid mics
> and matrix them into 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 surround."

I expect the people who sell a product to know whether its design represents
"pioneering" work. What would you think of a company who sold Futterman-design
amplifiers and claimed they were new or revolutionary?

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> So I just read the Manley web site Flurb info. You have a problem with
>> Mike Sokol, not Manley. They just said " based on pioneering work by
>> Mike Sokol who developed techniques to use an array of 4 cardioid mics
>> and matrix them into 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 surround."
>
>I expect the people who sell a product to know whether its design represents
>"pioneering" work. What would you think of a company who sold Futterman-design
>amplifiers and claimed they were new or revolutionary?

They might not be new, but they're still revolutionary.
--scott
(STILL a big fan of the Wiggins Circlotron... maximum power transfer
impedance with a pair of 6C33C regulator tubes is 9 ohms. If that
isn't revolutionary, I don't know what is.)
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."