Talk:Steve Hoffman (audio engineer)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why were my edits reverted?

Please answer the following question: Do you consider Michael Fremer to be an authoritative source? If so, why are you removing the Controversy section paragraphs?

I also finally deleted the "Breath of life" paragraph. It's ridiculous, considering the context of an Encyclopaedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricGoberman (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The question here is why did you revert edits discussed above, without so much as a comment? You seem to be edit-warring here. Please stop immediately. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me discuss the following: I'll be editing the article and adding Michael Fremer's comments on Barry Diament and Steve Hoffman, since they establish Mr. Hoffman's mastering angle appropiately. EricGoberman (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's no discussion. Good luck on avoiding being blocked. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care if you block me - if that's what makes you feel good about life, be my guest. I'm not "scared" at your blatant abuse of power but hey - whatever. Really. I'd only like to ask you why you refuse to accept Michael Fremer as a credible source. Just Google the guy. He's famous. He's influential. He's credible. Why is it so that you refuse to accept his interview as a source? EricGoberman (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Fremer, obviously Wikipedia disagrees :-). FWIW, check out WP:RS on what Wiki calls a reliable source. Shot info (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Michael Fremer is not in Wikipedia has nothing to do with his reliability... it just means nobody has yet created his page. EricGoberman (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing WP:RS with WP:BIO. This concern here is that verifiable, reliable sources are provided. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)"

Yeah, whatever, Ronz. The only reason I didn't cite my source is because I don't trust you. Kalowski (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors that repeatedly violate BLP will find themselves blocked or banned very quickly. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't cite my source is because I don't trust you - what on earth??? Kalowski, please read WP:RS and WP:BLP. You are wishing to add info into the article, the onus is on you to provide the pertinent information per Wikipedia policies. Ronz is correct in his actions. Can I recommend that you assume some good faith? --Shot info (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense?

Please explain in words of more than three acronym based letters what is wrong with this section that I added and "impartial" Ronz deleted:

Hoffman's personal website and forum, populated by fans, yet strict with critics, regularly runs forum fund-raisers, such as this: [1] which allows members to contribute to the running of the website. Yet, the website is not subscription based, and there are no accounts published as to the use and distribution of the money. Because of this there has been some questioning of these fund-raising tactics. Some people who question the validity of this fund-raising have been banned from contributing to the forum discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The edits were reverted because of WP:OR and WP:BLP concerns. If you follow the links, you should get some idea of what is wrong with the sections. Simply, this article and talk page are not forums for gossip and attacks. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

?? But what I said is true. Follow the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But I linked to a forum fund-raiser on his own website? Verified??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Verified, but not by a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

What happened here, Ronz? I thought we were OK now. I used factually correct and true sources, the persons mentioned are experts in the field, and everything is presented in a NPOV way. Why did you add a "Neutrality disputed" notice? NOBODY is disputing the facts I posted about. I'll delete the messagem, since as far as I can see, there's no dispute whatsoever here. If you add it back, please explain your reasons to do so. EricGoberman (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The material gives undue weight to these sources and the selection of material does not represent the overall perspective of each source. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem here, then. Nobody is arguing non-NPOV but you. You are a moderator, not an interested party. Someone else would need to argue the article is biased. And, again, I see nobody has argued to the contrary. Do you see what the problem is? You are a part of this discussion, and the judge of it. But, so be it. Please tell me what's the viewpoint of the material I present, and why my arguments are invalid. A simple "gives undue weight" won't do. If you want to argue, argue with facts, please. EricGoberman (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I'd like to resolve the BLP issues first. Are there problems with leaving the notice in the article in the meantime? --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

None at all. Thanks for your patience.EricGoberman (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the "unsourced" comment on initial page

Since Ronz has not indicated otherwise, I'm removing the "unsourced" tag on the front page. The article is pretty well sourced now, and IMHO, quite NPOV.

Nobody has argued otherwise. EricGoberman (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The tag doesn't indicate the article is unsourced, the tag indicates that we need more and better references. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article. Yet again

As per Wikipedia protocol, I'll delete all unsubstantiated references and add all the sourced information.

If you are going to add nonsense as "Breathe of life", you'd better have some good sources to back it up.

Meanwhile, I'll add substantiated sources to support all of the contents I'll add.

DO NOT DELETE substantiated information without discussing it first.

EricGoberman (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why'd you remove the http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug07/5429/3 reference, in favor of a musicangle.com article? --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ronz. I wasn't aware I had done such a thing. I noticed you (yet again) removed the Houston Press article: http://www.houstonpress.com/1996-12-19/music/bone-to-pick/full. And once again I ask you - why are you deleting facts published by the press? Please don't say "WP:BS" or stuff like that. Try and explain it to me as if I didn't know a thing about Wikipedia (because I don't).

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Press

Apparently, the Houston Press has a readership of more than 645,000 people. It's notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. It has won several awards (http://www.houstonpress.com/about/). Perhaps you don't like the way the criticism is worded? I'll edit a new version, and see if you like it.

EricGoberman (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replacing the reference.

Regarding the Houston press article: I removed it then and just now because the references provided do not verify the information added, and the information is defamatory. See WP:BLP. I suggest you take this to WP:BLPN.

Also, I'm unable to get the mp3.com reference to work, or figure out what it is supposed to be linking to. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I again ask you to please explain what WP:BLP is. I can't understand it myself, or how it applies to the Houston Press link. Nevertheless, I thank you for not removing the sourced information I added to the article. I appreciate it very much. EricGoberman (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, I saw the 3O and thought I'd drop in. I did skim through some of this talk page, and the article, but I don't feel I'm up to speed enough to really offer any content comments, so I'm not removing the 3O post. The one thing I did want to say, was that seeing that there have been previous 3O attempts, and there's still an issue - have you considered bumping this up to an RfC? It could give you not only more "eyes-on" but perhaps folks that haven't checked this out yet. Just a suggestion. — Ched (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Eric, the WP:BLP thing (If I understand your question) probably relates more to the topic of the article than directly to the reference itself. I know Ronz is a stickler on WP:RS, but without doing my own investigations, It's obvious that Houston Press is a reliable resource, unless the actual ref is to one of their blogs - if that's the case it may be more difficult to make it work. BLP is notoriously more strict on refs than most other areas of wikipedia. — Ched (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The latest section added has some issues. For staters, Music Angle is a blog. So it's going to have an uphill battle on a BLP. There are some OR issues - for example stating that Peter Mew (note the redlink) is an "industry giant". Obviously not giant enough for Wikipdedia. So there is a source needed there, or at least a 3rd party souce to show why his opinion on Hoffman is pertinent to be included in a biography of Hoffman (per BLP). Likewise Davis' opinion. It's not relevant in a biography to say "people said X" as biographies are just a list of random quotes. Otherwise we all can just add our own opinions willy nilly. The last paragraph needs a source at anyrate. Finally the entire section can be shortened as it's just too long and WEIGHT kicks in. Ta Shot info (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know who Peter Mew is, and think that he is not "Giant enough for Wikipedia", then you will never understand this article. I could tell you that he worked since 1967 on Abbey Road, but I guess you wouldn't know what that is, either. Being listed on Wikipedia has nothing to do with his legendary status - at all. And, Music Angle is not a blog. It's Michael Fremer's site. It doesn't let you comment on its articles, and it's more of an online magazine. Fremer is an incredibly respected columnist, but I suppose you don't know about him, either. I have to agree on two things. 1) The section is too long and it's biased. I'll find more references on Hoffman's work. EricGoberman (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to know who Peter Mew is...the article needs to have the sources that make his opinion relevant to the subject. Given that he isn't listed on WP and WP has some really dubious notability in many fields (ie/ like this article) if Mew isn't on WP, then your claim that he is notable is in dispute. But it still doesn't address the issue(s). And yes, Music Angle is a blog. But rather than trying to tear me down it appears that you agree with the germane parts of my discussion - which of course revolves around writing encyclopedic content. Shot info (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion request still in dispute?

I'd requested a third opinion, "Disagreement about information removed "per BLP" (removed here and removed here) and request for further explanations of WP:BLP." However, I'm wondering if this is still in dispute while we wait for someone to respond. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there are two things that make a third opinion really difficult. First of all - the Houston Press is the only article to be found regarding the Buddy Holly incident. Second, nobody else is making an argument about removing the information in the first place. It all comes down to whether you believe the Houston Press is indeed a respectable, credible source of information. EricGoberman (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

3PO x2 Questions about the usability of a source in a BLP can be asked at wp:BLPN. As Ched as already suggested, if BLPN doesn't help work this out, then the next step is an RFC. More than 3 people have given opinions, so this is no longer a 3PO issue. NJGW (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

More sources

OK, here's another source. Michael Fremer. Music Angle web site. Hope this is good enough for you. EricGoberman (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"While no one criticized Hoffman's results- in fact all thought his reissue work was among the finest and most consistent sounding- there was some sniping: the most frequent complaint I heard was that Hoffman sometimes takes credit for the work of others, that in some cases he's given mastering credit, when in fact the actual work was done by others under his supervision." http://www.musicangle.com/feat.php?id=61 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricGoberman (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 January 2008

Barry Diament, legendary audio engineer, has this to say about Hoffman:

"By coincidence, issue 101 of The Absolute Sound, the audiophile magazine from which I'd resigned a few months earlier had arrived at the show. In it was a condescending, accusatory and innuendo laden letter from disc masterer Barry Diament criticizing Hoffman's digital transfer of The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds .

Though the technique was subtle, essentially Diament accused Hoffman of boosting the bass, playing with levels during song introductions and upping the overall level to the point of overload. The letter went on to challenge my listening abilities because I called Hoffman's disc "The Pet Sounds to own" (the vinyl LP hadn't yet been issued). "

EricGoberman (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm tired of this. You have to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Take it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely don't get it, Ronz. We are trying to substantiate the "Controversy" section so it suits your criteria. The rest of the article is completely unsubstantiated. Why, I must ask, do you insist on ignoring valid references? Do you know who Barry Diament is? Michael Fremer? Peter Mew? If you don't, then I'd respectfully suggest a new wiki admin is needed here - someone who knows about the music industry. EricGoberman (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously not ignoring anything. I am simply questioning the reliability of the sources, and have suggested a venue for resolving this dispute. Please take it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should take this issue to those instances. Fact is, anyone who knows who Mew, Fremer or Diament are knows that their reputation is beyond reproach. Their statements regarding Hoffman are 100% authoritative. What I'm starting to think is (and I do not mean to insult you) is that your ignorance in these areas is potentially damaging a 100% NPOV article. It would be like me trying to moderate an edit war regarding peritonitis - I'd have no clue as to what I'm doing. EricGoberman (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We are tired of this as well, Ronz. Does the following paragraph meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP?

"While at MCA, Hoffman championed the idea that reissues of an artist's back catalog could be worthwhile and profitable for engineers, record companies and artists. His approach to remastering aims to endow each CD and vinyl record with what he calls "The Breath of Life," attained by avoiding compression, limiting and equalization. He does not use any digital-based noise reduction."

Please find me a source for "The Breath of Life" reference. I implore you.

12.152.10.41 (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Huberman

Or a source for "reissues of an artist's back catalogue could be worthwile and profitable for engineers", or whether he avoids compression, limiting and equalization, or DNR. Fact is, that entire paragraph could have been pulled out of anyone's vivid imagination, and you (Ronz) aren't even asking for "sources", much less the "reliability" of said "sources". What is going on here??? EricGoberman (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The comments attributed to Barry Diament are from a letter he wrote many years ago. What may not be known here is the Mssrs. Diament, Fremer and Hoffman have all discussed this since then and it is water under the bridge. Mr. Diament withdrew his initial comments, which he felt did not do justice to Mr. Hoffman's fine work. Mr. Diament is also a regular contributor to Mr. Hoffman's forum and he holds Mr. Hoffman in very high esteem. - Campbell Bonaire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbell Bonaire (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent and possible references

Possible references (again)

These are from the previous discussion above: --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Yarlung Records: A simple formula to record young musicians
2. DISC JOCKEY MASTERS ARE THE DOMAIN OF PREMIUM CD GURU STEVE HOFFMAN
3. Reissue roundup: Audio Fidelity's first reissue plus some Concord Jazz reissues from Groove Note and Pure Audiophile.(The Music)
4. FINDING PURIST BLISS MUSIC
5. Tales Of Hoffman: Michael Fremer Speaks with Steve Hoffman: Part 1 (Included in the list below)
6. The Steve Hoffman Interview
7. Steve Hoffman: Mastering for the Breath of Life
8. The mastering master (Currently used as an External link)
9. In Search of the Holy Hi-Fi Grail (Currently used as an External link)

Recent references

These were removed from the article immediately prior to the AfD: --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.monoandstereo.com/2008/02/interview-with-steve-hoffman-matej-isak.html
2. http://vinylfanatics.com/content/view/220/38/
3. http://www.musicangle.com/feat.php?id=61 Tales Of Hoffman: Michael Fremer Speaks with Steve Hoffman: Part 1
4. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2877291.ece
5. http://www.audiofidelity.net/upcoming_releases.html

why is the Houston Press article not included? Sidar (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I am cleaning up the approach section to remove redundancy and the subjective concept of "breath of life". Also resubmitting the reference to the Houston Press article in a separate section specifically worked to avoid POV and defamation. Address your concerns here before reverting. Sidar (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The information from the Houston Press article has once again been removed per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was. There is no room in a bio for claims based on "anecdotal evidence". That's just unacceptable, especially given that it is a negative claim. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Metallica Gold Edition CDs?

Why doesn't the article mention Hoffman's "24k Gold" remasters of Metallica's Ride The Lightning, Master Of Puppets and ...And Justice For All albums? 190.17.41.208 (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Biography

Shouldn't a biography include actual biographical details? Like when he was born, for example. The article as it stands is a joke ... 4 masterings listed and minimal information about his career. If it is not possible to provide sources listing this information then perhaps this article shouldn't exist. Either he is important enough to warrant a properly sourced article or he isn't. Of course, the same criticism could be made of the Peter Mew article. Even Ken Scott's article lists his date of birth! Pinglis (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New sources, more info

In an effort to keep an NPOV throughout the article, I've made several changes. Hope you approve of them, Ronz. I believe it's far better than 1 week ago. EricGoberman (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice you are still not satisfied with the sources, Ronz. We have a problem here. Steve Hoffman is famous, but you'll really not find any more information about him online. These sources are the most authoritative out there. We can have either 2 options here.

1) Have an article that says "Steve Hoffman is a mastering engineer", which is probably the only thing that can be sourced the way you want it to be (the rest of the article is based on sources you find to be "unreliable", or 2) Delete the article, since stating that "Steve Hoffman is a mastering engineer" is pretty useless to everyone.

Here's the deal, Ronz. You have no previous knowledge of mastering, mastering engineers, producers, remasters, etc. So, it's obvious that people like Peter Mew, Jon Astley, Nick Davis, Barry Diament will never ring a bell. Likewise, Mix magazine, Michael Fremer, etc. are not names you are familiar with. So you consider them unreliable.

Trust me, there are no other sources of reliable info for Steve Hoffman.

So, what's it gonna be? Prune, or delete? EricGoberman (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies always. If there is poor sourcing because the subject isn't really that notable, then prune or delete away. Given that BLP errs on the side of caution, deletion is often the "safer" path. Shot info (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly argue to "delete" then, since it's impossible to properly source this article. EricGoberman (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

DELETE - Pointless article. Kalowski (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC).