I did a lot of recording of local bands back in the '80's. I would strive with my limited budget to provide adequate miking and high quality recording in an era when digital was way beyond my wallet's capacity.
I noted that the recordings that sounded better to me weren't necessarily the most true to life. In fact, most people who recorded with me preferred audio run through a compressor (for lesser dynamic range). Apparently true live dynamic range is unsuitable for home listening.
Another thing we used was a slight digital delay (I had one of those). The delay effect we used wasn't very noticeable, it wasn't a clear echo, but it tended to fill out the sound. It also clipped significantly off the top and bottom end of the frequency response since the delay was incapable of handling low bass, and its sampling rate was incapable of producing anything above 8khz.
I would couple that with light ambient miking of the crash cymbals and a close up to the ride, with low volume levels. Mike up the bass drum. Mike in front of the bass amp. And one more about 20 feet from the band to catch the room sound. Guitar solos were tracked in later, if possible, otherwise I would mike the guitar's amp close up. Keyboards went direct into the mixer, much better results than miking them in these setups.
I had a nice collection of various microphones. Invariably people preferred the sound of omnis to the directional mikes I preferred for most applications. The omnis had less dynamic range and tended to have a less clear sound, but this made some happy. They wanted drone (even if you were recording thrash metal or hardcore, which I was often).
When I would mix the whole mess down, the ambient room sound got eliminated often due to transients from the drums. The bass was left muddy and even clipping/overmodulated even though I could have left it sounding clear and solid. Guitars often were given a slight 'unreal' sound, floating atop the rest of the performance. I had to admit this effect was nice. Drums were generally clear. Vocals got thrown through the digital delay & compressor. All of these were dictated by the will of the actual musicians, of course.
The ultimate product wasn't half bad, and I am not even discussing the various live performances I had recorded. Different scenario, different tools. Some of the bands did something useful with the demos I recorded for them. But I couldn't help shaking my head at the sacrifices in sound clarity that, even in the dinosaur age of analog, I was compelled to make.
I suppose engineer vs musician thought. Not that i'd call my amateur exploits engineering.
Isn't nearly every Win32 OS computer out there a peer to peer networking node?
I can't see where we have to _prove_ that peer to peer has a substantial noninfringing use. Even though you _can_ use it like they did at Princeton.
Wish someone would make that argument in a court. Probably wouldn't help the college students but it would help illustrate how damaging a ruling against peer-to-peer could be, and stay a judge's hand when they might otherwise issue a stifling ruling.
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
This quote was in the October 1987 issue of Discover magazine. The statement was quoted by Jonathan Schell, author of a volume entitled "The Fate of the Earth". To give context to the previous quote, Mr. Schell also notes:
"We need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance." [bold added for emphasis]
I suggest that your bad science is right there. Distilled down, "We'll offer up lies and half-baked exhortations because those dumbasses won't know the difference, and are too stupid to discern the truth or understand us. And who knows, we might be right. But probably not."
I don't like being lied to, but since this issue is religion for one side of the debate, I can hardly imagine that side changing its ways now.
Doesn't change the fact that they are scumbags though.
Still, being a diabetic myself, I would take anything that got me off the regimen of thrice-daily shots and the constant mood swings.
Also the threat of longterm vision loss, kidney failure, neuropathy and potential loss of limbs...listen if I have to take antirejection drugs instead of the crap I have to do now, i'm on board.
Y'know, normally i'd have an allergic reaction to this sentiment, but at this point i'm willing to agree.
I'm a republican. The last time I voted for a Democrat was in 1992 when I voted for Clinton (which I hate to admit in public). I promised i'd vote for a yellow dog sooner than i'd vote for another one.
This administration is not making me very happy however. I'm getting the same weird vibe I got with Edwin Meese back in the 80's.
I'm tempted to change my voting habits but it's taking me a lot to get past my antipathy towards Slick Willy, Daschle and Pelosi, and everyone associated with them.
When a choice of two turds is offered, choose the turd that hurts you least, I suppose.
It's just another example of how, while the US' system of government was perfectly feasible and perhaps sufficient in the 19th century, the onslaught of modern technology and new thinking have rendered it obsolete and inefficient.
Consider this: despite the opinions offered regarding Scalia, Thomas, et al., I have a hard time imagining them finding Patriot constitutional. Unfortunately, they consider it their responsibility to neither offer the theory by which it would be rendered void, nor allow an incorrect argument to suffice in a case presented to them.
It's a maddening situation that takes _years_ to sort out. All the while, bad law is allowed to impede people's lives. US 2.0 would cure that, one would hope.
You could blame the politicians but we elected them.
You wouldn't even be thinking about this in China. You'd just accept it and move on. That is the difference.
It's not really my argument, just making the point that someone got relatively global agreement that research needed to be limited due to health concerns.
In the mid-1970's there was a brief (2 years or so) voluntary moratorium on genetic research due to the health hazards thought to be inherent. Al Gore was one of the proponents at the time, I believe.
When it was figured out that gene splicing is less like Dr. Frankenstein and more like traditional breeding sped up, and that 9-headed dogs weren't about to appear, the moratorium was lifted.
I had a friend named Martin who was an expatriate from Sierra Leone. He worked with me at IBM. Talented guy, college educated. He spent a lot of his time rounding up junk computer equipment (what we'd consider junk) and shipping it to Sierra Leone. He'd go back and visit occasionally.
I asked him - if people can use these computers (implied literacy and education), then why can't they form up a westernized culture and enrich themselves, at least to the extent of getting decent housing and food self-sufficiency. His answer was that the lacking required factor was law and order. The leaders fleece the country, selling off natural resources at cut-rate to benefit western corporations. Eventually the enraged local youth (of a political bent) get fed up and revolt, and stuck in the middle are all the regular people of which this mythical culture would be fashioned.
What's the answer, I said. He shook his head. He does what he can.
Wasn't, i'm dead serious - maybe a tad bit exaggerated since I can't just give up using computers - job requires it for one, but I can certainly give them up as a hobby.
Notice that MLK had a fairly good life even though yeah, he spent a few nights in jail. If i get busted for cracking the format for XXXX media player I doubt i'm going to get laid as much as he did.
I spent some time at an insurance company, that's why I mentioned it.
Seriously though, I'm not about to stop being a geek, but i'm ready to dump the digital part of it. At least you can stay out of trouble that way, until this crap blows over in 10 years or so.
Time to stop being a geek. I'm getting my pencils and paper back out, doing RPGs that way, and selling off my 7 or 8 computers.
I can see the writing on the wall just as easily as anyone else. The joy that I got out of these marvelous toys just isn't worth it anymore. It used to be liberating, now it's just torturous. I can think of dozens of ways to get thrown in prison just by playing around with my system at night after work. Tinkering and exploring are forbidden. I'd rather be an insurance guy or something similarly boring then spending part of my life in a 4x6 cell, or even living in fear of same.
Just proof once again that anytime government gets involved with anything, it sucks all the fun out of it. All in the name of equity and greater corporate profits.
Some of us were just difficult kids to raise. Always challenging the status quo. My parents weren't particularly bad and tried everything in their power to make me 'normal'.
I can't believe that we are going to help this kid out from not doing his homework. Sheesh.
The world is really a sucky place, and this is one of the reasons why.
To the kid: listen, you think this sucks now, but later on in life, if you develop a decent work ethic, you will thank your parents. They love you and are doing the right thing.
Regards the privacy concerns, school grades for a minor child just don't seem all that sensitive. I mean, our report cards used to sit on the teacher's desk and it was relatively common knowledge who did well and who didn't. Furthermore, if someone has the SSN of a minor child, something is radically wrong. No credit applications to worry about in the past, for example.
...gets you nowhere. There's a reason why the government is like it is today, and it isn't the application of money - the fact that the government isn't skewed even more Republican has to do with personally wealthy Senate candidates the last few elections throwing their fortunes into the race. Instead of a 52-47 split you might be seeing 56 or 58 Republicans there. Think Jon Corzine or that woman in Washington State. Or even resurrecting the dead like Frank Lautenberg in NJ - if not for him, that seat would be an R too.
For a long time the Democratic party has been shooting itself in the foot and in this latest rush to war they have continued to do so, with ill-timed antiwar remarks as well as completely spineless repudiation of the same remarks, at inopportune moments. Make up your freaking minds already, or have a strategy!
How about turning that funeral in Minnesota into a political rally? Paul Wellstone and his family might not have been bothered, but the undecided public certainly was. Insert foot in mouth again.
Opposing the tax cut in 2001 wasn't very inspired either. How do you oppose a strongly presented tax cut without alienating voters? Pretty much impossible.
The Gore persistence in the 2000 election claims cost them big - there is no question about that. The Democrats came out looking like the bad guys there, no matter what the "appointed president" wackos care to spout off about. Gore was the whiner, Bush was laid back about the whole thing, and this came off clearly to people. The real battle is in the court of public opinion, represented by those who aren't committed to one party or another. The zealots all have their particular axe to grind.
The people running the Democratic party are all Clinton-sponsored and brought up in the hubris of the aforementioned administration. This was the same administration that weathered the President getting a hummer in the Oval Office closet, the murder of one of their close associates in very suspicious circumstances (Vince Foster, of course), $200 haircuts on the LAX takeoff queue, holding up traffic a couple hours, 8 years of investigation due to their shady '80s business dealings, and i'm barely scratching the surface. Yet, Clinton survived.
Too bad none of the current Democrat leaders have the ability to manipulate public opinion at that level. They must think they do, however, because they continue to operate as if they can explain away any stupid transgression or idiotic point of view they might espouse. That power belonged (and belongs) to Bill Clinton himself.
Of course, we could look beyond Clinton himself and point at the House Post Office and House Bank scandals to show the idiocy of the Democrats. They _had_ to know that this kind of thing would have come out eventually, but they waited for it to bite them in the ass. These are politicians? That garbage went a long way to losing the House and Senate for them in '94.
In short, looking back on the last 10 years and how the power shifted (remember that in 1993 the House, Senate, and the White House were Democrat), one can only blame the Democrats for their own woes. I don't see them as providing an adequate counterpoise to Republican domination of America. Until the leadership is completely dismantled and replaced with competent politicians, you can expect this situation to persist, at extreme cost to our civil liberties.
I have never heard anyone say anything about using antitrust law against the RIAA, at least recently.
You'd think someone would be pursuing that, given that the RIAA presides over just a few colluding record labels that clearly operate in lockstep on issues of this type, to the detriment of the public weal.
Must be bullshitting. One reason I say that is that it is not all that clear that any deforestation happened during the last 10 years, worldwide. It might have, but then again no one is watching many parts of the planet.
I would mention that the Eastern US is more heavily forested now than it was in 1900.
Slashdot Mirror
100% agreed.
I did a lot of recording of local bands back in the '80's. I would strive with my limited budget to provide adequate miking and high quality recording in an era when digital was way beyond my wallet's capacity.
I noted that the recordings that sounded better to me weren't necessarily the most true to life. In fact, most people who recorded with me preferred audio run through a compressor (for lesser dynamic range). Apparently true live dynamic range is unsuitable for home listening.
Another thing we used was a slight digital delay (I had one of those). The delay effect we used wasn't very noticeable, it wasn't a clear echo, but it tended to fill out the sound. It also clipped significantly off the top and bottom end of the frequency response since the delay was incapable of handling low bass, and its sampling rate was incapable of producing anything above 8khz.
I would couple that with light ambient miking of the crash cymbals and a close up to the ride, with low volume levels. Mike up the bass drum. Mike in front of the bass amp. And one more about 20 feet from the band to catch the room sound. Guitar solos were tracked in later, if possible, otherwise I would mike the guitar's amp close up. Keyboards went direct into the mixer, much better results than miking them in these setups.
I had a nice collection of various microphones. Invariably people preferred the sound of omnis to the directional mikes I preferred for most applications. The omnis had less dynamic range and tended to have a less clear sound, but this made some happy. They wanted drone (even if you were recording thrash metal or hardcore, which I was often).
When I would mix the whole mess down, the ambient room sound got eliminated often due to transients from the drums. The bass was left muddy and even clipping/overmodulated even though I could have left it sounding clear and solid. Guitars often were given a slight 'unreal' sound, floating atop the rest of the performance. I had to admit this effect was nice. Drums were generally clear. Vocals got thrown through the digital delay & compressor. All of these were dictated by the will of the actual musicians, of course.
The ultimate product wasn't half bad, and I am not even discussing the various live performances I had recorded. Different scenario, different tools. Some of the bands did something useful with the demos I recorded for them. But I couldn't help shaking my head at the sacrifices in sound clarity that, even in the dinosaur age of analog, I was compelled to make.
I suppose engineer vs musician thought. Not that i'd call my amateur exploits engineering.
The Schneider quote is referred to in the P.J. O'Rourke book "All the trouble in the world" (from 1995 or so) exactly as I spelled it out.
If there is misquotation, it's by Mr. O'Rourke.
Isn't nearly every Win32 OS computer out there a peer to peer networking node?
I can't see where we have to _prove_ that peer to peer has a substantial noninfringing use. Even though you _can_ use it like they did at Princeton.
Wish someone would make that argument in a court. Probably wouldn't help the college students but it would help illustrate how damaging a ruling against peer-to-peer could be, and stay a judge's hand when they might otherwise issue a stifling ruling.
I have two illustrative quotes for you:
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Professor Schneider's bio
This quote was in the October 1987 issue of Discover magazine. The statement was quoted by Jonathan Schell, author of a volume entitled "The Fate of the Earth". To give context to the previous quote, Mr. Schell also notes:
"We need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance." [bold added for emphasis]
Mr. Schell is a contributor to the Nation.
I suggest that your bad science is right there. Distilled down, "We'll offer up lies and half-baked exhortations because those dumbasses won't know the difference, and are too stupid to discern the truth or understand us. And who knows, we might be right. But probably not."
I don't like being lied to, but since this issue is religion for one side of the debate, I can hardly imagine that side changing its ways now.
Doesn't change the fact that they are scumbags though.
Perhaps Mr. Schofield should be charged with the misdemeanor offense "Running Windows".
Some community service should put things aright, methinks.
Still, being a diabetic myself, I would take anything that got me off the regimen of thrice-daily shots and the constant mood swings.
...listen if I have to take antirejection drugs instead of the crap I have to do now, i'm on board.
Also the threat of longterm vision loss, kidney failure, neuropathy and potential loss of limbs
Hope it's available before my checkout date.
Y'know, normally i'd have an allergic reaction to this sentiment, but at this point i'm willing to agree.
I'm a republican. The last time I voted for a Democrat was in 1992 when I voted for Clinton (which I hate to admit in public). I promised i'd vote for a yellow dog sooner than i'd vote for another one.
This administration is not making me very happy however. I'm getting the same weird vibe I got with Edwin Meese back in the 80's.
I'm tempted to change my voting habits but it's taking me a lot to get past my antipathy towards Slick Willy, Daschle and Pelosi, and everyone associated with them.
When a choice of two turds is offered, choose the turd that hurts you least, I suppose.
They are only problems in the shortsighted world where you want to get work done, and make more money for the company.
In the grand scheme of things, wastrel employees (and managers) are good things, because they suck up time and bring us closer to full employment.
Think about it, if we had perfectly efficient people at every step, you'd need a lot less people, right?
We're fucked.
Fairly naive to think politicians speak freely. Their speech is carefully tailored to match audience expectations.
It's just another example of how, while the US' system of government was perfectly feasible and perhaps sufficient in the 19th century, the onslaught of modern technology and new thinking have rendered it obsolete and inefficient.
Consider this: despite the opinions offered regarding Scalia, Thomas, et al., I have a hard time imagining them finding Patriot constitutional. Unfortunately, they consider it their responsibility to neither offer the theory by which it would be rendered void, nor allow an incorrect argument to suffice in a case presented to them.
It's a maddening situation that takes _years_ to sort out. All the while, bad law is allowed to impede people's lives. US 2.0 would cure that, one would hope.
You could blame the politicians but we elected them.
You wouldn't even be thinking about this in China. You'd just accept it and move on. That is the difference.
It's not really my argument, just making the point that someone got relatively global agreement that research needed to be limited due to health concerns.
In the mid-1970's there was a brief (2 years or so) voluntary moratorium on genetic research due to the health hazards thought to be inherent. Al Gore was one of the proponents at the time, I believe.
When it was figured out that gene splicing is less like Dr. Frankenstein and more like traditional breeding sped up, and that 9-headed dogs weren't about to appear, the moratorium was lifted.
The point being that there is precedent.
Microsoft should be honest and use codenames like "bunghole" or "anilingus" for their new products.
I had a friend named Martin who was an expatriate from Sierra Leone. He worked with me at IBM. Talented guy, college educated. He spent a lot of his time rounding up junk computer equipment (what we'd consider junk) and shipping it to Sierra Leone. He'd go back and visit occasionally.
I asked him - if people can use these computers (implied literacy and education), then why can't they form up a westernized culture and enrich themselves, at least to the extent of getting decent housing and food self-sufficiency. His answer was that the lacking required factor was law and order. The leaders fleece the country, selling off natural resources at cut-rate to benefit western corporations. Eventually the enraged local youth (of a political bent) get fed up and revolt, and stuck in the middle are all the regular people of which this mythical culture would be fashioned.
What's the answer, I said. He shook his head. He does what he can.
Wasn't, i'm dead serious - maybe a tad bit exaggerated since I can't just give up using computers - job requires it for one, but I can certainly give them up as a hobby.
Being a martyr has a bad benefit package.
Notice that MLK had a fairly good life even though yeah, he spent a few nights in jail. If i get busted for cracking the format for XXXX media player I doubt i'm going to get laid as much as he did.
I spent some time at an insurance company, that's why I mentioned it.
Seriously though, I'm not about to stop being a geek, but i'm ready to dump the digital part of it. At least you can stay out of trouble that way, until this crap blows over in 10 years or so.
Time to stop being a geek. I'm getting my pencils and paper back out, doing RPGs that way, and selling off my 7 or 8 computers.
I can see the writing on the wall just as easily as anyone else. The joy that I got out of these marvelous toys just isn't worth it anymore. It used to be liberating, now it's just torturous. I can think of dozens of ways to get thrown in prison just by playing around with my system at night after work. Tinkering and exploring are forbidden. I'd rather be an insurance guy or something similarly boring then spending part of my life in a 4x6 cell, or even living in fear of same.
Just proof once again that anytime government gets involved with anything, it sucks all the fun out of it. All in the name of equity and greater corporate profits.
Some of us were just difficult kids to raise. Always challenging the status quo. My parents weren't particularly bad and tried everything in their power to make me 'normal'.
Didn't work.
This thread and your reply is a perfect indication of the age and relative levels of responsibility of /. readers.
Discipline teaches discipline.
I can't believe that we are going to help this kid out from not doing his homework. Sheesh.
The world is really a sucky place, and this is one of the reasons why.
To the kid: listen, you think this sucks now, but later on in life, if you develop a decent work ethic, you will thank your parents. They love you and are doing the right thing.
Regards the privacy concerns, school grades for a minor child just don't seem all that sensitive. I mean, our report cards used to sit on the teacher's desk and it was relatively common knowledge who did well and who didn't. Furthermore, if someone has the SSN of a minor child, something is radically wrong. No credit applications to worry about in the past, for example.
...gets you nowhere. There's a reason why the government is like it is today, and it isn't the application of money - the fact that the government isn't skewed even more Republican has to do with personally wealthy Senate candidates the last few elections throwing their fortunes into the race. Instead of a 52-47 split you might be seeing 56 or 58 Republicans there. Think Jon Corzine or that woman in Washington State. Or even resurrecting the dead like Frank Lautenberg in NJ - if not for him, that seat would be an R too.
For a long time the Democratic party has been shooting itself in the foot and in this latest rush to war they have continued to do so, with ill-timed antiwar remarks as well as completely spineless repudiation of the same remarks, at inopportune moments. Make up your freaking minds already, or have a strategy!
How about turning that funeral in Minnesota into a political rally? Paul Wellstone and his family might not have been bothered, but the undecided public certainly was. Insert foot in mouth again.
Opposing the tax cut in 2001 wasn't very inspired either. How do you oppose a strongly presented tax cut without alienating voters? Pretty much impossible.
The Gore persistence in the 2000 election claims cost them big - there is no question about that. The Democrats came out looking like the bad guys there, no matter what the "appointed president" wackos care to spout off about. Gore was the whiner, Bush was laid back about the whole thing, and this came off clearly to people. The real battle is in the court of public opinion, represented by those who aren't committed to one party or another. The zealots all have their particular axe to grind.
The people running the Democratic party are all Clinton-sponsored and brought up in the hubris of the aforementioned administration. This was the same administration that weathered the President getting a hummer in the Oval Office closet, the murder of one of their close associates in very suspicious circumstances (Vince Foster, of course), $200 haircuts on the LAX takeoff queue, holding up traffic a couple hours, 8 years of investigation due to their shady '80s business dealings, and i'm barely scratching the surface. Yet, Clinton survived.
Too bad none of the current Democrat leaders have the ability to manipulate public opinion at that level. They must think they do, however, because they continue to operate as if they can explain away any stupid transgression or idiotic point of view they might espouse. That power belonged (and belongs) to Bill Clinton himself.
Of course, we could look beyond Clinton himself and point at the House Post Office and House Bank scandals to show the idiocy of the Democrats. They _had_ to know that this kind of thing would have come out eventually, but they waited for it to bite them in the ass. These are politicians? That garbage went a long way to losing the House and Senate for them in '94.
In short, looking back on the last 10 years and how the power shifted (remember that in 1993 the House, Senate, and the White House were Democrat), one can only blame the Democrats for their own woes. I don't see them as providing an adequate counterpoise to Republican domination of America. Until the leadership is completely dismantled and replaced with competent politicians, you can expect this situation to persist, at extreme cost to our civil liberties.
I have never heard anyone say anything about using antitrust law against the RIAA, at least recently.
You'd think someone would be pursuing that, given that the RIAA presides over just a few colluding record labels that clearly operate in lockstep on issues of this type, to the detriment of the public weal.
One could hardly say they are competing at all.
Must be bullshitting. One reason I say that is that it is not all that clear that any deforestation happened during the last 10 years, worldwide. It might have, but then again no one is watching many parts of the planet.
I would mention that the Eastern US is more heavily forested now than it was in 1900.