I was more or less referring to the powers that be, as opposed to the hackers that be. I would just think that (because our intelligence and law enforcement agencies would NEVER do this), it would be much easier and undetectable by the phone companies for them to intercept calls unnoticed. Thoughts?
This may be crazy, but wouldn't this be a breech of personal security? Phone taps on land lines have to go through various levels of red tape. There wouldn't be anything to stop someone with a receiver that can dial into cell phone frequencies and you'd never know it. There is the other factor that it would make it easier to track your movements via the "all seeing eye in the sky" that the various intelligence agencies are gunning for. I don't know about ya'll, but the idea of being tracked and monitored doesn't bode well with me. Face recog software, chips implated for various "medical" reasons, OnStar! and a host of various other devices with benign uses have the potential for VERY sinister means. I don't trust the government in it's current state. Any thoughts?
Perhaps this will inspire all the M$ hating virus architects to creat newer and better worms, viruses and trojan horses to take M$ down. Ah the thrill of the kill with a bounty on your head! Go gadgets go!
Matrix 2 & 3, vomit vomit! Hate Wachowski's! Must boycott future films! Bitter taste in mouth!
Why, with so much potential for a vehicle for social protest and genuine outrage with the course of human events, does Hollywood have to cheapen it with dead ends and confusion? This went from a BMW 7 Series to a Yugo in seconds flat. I'm thoroghly disappointed.
The nice thing about all of this is that we all KNOW Peter Jackson won't screw up Return of the King. First of all we all know the story (or enough people do). And second of all if he did screw it up you know 100,000 pure geek, D&D playing, sword weilding, socially inept refugees from their parent's basement would hunt him down like a band of Nagazuhl Ring Wraiths!
I have an original bondi blue iMac running Jaguar Server without any hitches, plus an original 266 MHz Beige G3 running the same OS. You must be a complete imbecil!
Ummm... what formats does the Nomad support that the iPod doesn't?
This is according to both the Apple and Creative web sites...
Creative
Playback Formats: MPEG Audio Layer 3 (MP3) and Windows Media(TM) Audio (WMA) and WAV
Apple
Audio formats supported:
Mac: AAC (up to 320 Kbps), MP3 (up to 320 Kbps), MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR), WAV, AIFF(6), Audible
Windows: MP3 (up to 320 Kbps), MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR), WAV, Audible(6)
Upgradable firmware enables support for future audio formats
Besides the iPod transfers via Firewire 400 and USB 2.0 and I'm sure will be Firewire 800 in the next update.
To answer the question I posed earlier... oh yeah! It doesn't support WMA. From the postings in this thread, the DRM in WMA sucks! So I'm sure iPod owners are distressed about the lack of WMA support.
MP3 isn't good for any recording. DAT gives you the choice of 16bit 44.1MHz or 16bit 48MHz. Besides are we talking about recording anything of value? Then why wouldn't you opt for the best possible medium available?
Regardless of how much time goes into your placing of the cut, copy and paste options in a drop down menu, it's not art. You're using developer's tools to create whatever GUI you're using. I agree I hate goofy skins, but some programs allow for that like MP3 players. EQ isn't like changing the perception, that would be more equivalent to switching which ear you are listening with, (i.e. left ear with the right and right ear with the left). Musicians choose various instruments because of the sound they make. A single coil pickup on a guitar can be EQ'd to have similar dynamics to that of a humbucker, but it's definitely not the same! Art is subjective, but there are things that are considered art and things that aren't. I'm sorry but you can't get a grant from the NEA to write a calculator program for Linux.
Like I've stated computer program is NOT art it's a tool. Altering a GUI is not the same as altering a painting or song as those are artforms. Van Gogh chose certain colours for a reason and used certain deliberate brush strokes. Art is meant to be appreciated not altered to fit what you like. Obviously you're not an artist or you wouldn't be arguing this point. Like I've said open source is great for tools, but not art.
That's not really a good analogy. If you want to break it down into terms of code, a better example would be having access to the individual tracks and being allowed to make your own mix. And it's a really bad example to use music in the same context of software. Music is art and software is usually a tool to perform a certain task. Your example is the equivalent to being allowed to alter the colour saturation or levels in Van Gogh's "Starry Night." I think art needs to stay in it's purest form the way it was recorded and mixed. I'm not about to go out and redo the Beatles or Pink Floyd's work. I want to hear it how they (the artist) wanted it to be portrayed. Altering a tool is a totally different arguement. Making a car run better or a program run without crashing is all how it should be. There are parts of programming that can be elegant and some may do things much better than others, but it's not really considered art, it's just a great tool.
Just because it's there or available doesn't mean that it should be used. I don't think that many advocates of open source would want their mothers or grandmothers to build their own computer and then manually install some flavor of linux or unix. Deciding on every running process. I think that's best left for those that are experts and in the know, which are few and far from the norm. This forum contains many expert linux and unix guys. If you wanted them to stay in the unix world, but wanted them to have something fairly easy to use, I'm sure a lot of people nowadays would recommend something like OS X or maybe SuSE.
Peace
What most people don't understand about pro audio is that they in many cases use extremely substandard equipment on puprose when it comes to near-field monitoring. The Yamaha NS-10's sound like S@#T, but they do so because it's to reflect the average to below average end user system. The rule of thinking is that if it sounds good on these, then it'll sound good on anything. In fact I laugh whenever I go into a stereo shop that features $40K speakers and $5K single tray CD players, because they're using products that are infinitely more expensive than what the pros use. For pros it's what sounds good, not what's the most expensive. EQ's in the proper hands can make a recording truly sing, while in the wrong hands (99% of the world) just bastardizes the recordings. In reality, home systems should all include a room analyzer and a listing of every available speaker on the market so that it can properly set the EQ to adjust for all the idiosyncrasies that occur in manufacturing and bad room setups and speaker placements. This would ensure the proper listening of every CD, DVD or DAT. Maybe we as consumers should be pusing for that technology as opposed to more channels (i.e. 10.2 surround). Please don't become complacent at anything that the corporate world and the government throws at you. It's one of the reasons behind open source and should incorporated in all of our lives. Good luck to all!
Peace,
Pete
Giving the general public an EQ was a huge mistake developed in the 80's that has generated the wide acceptance of the MP3. Taking away dynamics and replacing them with less than accurate band augmentation is a horrible idea. Don't recording engineers spend years of time in the studio to learn how to properly EQ whatever they're recording? More bass doesn't make it sound good, good speakers or headphones will take care of that. Ack, audio's going to hell!
Peace
I say the bill should include a premise to not only punish the "spammer", but attack the advertiser itself. So whatever porn site or pharmacy or whatever incurrs charges for each bit of spam that it is involved with. I think the damages should not simply be fines, but also jail time. This would be more of a deterrant to spamming than someone being able to simply go out of business and just as quickly open a new one. Any thoughts?
Yamaha did it best with the VL-1 about 10 years ago. Roland really hasn't invented anything new in a long time. BTW the D-Beam is licensed technology from a company called Interactive Light. The little touch pad is a variation of vectoring used by Sequential Circuits and later by Korg when they purchased them.
At the release of all the old Roland Multimedia products, PCI slots weren't even an issue. I believe the two standards at the time were VESA Local (Loco) Bus and ISA. PCI was much later.
The main reason that "Roland" abandoned the PC sound card market was because of two problems. One was the RAP-10. It was their first serious attempt at a prosumer recording product. You must remember that at this time the bulk of music software was Mac and Atari based, Atari on it's way out.
The available Windows software consisted of very bad ports of DOS software with a GUI. Most of them had bugs that would make an Orkin man salivate. But the big step for Roland was to replace the LAPC-1 with something more up to date. Their solution of course was to make another incarnation of the Sound Canvas. My interpretation from the letter, despite many years of denial from friends at Roland was that the SC line was simply resampled or format conversions of the MT-32. The correspondences seems to imply that Roland insists that the SC shared a lot in common with the MT-32.
Anyway, in their efforts to seal up the market and lack of true standards in the Windows world and those that figured they could write better standards, Roland created the RAP-10 and the SB-55. The Roland Audio Producer software attempted to bring it all into one nice little package. Unfortunately there were SO many problems on the technical support end that Roland had to re-examine their stance on a new branch of the company.
I know that they tried to gain marketshare against Creative's SoundBlaster line in the OEM market. The problem was that Creative used FM synthesis and really cheap converters whereas Roland used PCM and moderate quality converters. With those huge differences CL could manufacture boards extremely cheaply. Roland on the other hand had banked on quality. As we've seen in the past, as long as it gets the job done and it's really cheap, cheap ALWAYS wins in the consumer market. People weren't willing to shell out an extra $100 for betting sounding game music.
To add insult to injury, EMU Systems made a competing card that was priced in between the Roland and the SoundBlaster. The Soundscape, as it was called, got it's foot into the door with many computer manufacturers and licensing it's soundset to OEM card mfgrs. Turtle Beach was also a player in the consumer sound card market at this time. Both of these companies were assimilated by the giant Creative Labs corporation, leaving Roland as the stand alone competitor. Creative later sold off TB to Voyetra. Hence Roland USA and Japan lost interest in going after a market that they just couldn't effectively compete in.
Now don't count Roland out of the picture completely. They covertly persued the multimedia world through of all things Roland Canada, under the assumed name of Edirol. Edirol was viewed as a new company, being distributed by Roland Canada when in fact they were just being fed the products from Roland Japan. If you haven't noticed, but the majority of cheap consumer multimedia products are from either M-Audio (formerly MIDIMAN) and Edirol! And to boot, they have purchased the nations largest distributor of multimedia hardware and software, making then a huge player in the market.
Just a note of irony, Edirol distributes the Turtle Beach and used to sell SoundBlasters!
There is the fact that they'd waste resources chasing and MT-32 emulator. I mean for God's sakes guys, it's a 16 year old sample set that didn't sound that great to begin with!
I just want to know how Roland is DYING? If you look at annual sales in the MI, Roland is amongst the top, not only in keyboard and module sales, but in stand alone DAW's and multimedia products. Keep in mind that Roland's offshoots consist of Edirol and Boss products.
You mentioned that PCM is finished as well. What other format would you suggest in realtime playback of samples? Technically CD's use PCM.
For the record the MT-32 never sounded good, but was reincarnated for years by Roland. Ah well.
Slashdot Mirror
I was more or less referring to the powers that be, as opposed to the hackers that be. I would just think that (because our intelligence and law enforcement agencies would NEVER do this), it would be much easier and undetectable by the phone companies for them to intercept calls unnoticed. Thoughts?
This may be crazy, but wouldn't this be a breech of personal security? Phone taps on land lines have to go through various levels of red tape. There wouldn't be anything to stop someone with a receiver that can dial into cell phone frequencies and you'd never know it. There is the other factor that it would make it easier to track your movements via the "all seeing eye in the sky" that the various intelligence agencies are gunning for. I don't know about ya'll, but the idea of being tracked and monitored doesn't bode well with me. Face recog software, chips implated for various "medical" reasons, OnStar! and a host of various other devices with benign uses have the potential for VERY sinister means. I don't trust the government in it's current state. Any thoughts?
Perhaps this will inspire all the M$ hating virus architects to creat newer and better worms, viruses and trojan horses to take M$ down. Ah the thrill of the kill with a bounty on your head! Go gadgets go!
Why not put a bounty out on the poor programmers that created the holes in the first place?
Why, with so much potential for a vehicle for social protest and genuine outrage with the course of human events, does Hollywood have to cheapen it with dead ends and confusion? This went from a BMW 7 Series to a Yugo in seconds flat. I'm thoroghly disappointed.
The nice thing about all of this is that we all KNOW Peter Jackson won't screw up Return of the King. First of all we all know the story (or enough people do). And second of all if he did screw it up you know 100,000 pure geek, D&D playing, sword weilding, socially inept refugees from their parent's basement would hunt him down like a band of Nagazuhl Ring Wraiths!
Peace
I have an original bondi blue iMac running Jaguar Server without any hitches, plus an original 266 MHz Beige G3 running the same OS. You must be a complete imbecil!
This is according to both the Apple and Creative web sites...
Creative
Playback Formats: MPEG Audio Layer 3 (MP3) and Windows Media(TM) Audio (WMA) and WAV
Apple
Audio formats supported:
Besides the iPod transfers via Firewire 400 and USB 2.0 and I'm sure will be Firewire 800 in the next update.
To answer the question I posed earlier... oh yeah! It doesn't support WMA. From the postings in this thread, the DRM in WMA sucks! So I'm sure iPod owners are distressed about the lack of WMA support.
Peace
Silly rabbits...
Peace
Not afraid? You will be, you will be!
=)
Peace
Peace
Peace!
Just because it's there or available doesn't mean that it should be used. I don't think that many advocates of open source would want their mothers or grandmothers to build their own computer and then manually install some flavor of linux or unix. Deciding on every running process. I think that's best left for those that are experts and in the know, which are few and far from the norm. This forum contains many expert linux and unix guys. If you wanted them to stay in the unix world, but wanted them to have something fairly easy to use, I'm sure a lot of people nowadays would recommend something like OS X or maybe SuSE. Peace
What most people don't understand about pro audio is that they in many cases use extremely substandard equipment on puprose when it comes to near-field monitoring. The Yamaha NS-10's sound like S@#T, but they do so because it's to reflect the average to below average end user system. The rule of thinking is that if it sounds good on these, then it'll sound good on anything. In fact I laugh whenever I go into a stereo shop that features $40K speakers and $5K single tray CD players, because they're using products that are infinitely more expensive than what the pros use. For pros it's what sounds good, not what's the most expensive. EQ's in the proper hands can make a recording truly sing, while in the wrong hands (99% of the world) just bastardizes the recordings. In reality, home systems should all include a room analyzer and a listing of every available speaker on the market so that it can properly set the EQ to adjust for all the idiosyncrasies that occur in manufacturing and bad room setups and speaker placements. This would ensure the proper listening of every CD, DVD or DAT. Maybe we as consumers should be pusing for that technology as opposed to more channels (i.e. 10.2 surround). Please don't become complacent at anything that the corporate world and the government throws at you. It's one of the reasons behind open source and should incorporated in all of our lives. Good luck to all! Peace, Pete
Giving the general public an EQ was a huge mistake developed in the 80's that has generated the wide acceptance of the MP3. Taking away dynamics and replacing them with less than accurate band augmentation is a horrible idea. Don't recording engineers spend years of time in the studio to learn how to properly EQ whatever they're recording? More bass doesn't make it sound good, good speakers or headphones will take care of that. Ack, audio's going to hell! Peace
I say the bill should include a premise to not only punish the "spammer", but attack the advertiser itself. So whatever porn site or pharmacy or whatever incurrs charges for each bit of spam that it is involved with. I think the damages should not simply be fines, but also jail time. This would be more of a deterrant to spamming than someone being able to simply go out of business and just as quickly open a new one. Any thoughts?
Peace
Sounds like a deal to me!
Peace
Nuff said! Go Apple! Let the sheople go with the Farmer in the Dell... The wolves are coming!!! Peace
It was my first computer! I learned to program in Basic, did sprites and even a video game! Twas fun! Peace
It wouldn't surprise me if the sample set in the SC series were all samples of the MT-32! The cheaters!
Peace
Peace
The available Windows software consisted of very bad ports of DOS software with a GUI. Most of them had bugs that would make an Orkin man salivate. But the big step for Roland was to replace the LAPC-1 with something more up to date. Their solution of course was to make another incarnation of the Sound Canvas. My interpretation from the letter, despite many years of denial from friends at Roland was that the SC line was simply resampled or format conversions of the MT-32. The correspondences seems to imply that Roland insists that the SC shared a lot in common with the MT-32.
Anyway, in their efforts to seal up the market and lack of true standards in the Windows world and those that figured they could write better standards, Roland created the RAP-10 and the SB-55. The Roland Audio Producer software attempted to bring it all into one nice little package. Unfortunately there were SO many problems on the technical support end that Roland had to re-examine their stance on a new branch of the company.
I know that they tried to gain marketshare against Creative's SoundBlaster line in the OEM market. The problem was that Creative used FM synthesis and really cheap converters whereas Roland used PCM and moderate quality converters. With those huge differences CL could manufacture boards extremely cheaply. Roland on the other hand had banked on quality. As we've seen in the past, as long as it gets the job done and it's really cheap, cheap ALWAYS wins in the consumer market. People weren't willing to shell out an extra $100 for betting sounding game music.
To add insult to injury, EMU Systems made a competing card that was priced in between the Roland and the SoundBlaster. The Soundscape, as it was called, got it's foot into the door with many computer manufacturers and licensing it's soundset to OEM card mfgrs. Turtle Beach was also a player in the consumer sound card market at this time. Both of these companies were assimilated by the giant Creative Labs corporation, leaving Roland as the stand alone competitor. Creative later sold off TB to Voyetra. Hence Roland USA and Japan lost interest in going after a market that they just couldn't effectively compete in.
Now don't count Roland out of the picture completely. They covertly persued the multimedia world through of all things Roland Canada, under the assumed name of Edirol. Edirol was viewed as a new company, being distributed by Roland Canada when in fact they were just being fed the products from Roland Japan. If you haven't noticed, but the majority of cheap consumer multimedia products are from either M-Audio (formerly MIDIMAN) and Edirol! And to boot, they have purchased the nations largest distributor of multimedia hardware and software, making then a huge player in the market.
Just a note of irony, Edirol distributes the Turtle Beach and used to sell SoundBlasters!
There is the fact that they'd waste resources chasing and MT-32 emulator. I mean for God's sakes guys, it's a 16 year old sample set that didn't sound that great to begin with!
Peace
You mentioned that PCM is finished as well. What other format would you suggest in realtime playback of samples? Technically CD's use PCM.
For the record the MT-32 never sounded good, but was reincarnated for years by Roland. Ah well.
Peace