I agree with just about everything you said. Marijuana is certainly not good for you, but, it is no worse than cigarettes or the air in LA. LSD is a very serious psychoactive compound (a serotonergic hallucinogen, actually) which can blow huge holes between your conscious and subconscious minds. This can be a very good thing, or a very bad thing depending on your personality, upbringing, mental/emotional condition and most importantly--being geneticly or behavior prone to such negetive conditions.
For me, it was a reality shattering experience. I saw things that weren't there, though of ideas that had no basis in reality, experienced 'dimension' I can't even explain, etc. I know damn well I wasn't having some supernatural experiences so much as being 'messed up on a drug.' However, I did walk away from the experience(s) with exactly what I had hoped for (and exactly what most people--especially most americans--desperately need): Some serious difference in perspective. To see things from outside of yourself, or at least in a severely different way. This has been priceless to me in my artistic endeavors, my business dealings, and my interpersonal relations. Hell, it even eliminated a semi-serious (but dealt with) anxiety problem. ("After the shit I saw, felt, and was thinking about for the past 8 hours, nothing the real world has got to offer can really freak me out anymore") That, and ever since even my first (albiet mild) experience with LSD, every day I wake up to a beautiful day I'd rather sit on the porch and enjoy my morning coffee and cigarette and just smile to myself, enjoying the world and it's inherent absurdities, quirks, and ideosynchrosies...as opposed to watching the news to get up to speed with the day. (Or "locked into the collective-conscious-machine" as I see it...but, that's for another rant entirely)
However, my best friend--who is very predisposed to such conditions as depression, paranoia, bipolar/manic episodes, etc....he had taken lots of acid over a period of 3 or 4 months. He was fine. Untill one day at a concert when he had a 'bad trip'. Everyone figured it would wear off as he came down. Once he slept he'd be just fine, right? Well, that is certainly true...but for 4 days he wasn't able to sleep. He was very delusional, having conversations with his visions, and could barely be expected to hold a thought (let alone conversation) for more than a few moments. He had to be taken to the hospital, given a shot of norepinephrin, and put to sleep. He woke up feeling and acting just fine.
My friend thorougly enjoyed the hallucinogenic experience, so he figured he'd be more 'strong minded' this time, and try again. Well, to make a long story short, it happened again.
On the same token, I've also seen some people take LSD the way fratboys drink shitty beer. Just to get messed up. No insights or perspective were gained. They walk away from the experience like they would an empty keg. A little messed up with a need to sleep it off.
However, the one thing that I must staunchly disagree with you on is your 'guarantee' that marijuana lowers IQ. That's a very silly asessment in the first place. So lets just call it 'cognitive impairment'.
While I'm not proud, I'm very honest about my use of Marijuana. I've been 'stoned' through just about every experience a person might encounter and/or deal with on a daily basis. Not to mention the "shitload of times" that I've had to deal with 'extreme situations' while also being intoxicated on Marijuana smoke.
Of course, you could obviously (and rightly) claim this is just the same as the drunk who says "I can drive just fine." But I can absolutely assure you that myself, and many other chronic users conduct ourselves in just as calm, collected, respectful, informed and responsible manner while stoned.
Though, I can understand how easy it is to get overwhelmed by your senses and perceptions while stoned...but, have a strong mind and it shouldn't be an issue
I have been a proponent of RealAudio's codecs from day one. Especially in the face of WMA and low-bitrate mp3's.
I'm very informed when it comes to audio, pre/post production, etc...but I never got into codecs, the types of codecs, and how they work. (aside from a basic understanding of the frouenhoffer algorithm).
RealAudio, seriously, sounds quite good. Alot smoother, far less top-end aliasing, and when you start cranking up the bitrates it just gets better.
I was always disapointed that it didn't come out on top, at least over WM.
Now, the RealPlayer--however--is an entirely different story.
Yet another reason why I will be a Subaru fanatic (manual, at that) 'till the day I die.
The good ol' Hill-Holder clutch. My '84 Sedan had it, my 85 Wagons had it, my '86 XTs had it, my 91' Justy had it...and I can only hope that the new ones retain this (often overlooked, if even noticed at all) feature.
Subaru...the SAAB of Japanese cars. (well, SAAB used to be quirky and unique, but, that's for another rant entirely)
Now what about them horizontally opposed engines? I only drove Subaru's for years. My first Inline-4 engine (a VW, thankfully...my toyota, and mr2 1.6l no less, would have been even more confusing) it took me forever to realize that revving past 3.5k was a good thing...let alone fruitful:)
hey, I doubt there are any invites left...but I gotta whore for one just the same. please view my "spam-armored" email address from this post...as I would prefer not to put it out in the open. I get enough spam as it is.
If ever there was a band that would embrace new technologies (like multichannel) it would be Pink Floyd. If 5.1 were available at the time I promise you they would have released in it.
Once something "more natural" sounding comes along, then your 2 stereo-matched mics won't be the most natural sounding anymore. Your attitude is what causes technology to stagnate and old-schoolers to be pushed aside.
I definately think everything is worth persuing...and I also think Pink Floyd would have definately embraced and exploited such features...but there's just one thing you've got to remember: They didn't. The albums are already recorded, they could be remixed...but Pink Floyd didn't do that then. Of course if they originally mixed it for a 4+ channel target too, well, its a moot point.
...and I have a tough time thinking that any amount of channels could as clearly define spacial nuances quite like a binaural stereo recording played back on headphones or focused stereo playback (in the future hopefully). Most of the "best" car audio competition entrys in the SQ+ category--focusing on sound quality--only have 2 front speakers. The speakers in the back sully the 'imaging' and 'soundstage'. You don't go to a concert to stand facing away from the stage do you?
It's not that I want technology to stagnate, but, so much as I see a major lack of practicality. Storage considerations, bandwidth considerations, yet another format to contend with, another supposed "standard" to license...
Though, I would still love a chance to hear some Pink Floyd appropriately mixed and mastered for such a system...untill then anything any of us who haven't heard such a system in person are just speculating.
I could give a shit less that my brain can handle hearing multiple things at once...further more, I'd be curious to hear any wild new recording techniques that this would allow....
...but when do we draw the line? Are we trying to reproduce a recording? Are we trying to listen to a song? Are we trying to mimic a real live feel? Granted, this is in the producers hands, and as such who are we to say 'that isn't art'? But--and especially for, oh, all existing recordings--creating a mult-channel spectacular isn't how the album was originally released. I don't know how popular QuadSound got...those old mixes naturally would translate well with a new mastering for this format...but that's about all.
The Dark Side of The Moon (which honestly I'd love to hear) that I know and love was in stereo....and was recorded primarily intended for stereo.
As an ear-taught producer (I hate that term...it gets used alot, and most of these guys proclaiming to be one haven't much "product")I'd be eager to get involved with the obvious possibilities...and some not so obvious ones. But I'm left with one thought that nags me.....
We were only born with 2 ears.....and we percieve 3D fine. Lets get to work on those focused-audio transmitters and binaural/stereo recording tecniques. Nothing sounds more 'natural' (mic eq curve aside) than 2 stereo-matched mics, placed and panned carefully....extra points if the room sound good naturally....
The people who designed CDDA weren't stupid, but they also weren't looking to satisfy audiophile types either.
Most average adults would be lucky to consciously hear anything around 16-18kHz. But the thing is, subtle harmonics beyond the audible spectrum do have a (subtle but noticable) effect on how we percieve sounds.
Vinyl can capture and play back (on only the best-of-the-best equipment, mind you) clear past 50kHz. I've heard anecdotal mention of over 60kHz.
Granted, the CD will of course sound better to most people...instead of offering us amazing quality very subject to every little detail of the sound-system, they gave us excellent sound quality which is far easier (and cheaper) to attain.
I often wondered why they didn't do this years ago. The CD audio format was first demonstrated, when, 1974? It shouldn't take much to just crank up the storage density, crank up the bit depth, and crank of the sampling frequency. Then everyone will be pleased.
I guess that's what this is...I dunno, I think I'm done with format hopping. That, and unless there are consumer devices to author in this format...well, I don't think I'd have any interest at all.
This gets at the core of one of my favorite lines when I was not only the phone support, onsite tech, the only networking guy and head tech at this mom-n-pop I worked at--but also as a salesperson. No commission mind you, so I really did just want the customer to make the best decision with their money. Even if that meant walking them out the door and thanking them for stopping in.
Usually in response to "so what is so great about this computer/what can new computers do that mine cant/why should I get this?"
"Your old computer can do all the same things as this new computer, this one is just faster."
Which invariably led to the questions "So why would anyone get a new computer?"
So I would tell them about the "overhead" of software (especially windows, especially around, ohh, September '95 on).
This often confused, and even infuratied some customers. "So the computer I have now is perfectly fine?"...Id engage them to think. I'd just lay down some controversial sounding information, and let them bring the questions to me. As opposed to just asking "Well, lets see what we can set you up with...what do you want to do with the computer and how much do you have to spend?" As I'm sure they were quite used to hearing.
I ended up telling them "When you get this PC--try this to stretch out its practicality for a couple years. Get all the software that you need to run on it. Stick with that software. The computer will always run like brand new.
More often than not customers wanted the "cheap" PC. We had 3 lines (just as we do now, except now there is the 'cheapy' sub $1000 PC). The Cheapy was $1000--an entry level system. When I had first started working there at 16 it was a 486DX/33 with 4megs ram, 340 Meg WD, 512k Trident card, classic SB 8-bit, and a 2x Mitsumi CDROM.
Then we had the middle-of-the-road $1500 PC we had came with
a 14.4k modem on top of an upgrade to a DX2/66, 8 megs of ram (maxed out on 1x3's), 540meg WD, 1meg Trident card, SBpro sound (wow, stereo!), and a 4x TEAC proprietary CDROM.
Then we had the "power user" model. which was originally just a DX2/66 with 16 megs of ram (superwow!!! only 1 4x32), 850meg WD (wow!!!), SB16...which had a real funny name back then..SB16-DSP or something like that. Same 14.4k modem...same 4x Teac (dare you to find a faster drive back then) This monster actually came with a PCI video card!!! PCI!!! it was an ATI Mach32 with 1 meg. This one was $2000. Later we offered it with an IBM Blue-lightning 75mhz chip to differentiate it further.
Those 3 levels of system and prices were kept in place until I finally quit for the last time (6, count 'em, 6 times, heh) to start my own business. However, when I left, they were Durons with 128megs, onboard everything, and 20gig drives for cheepys, Athlon 1.2gHz 256megs and 40gigs for middle of the road, and AMD xp1800's with 512meg and 80 gigs...sadly enough, all 'onboard everything', and 32x12x24's were standard. Far past the point the CD speed meant anything anymore.
"Everything we(well, JoeUser) are doing now on computers is the same as it was 15 years ago. It just seems that now we require full-motion-video, surround sound, and 4-billion-color graphics to get it done."
...and even those old 486's seemed like mega-overkill to me. An old DOS guy (old with DOS, not with years..heh) who loved his OS/2 'cuz it kept his BBS up even when he played doom. (lets all thank Ray Gwinn for that awesome SIO driver folks) Oh how I pine for the days of text-mode, single-line BBS's, shareware CD's on the CD-rom access programs, BBS crash, the pit, and pimpwars. The 'squink' noise that procomm made when you opened up any "window". The sound of a 1200 baud modem...the excitement of hearing a 2400bps connection instead....MNP-5 emulation being exciting, how amazing TeleMate was to switch to...command line PkZip (nothin like 2.4g, baby). My amazment that more people didn't distribute LHA self-extracting archives. (lha was far easier to make self-ex's with...pkzip required another executable...and I liked to keep my path short, simple, and relatively empty)
Not that I disagree...quite the opposite...but, just keep in mind that while the evil resides from far right, he comes in squarely on the far left....if you get what I'm saying....take everything he says with just as much salt (no pun intended) as that of his 'enemy'.
You should have heard this one yahoo who claimed that "I don't do hardware, I'm an engineer...now change that Network NIC card."
...keeping in mind that a women wrote the article
on
Ten Years of BeOS
·
· Score: 1
It felt pure. I am not using BeOS anymore (I boot to it once every 1-2 months or so) but I will always keep with me this feeling, a feeling that no other software ever given me.
I can live with the 24 bit part, as I can image dynamic range being very useful when you're mixing digitally. However, I really don't understand the idea of 96kHz. Why would that be useful? The human ear tops of below 20kHz and your friend nyquist says more than twice that is enough.
This is not flamebait, I am really interested!
Not taken as flame-bait at all...
The philosophy I subscribe to (and physics backs this up...through my own blurry interpretation) is that there are harmonics to the frequencies we _can_ hear that are located well above what we can hear...and these subtle harmonics affect how we percieve sound.
Now, keep in mind that most audio cards can't sample anything above 22kHz...on a good day...and even though we aren't sampling that high, we are natively recording at the higher rate (96khz, 88.2khz, 48kHz, whatever). The native sampling rate keeps us from having to deal with up-sampling/interpolation. That's artifical, and as such, not perfect.
...but, post-processing benefits greatly from this added breathing room. Especially dynamics processing, room modeling, and--obviously--pitch shifting.
Try it out for yourself, and if the effect isn't noticable, well, either your mixing style doesn't benefit from it or it's purely a psychosomatic effect on me personally. I'm entirely open to believe that, given the subjective nature of perception in general--audio being just one facet.
24-bit DEFINATELY (worth the yelling) makes a huge difference...if I had to give up my sampling rate or my resolution, I wouldn't hesistate for a second to ditch the sampling rate in favor of the bit-depth.
The sampling rate is far more subtle...and only really noticable (though slightly--but not in the same way as bit depth) when you apply signifigant amounts of post-processing.
The argument about how much to--if at all--post process audio is another rant and debate entirely.
If you are just recording to 2 tracks--which from the sounds of things you are--pay the $250-500 for a new or used dedicated cd burner. no noises to worry about, you can master it later at a real DAW, and no computer to fuss with either.
Or, for a couple hundreds more, a nice 24/96 DAT with a digital IO of some sort you can interface to a computer eventually.
Yeah, sure, you can't hear the computer over the amp...but, it's still there...especially if you have decent A/D's.
Take this concept multitrack..every single time you record a track you are also recording that minute amount of noise.
Multiply the seemingly minute amount of db's that the fan and the HD put off, by the amount of tracks that you record.(granted, it needs to be mic'd, or picked up somehow to make a difference)....that minute noise turns into a not insignifigant noise. Tricky thing is, you'll never know why your mixes sound muddy or there a certain undistinct 'not so clear' nature to your sound.
Not to mention the problems with space on the card. 2 GB may seem like a lot, but a recording session can eat that up in about a minute if you go multitrack.
Obviously I didn't even bother to RTFA...but when I Saw this comment, I nearly laughed my head off.
2gb? hahahahahahahahah....good god man, what are you recording? multitrack at 12-bit 16kHz? Even that wouldn't be useful, taking into consideration swap space (inevitable), alternate takes, and multiple effects. God forbid any effects!
Obviously this kind of system would require offloading the recorded session to a much more capable media, but, good god man....2gb? currently I have a session open (that I admittedly haven't touched in almost 3 days....2k surprises me alot) that has a 8.7gb temp file. That's with only 12 tracks and a couple (dynamic processing) effects locked down.
I dunno, that and the fact that--while I hate to bash linux--there's hardly an audio app worth mention. Much respect to the many hardworking coders that are busy working to prove me wrong...but, it just isn't there yet...and I don't even use ProTools. I used CoolEditPro (now Adobe Audition), and that is generally regarded as either a broadcast only app or just a joke, so far as serious audio production is concerned.
Gigabit ethernet, which is common on modern boards, can almost outpace an IDE drive anyway so if normal HDDs are fast enough for you netbooting should be too:-)
IDE can't keep up with my data-throughput needs for audio as it is, "almost outpacing IDE" isn't even an option.
My RAM handles what it can....but, I simply cannot afford enough RAM to supplant my audio needs. Hell, I couldn't even afford a computer that could handle enough RAM to almost handle my audio needs.
Wow...I gave up on 16-bit almost two years ago and won't look back
I also gave up on 44.1kHz a long time ago. (lets not get into that silly old 'but youll only be mastering to CD' flamewar)....even though my soundcards only capture up to 22kHz (ha, on a good day), the non-interpolated high-frequency sampling really does help the dynamic range. Alot. Let's just call it headroom. Hell, even interpolated and remixed and resampled down it sounds better.
...I do 24bit/96kHz now, mix down and master at 32bit....downsample and dither to CD quality (or whatever the target media supports)...
multiply the numbers you are talking by 5-7....depending...sometimes I like to work at 88.2kHz....it just resamples much faster, and I'll take the 8kHz (remember your nyquist frequency...that's only 4kHz of effective top-end taking a hit) hit on top-end....unless it's something ultra-special....at that point I'm sure it's psychosomatic anyway.
...and I get by recording 8-track simul, mixing up to 32+ tracks sometimes on top of (up to) 8-tracks in live....real time (without effects) with only 384megs! Yeah, the start-up latency is a bit of an annoyance...but I've learned to cope.(plus...CoolEditPro/Audition is very forgiving...I'd be using protools by now if I hadn't started with CoolEdit in '94 and every succesive version thereafter)
I've managed to fill up 320gigs in under 2 months of spurattic session use. (my own solo projects, save for the occasional "for beer and pizza" project, for practice)...and that's not even including the (many many many) mixdowns and eventual master...(i'm a naughty producer, i master most of my stuff...;))
The numbers you quote are downright optimistic. I'm thinking about getting one of the new Emu boards that does 24/192!!!! So double what I said.
I'm not arguing against you at all....far from it. I feel your pain.
But I Do _not_ see how flash media could beat out SCSI, ATA, UATA, or SATA in _any_ benchmarks...besides noise.
And if you are that serious about recording, why the fuck is your computer in the live room?
like how they say you can cluster these things together, but looking at retail value, a cluster would be way down the road for most medium-sized businesses...
(forgive me, my sarcasm filter is broken today)
Medium sized businesses!?!????
Dang, I've worked with enterprise-class systems, the most impressive of which in a worldwide corperate datacanter of a very big name......which--given the ultimately retarded proposition to buy one of these, and even more retarded resolve to actually do so--would never, ever, ever need to upgrade beyond "stock".
I can only think of a handful of scenarios where that might actually be practical, but, for cases like that we have fibrechannel;-p
Certainly correct, at least given my own anecdotal experience.
I quit working in IT, it felt soul sucking. I finally ditched all the consulting and everything and got a job working at FedEx. The ad-copy says "Get fit, get paid"...and aside from random rapid joint destruction, it's damn true.
As to coroborate your comment, yes...I slept damn well, much less than I do now working in screen printing...which is far less physically demanding.
Ironically, aside from a 45-60 minute lull after work, I also had far more energy than I do now.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with just about everything you said. Marijuana is certainly not good for you, but, it is no worse than cigarettes or the air in LA. LSD is a very serious psychoactive compound (a serotonergic hallucinogen, actually) which can blow huge holes between your conscious and subconscious minds. This can be a very good thing, or a very bad thing depending on your personality, upbringing, mental/emotional condition and most importantly--being geneticly or behavior prone to such negetive conditions.
For me, it was a reality shattering experience. I saw things that weren't there, though of ideas that had no basis in reality, experienced 'dimension' I can't even explain, etc. I know damn well I wasn't having some supernatural experiences so much as being 'messed up on a drug.' However, I did walk away from the experience(s) with exactly what I had hoped for (and exactly what most people--especially most americans--desperately need): Some serious difference in perspective. To see things from outside of yourself, or at least in a severely different way. This has been priceless to me in my artistic endeavors, my business dealings, and my interpersonal relations. Hell, it even eliminated a semi-serious (but dealt with) anxiety problem. ("After the shit I saw, felt, and was thinking about for the past 8 hours, nothing the real world has got to offer can really freak me out anymore") That, and ever since even my first (albiet mild) experience with LSD, every day I wake up to a beautiful day I'd rather sit on the porch and enjoy my morning coffee and cigarette and just smile to myself, enjoying the world and it's inherent absurdities, quirks, and ideosynchrosies...as opposed to watching the news to get up to speed with the day. (Or "locked into the collective-conscious-machine" as I see it...but, that's for another rant entirely)
However, my best friend--who is very predisposed to such conditions as depression, paranoia, bipolar/manic episodes, etc....he had taken lots of acid over a period of 3 or 4 months. He was fine. Untill one day at a concert when he had a 'bad trip'. Everyone figured it would wear off as he came down. Once he slept he'd be just fine, right? Well, that is certainly true...but for 4 days he wasn't able to sleep. He was very delusional, having conversations with his visions, and could barely be expected to hold a thought (let alone conversation) for more than a few moments. He had to be taken to the hospital, given a shot of norepinephrin, and put to sleep. He woke up feeling and acting just fine.
My friend thorougly enjoyed the hallucinogenic experience, so he figured he'd be more 'strong minded' this time, and try again. Well, to make a long story short, it happened again.
On the same token, I've also seen some people take LSD the way fratboys drink shitty beer. Just to get messed up. No insights or perspective were gained. They walk away from the experience like they would an empty keg. A little messed up with a need to sleep it off.
However, the one thing that I must staunchly disagree with you on is your 'guarantee' that marijuana lowers IQ. That's a very silly asessment in the first place. So lets just call it 'cognitive impairment'.
While I'm not proud, I'm very honest about my use of Marijuana. I've been 'stoned' through just about every experience a person might encounter and/or deal with on a daily basis. Not to mention the "shitload of times" that I've had to deal with 'extreme situations' while also being intoxicated on Marijuana smoke.
Of course, you could obviously (and rightly) claim this is just the same as the drunk who says "I can drive just fine." But I can absolutely assure you that myself, and many other chronic users conduct ourselves in just as calm, collected, respectful, informed and responsible manner while stoned.
Though, I can understand how easy it is to get overwhelmed by your senses and perceptions while stoned...but, have a strong mind and it shouldn't be an issue
I have been a proponent of RealAudio's codecs from day one. Especially in the face of WMA and low-bitrate mp3's.
I'm very informed when it comes to audio, pre/post production, etc...but I never got into codecs, the types of codecs, and how they work. (aside from a basic understanding of the frouenhoffer algorithm).
RealAudio, seriously, sounds quite good. Alot smoother, far less top-end aliasing, and when you start cranking up the bitrates it just gets better.
I was always disapointed that it didn't come out on top, at least over WM.
Now, the RealPlayer--however--is an entirely different story.
It's obviously because you aren't using oxygen free cables...duh. Everything must sound like sludge.
Yet another reason why I will be a Subaru fanatic (manual, at that) 'till the day I die.
:)
The good ol' Hill-Holder clutch. My '84 Sedan had it, my 85 Wagons had it, my '86 XTs had it, my 91' Justy had it...and I can only hope that the new ones retain this (often overlooked, if even noticed at all) feature.
Subaru...the SAAB of Japanese cars. (well, SAAB used to be quirky and unique, but, that's for another rant entirely)
Now what about them horizontally opposed engines? I only drove Subaru's for years. My first Inline-4 engine (a VW, thankfully...my toyota, and mr2 1.6l no less, would have been even more confusing) it took me forever to realize that revving past 3.5k was a good thing...let alone fruitful
~Dan
hey, I doubt there are any invites left...but I gotta whore for one just the same. please view my "spam-armored" email address from this post...as I would prefer not to put it out in the open. I get enough spam as it is.
If ever there was a band that would embrace new technologies (like multichannel) it would be Pink Floyd. If 5.1 were available at the time I promise you they would have released in it.
...and I have a tough time thinking that any amount of channels could as clearly define spacial nuances quite like a binaural stereo recording played back on headphones or focused stereo playback (in the future hopefully). Most of the "best" car audio competition entrys in the SQ+ category--focusing on sound quality--only have 2 front speakers. The speakers in the back sully the 'imaging' and 'soundstage'. You don't go to a concert to stand facing away from the stage do you?
Once something "more natural" sounding comes along, then your 2 stereo-matched mics won't be the most natural sounding anymore. Your attitude is what causes technology to stagnate and old-schoolers to be pushed aside. I definately think everything is worth persuing...and I also think Pink Floyd would have definately embraced and exploited such features...but there's just one thing you've got to remember: They didn't. The albums are already recorded, they could be remixed...but Pink Floyd didn't do that then. Of course if they originally mixed it for a 4+ channel target too, well, its a moot point.
It's not that I want technology to stagnate, but, so much as I see a major lack of practicality. Storage considerations, bandwidth considerations, yet another format to contend with, another supposed "standard" to license...
Though, I would still love a chance to hear some Pink Floyd appropriately mixed and mastered for such a system...untill then anything any of us who haven't heard such a system in person are just speculating.
I could give a shit less that my brain can handle hearing multiple things at once...further more, I'd be curious to hear any wild new recording techniques that this would allow....
...but when do we draw the line? Are we trying to reproduce a recording? Are we trying to listen to a song? Are we trying to mimic a real live feel? Granted, this is in the producers hands, and as such who are we to say 'that isn't art'? But--and especially for, oh, all existing recordings--creating a mult-channel spectacular isn't how the album was originally released. I don't know how popular QuadSound got...those old mixes naturally would translate well with a new mastering for this format...but that's about all.
The Dark Side of The Moon (which honestly I'd love to hear) that I know and love was in stereo....and was recorded primarily intended for stereo.
As an ear-taught producer (I hate that term...it gets used alot, and most of these guys proclaiming to be one haven't much "product")I'd be eager to get involved with the obvious possibilities...and some not so obvious ones. But I'm left with one thought that nags me.....
We were only born with 2 ears.....and we percieve 3D fine. Lets get to work on those focused-audio transmitters and binaural/stereo recording tecniques. Nothing sounds more 'natural' (mic eq curve aside) than 2 stereo-matched mics, placed and panned carefully....extra points if the room sound good naturally....
Bah, I'm ranting.....
The people who designed CDDA weren't stupid, but they also weren't looking to satisfy audiophile types either.
Most average adults would be lucky to consciously hear anything around 16-18kHz. But the thing is, subtle harmonics beyond the audible spectrum do have a (subtle but noticable) effect on how we percieve sounds.
Vinyl can capture and play back (on only the best-of-the-best equipment, mind you) clear past 50kHz. I've heard anecdotal mention of over 60kHz.
Granted, the CD will of course sound better to most people...instead of offering us amazing quality very subject to every little detail of the sound-system, they gave us excellent sound quality which is far easier (and cheaper) to attain.
I often wondered why they didn't do this years ago. The CD audio format was first demonstrated, when, 1974? It shouldn't take much to just crank up the storage density, crank up the bit depth, and crank of the sampling frequency. Then everyone will be pleased.
I guess that's what this is...I dunno, I think I'm done with format hopping. That, and unless there are consumer devices to author in this format...well, I don't think I'd have any interest at all.
This gets at the core of one of my favorite lines when I was not only the phone support, onsite tech, the only networking guy and head tech at this mom-n-pop I worked at--but also as a salesperson. No commission mind you, so I really did just want the customer to make the best decision with their money. Even if that meant walking them out the door and thanking them for stopping in.
...sadly enough, all 'onboard everything', and 32x12x24's were standard. Far past the point the CD speed meant anything anymore.
...and even those old 486's seemed like mega-overkill to me. An old DOS guy (old with DOS, not with years..heh) who loved his OS/2 'cuz it kept his BBS up even when he played doom. (lets all thank Ray Gwinn for that awesome SIO driver folks) Oh how I pine for the days of text-mode, single-line BBS's, shareware CD's on the CD-rom access programs, BBS crash, the pit, and pimpwars. The 'squink' noise that procomm made when you opened up any "window". The sound of a 1200 baud modem...the excitement of hearing a 2400bps connection instead....MNP-5 emulation being exciting, how amazing TeleMate was to switch to...command line PkZip (nothin like 2.4g, baby). My amazment that more people didn't distribute LHA self-extracting archives. (lha was far easier to make self-ex's with...pkzip required another executable...and I liked to keep my path short, simple, and relatively empty)
Usually in response to "so what is so great about this computer/what can new computers do that mine cant/why should I get this?"
"Your old computer can do all the same things as this new computer, this one is just faster."
Which invariably led to the questions "So why would anyone get a new computer?"
So I would tell them about the "overhead" of software (especially windows, especially around, ohh, September '95 on).
This often confused, and even infuratied some customers. "So the computer I have now is perfectly fine?"...Id engage them to think. I'd just lay down some controversial sounding information, and let them bring the questions to me. As opposed to just asking "Well, lets see what we can set you up with...what do you want to do with the computer and how much do you have to spend?" As I'm sure they were quite used to hearing.
I ended up telling them "When you get this PC--try this to stretch out its practicality for a couple years. Get all the software that you need to run on it. Stick with that software. The computer will always run like brand new.
More often than not customers wanted the "cheap" PC. We had 3 lines (just as we do now, except now there is the 'cheapy' sub $1000 PC). The Cheapy was $1000--an entry level system. When I had first started working there at 16 it was a 486DX/33 with 4megs ram, 340 Meg WD, 512k Trident card, classic SB 8-bit, and a 2x Mitsumi CDROM.
Then we had the middle-of-the-road $1500 PC we had came with a 14.4k modem on top of an upgrade to a DX2/66, 8 megs of ram (maxed out on 1x3's), 540meg WD, 1meg Trident card, SBpro sound (wow, stereo!), and a 4x TEAC proprietary CDROM.
Then we had the "power user" model. which was originally just a DX2/66 with 16 megs of ram (superwow!!! only 1 4x32), 850meg WD (wow!!!), SB16...which had a real funny name back then..SB16-DSP or something like that. Same 14.4k modem...same 4x Teac (dare you to find a faster drive back then) This monster actually came with a PCI video card!!! PCI!!! it was an ATI Mach32 with 1 meg. This one was $2000. Later we offered it with an IBM Blue-lightning 75mhz chip to differentiate it further.
Those 3 levels of system and prices were kept in place until I finally quit for the last time (6, count 'em, 6 times, heh) to start my own business. However, when I left, they were Durons with 128megs, onboard everything, and 20gig drives for cheepys, Athlon 1.2gHz 256megs and 40gigs for middle of the road, and AMD xp1800's with 512meg and 80 gigs
"Everything we(well, JoeUser) are doing now on computers is the same as it was 15 years ago. It just seems that now we require full-motion-video, surround sound, and 4-billion-color graphics to get it done."
oh, the good old days.
Not that I disagree...quite the opposite...but, just keep in mind that while the evil resides from far right, he comes in squarely on the far left....if you get what I'm saying....take everything he says with just as much salt (no pun intended) as that of his 'enemy'.
Just stay balanced, that's all.
Ha, at least she practiced.
You should have heard this one yahoo who claimed that "I don't do hardware, I'm an engineer...now change that Network NIC card."
It felt pure. I am not using BeOS anymore (I boot to it once every 1-2 months or so) but I will always keep with me this feeling, a feeling that no other software ever given me.
I know, how adolescent.
I can live with the 24 bit part, as I can image dynamic range being very useful when you're mixing digitally. However, I really don't understand the idea of 96kHz. Why would that be useful? The human ear tops of below 20kHz and your friend nyquist says more than twice that is enough. This is not flamebait, I am really interested!
...but, post-processing benefits greatly from this added breathing room. Especially dynamics processing, room modeling, and--obviously--pitch shifting.
Not taken as flame-bait at all... The philosophy I subscribe to (and physics backs this up...through my own blurry interpretation) is that there are harmonics to the frequencies we _can_ hear that are located well above what we can hear...and these subtle harmonics affect how we percieve sound.
Now, keep in mind that most audio cards can't sample anything above 22kHz...on a good day...and even though we aren't sampling that high, we are natively recording at the higher rate (96khz, 88.2khz, 48kHz, whatever). The native sampling rate keeps us from having to deal with up-sampling/interpolation. That's artifical, and as such, not perfect.
Try it out for yourself, and if the effect isn't noticable, well, either your mixing style doesn't benefit from it or it's purely a psychosomatic effect on me personally. I'm entirely open to believe that, given the subjective nature of perception in general--audio being just one facet.
24-bit DEFINATELY (worth the yelling) makes a huge difference...if I had to give up my sampling rate or my resolution, I wouldn't hesistate for a second to ditch the sampling rate in favor of the bit-depth.
The sampling rate is far more subtle...and only really noticable (though slightly--but not in the same way as bit depth) when you apply signifigant amounts of post-processing.
The argument about how much to--if at all--post process audio is another rant and debate entirely.
If you are just recording to 2 tracks--which from the sounds of things you are--pay the $250-500 for a new or used dedicated cd burner. no noises to worry about, you can master it later at a real DAW, and no computer to fuss with either.
Or, for a couple hundreds more, a nice 24/96 DAT with a digital IO of some sort you can interface to a computer eventually.
Signal to noise ratio, man.
Yeah, sure, you can't hear the computer over the amp...but, it's still there...especially if you have decent A/D's.
Take this concept multitrack..every single time you record a track you are also recording that minute amount of noise.
Multiply the seemingly minute amount of db's that the fan and the HD put off, by the amount of tracks that you record.(granted, it needs to be mic'd, or picked up somehow to make a difference)....that minute noise turns into a not insignifigant noise. Tricky thing is, you'll never know why your mixes sound muddy or there a certain undistinct 'not so clear' nature to your sound.
Not to mention the problems with space on the card. 2 GB may seem like a lot, but a recording session can eat that up in about a minute if you go multitrack.
Obviously I didn't even bother to RTFA...but when I Saw this comment, I nearly laughed my head off.
2gb? hahahahahahahahah....good god man, what are you recording? multitrack at 12-bit 16kHz? Even that wouldn't be useful, taking into consideration swap space (inevitable), alternate takes, and multiple effects. God forbid any effects!
Obviously this kind of system would require offloading the recorded session to a much more capable media, but, good god man....2gb? currently I have a session open (that I admittedly haven't touched in almost 3 days....2k surprises me alot) that has a 8.7gb temp file. That's with only 12 tracks and a couple (dynamic processing) effects locked down.
I dunno, that and the fact that--while I hate to bash linux--there's hardly an audio app worth mention. Much respect to the many hardworking coders that are busy working to prove me wrong...but, it just isn't there yet...and I don't even use ProTools. I used CoolEditPro (now Adobe Audition), and that is generally regarded as either a broadcast only app or just a joke, so far as serious audio production is concerned.
Gigabit ethernet, which is common on modern boards, can almost outpace an IDE drive anyway so if normal HDDs are fast enough for you netbooting should be too :-)
IDE can't keep up with my data-throughput needs for audio as it is, "almost outpacing IDE" isn't even an option.
My RAM handles what it can....but, I simply cannot afford enough RAM to supplant my audio needs. Hell, I couldn't even afford a computer that could handle enough RAM to almost handle my audio needs.
I'm usually above such posts...but...i'm feeling randy.
mod parent up.
Wow...I gave up on 16-bit almost two years ago and won't look back
...I do 24bit/96kHz now, mix down and master at 32bit....downsample and dither to CD quality (or whatever the target media supports)...
...and I get by recording 8-track simul, mixing up to 32+ tracks sometimes on top of (up to) 8-tracks in live....real time (without effects) with only 384megs! Yeah, the start-up latency is a bit of an annoyance...but I've learned to cope.(plus...CoolEditPro/Audition is very forgiving...I'd be using protools by now if I hadn't started with CoolEdit in '94 and every succesive version thereafter)
I also gave up on 44.1kHz a long time ago. (lets not get into that silly old 'but youll only be mastering to CD' flamewar)....even though my soundcards only capture up to 22kHz (ha, on a good day), the non-interpolated high-frequency sampling really does help the dynamic range. Alot. Let's just call it headroom. Hell, even interpolated and remixed and resampled down it sounds better.
multiply the numbers you are talking by 5-7....depending...sometimes I like to work at 88.2kHz....it just resamples much faster, and I'll take the 8kHz (remember your nyquist frequency...that's only 4kHz of effective top-end taking a hit) hit on top-end....unless it's something ultra-special....at that point I'm sure it's psychosomatic anyway.
I've managed to fill up 320gigs in under 2 months of spurattic session use. (my own solo projects, save for the occasional "for beer and pizza" project, for practice)...and that's not even including the (many many many) mixdowns and eventual master...(i'm a naughty producer, i master most of my stuff...;))
The numbers you quote are downright optimistic. I'm thinking about getting one of the new Emu boards that does 24/192!!!! So double what I said.
I'm not arguing against you at all....far from it. I feel your pain.
But I Do _not_ see how flash media could beat out SCSI, ATA, UATA, or SATA in _any_ benchmarks...besides noise.
And if you are that serious about recording, why the fuck is your computer in the live room?
...but he doesn't seem to say much about the less often moments when it doesn't run linux.
Interesting.....I bet microsoft is behind this one.
like how they say you can cluster these things together, but looking at retail value, a cluster would be way down the road for most medium-sized businesses...
;-p
(forgive me, my sarcasm filter is broken today)
Medium sized businesses!?!????
Dang, I've worked with enterprise-class systems, the most impressive of which in a worldwide corperate datacanter of a very big name......which--given the ultimately retarded proposition to buy one of these, and even more retarded resolve to actually do so--would never, ever, ever need to upgrade beyond "stock".
I can only think of a handful of scenarios where that might actually be practical, but, for cases like that we have fibrechannel
Knowing microsoft, they're gunna toss this thing in there as an afterthought...much like real caller-id.
In fact, how surprised would you be if it was just a 1200-baud half duplex signal leading every email?
It appears as though I've accidentially stumbled into the field of archeology.
Nothing to see here, save for an unattended group of mentally-handicaps and quite an impressive mass of fertilizer.
Certainly correct, at least given my own anecdotal experience.
I quit working in IT, it felt soul sucking. I finally ditched all the consulting and everything and got a job working at FedEx. The ad-copy says "Get fit, get paid"...and aside from random rapid joint destruction, it's damn true.
As to coroborate your comment, yes...I slept damn well, much less than I do now working in screen printing...which is far less physically demanding.
Ironically, aside from a 45-60 minute lull after work, I also had far more energy than I do now.
What have been the biggest obstacles encountered so far?
...and what has been more difficult:
Poking the WinAPI and figuring out how and what it does?
or
Microsoft breaking what you do figure out?
has microsoft actually been as much of a hinderance as us Slashdot readers would expect them to be?