Sure you can get a lot of recording equipment that sounds pretty good, but what about the rest of the process?
No matter what kind of music it is, you'll most likely have to compress it and mix it right to have it sound good.
Remember that most listening environments don't have a listening dynamic range as large as the recording studio.
So, how well will a badly mixed or mastered song do? Music in the 70's was greatly compressed (take a listen to Aerosmith's Toys in the Attic on CD not remastered, or listen to the album on tape or LP).
I owned Norton for two years (started as a requirement from a client I was working for). When I renewed (paid) my subscription in 2006, the bloatware they installed took my machine to its knees. I went to the support page to try and get support (since in addition to paying for the software, they want additional money to explain why it doesn't work), and it was broken. As far as I can tell, it's always broken (on the order of months and months). So, as I couldn't easily get my money back, I just ripped Norton off my machine and installed AVG free.
Yes, I could have talked to the credit card company, but by the time you sort it all out, it was cheaper just to take the loss and NEVER buy anything else from Norton.
I will NEVER touch either one of these awful software packages again.
I recommend AVG over and over again. I never have any complaints from my friends who don't work in the industry at all.
Oh, and by the way, having been in this business for multiple decades (EE/CS degree in hand, etc.), the attitude of the Linux community it awful (just a wee bit pompus). The ease of installation and ease of use is nothing to brag about. If the community was building anything that was so much better than the "other" software, it would really stand out.
Having gone back to a SUSe Linux distro (requested by a group at work) for a project, you have to wonder what the group was thinking that tried to emulate the Windows "Start" menu. Come on, at least use some of the principles of good UI design when you decide what to put on that "screen."
It's very apparent that the current group of "leaders" (those who are vocal, probably not those that are smart), don't know their history. CS started at MIT, not Stanford. Neither Eclipse or Visual Studio (don't even bring up EMACS which I was using in the late '70's) can hold a candle to DEC's Language Sensitive Editor and it's enviornment (LSE). Come on, we had better tools twenty years ago (and they were extensible).
At this point it's obvious this industry is all about marketing, not about technology (back on topic: Norton, et. al. market well, and no one's heard of AVG).
Did anyone ever prove that smoking causes cancer? I understand that statistically there is a high correlation, but did anyone point at the mechanism where "smoking does this, which makes this happen,... which causes cells to mutate and become cancer?" I thought this was why it was so hard to win a smoking lawsuit.
I'd love to see some links.
And where did smoking come from? A group of people who were taken advantage of by another group. Some people might call that justice.
This kind of attitude has caused the largest problem with the public's perception of software development.
"I got it to work, so I must be a programmer. See it isn't that hard."
I have worked at a company that used one of those 4GLs and actually had subject matter experts writing code rather than driving requirements. Some of the constructions that got put into the core product were very hard to maintain and caused certain customer driven customizations and enhancements to be either impossible or extremely difficult (one of the selling points was that you could customize the software somewhat to fit your business model).
This attitude was also a big cause of the dot bomb. If you could spell computer you could get a "software engineering" job.
These people don't know the history of computing and so end up re-writing things that have already been produced and are well known.
DEC had asymetric processing with their VAX 782 processor in the early 80's. If you insist on Intel hardware, we had multiple 80186 and 80286 processors sharing memory in one enclosure running our business in 1985 (80186 and 80286 processors are 8086 processors with extended instruction sets) running a multi-processor predecessor to MS-DOS called MP/M (CP/M, the single processor version is what MS-DOS was based on).
Common Runtime Libraries (RTL) were the way everyone else has always done it as far as I can tell. You called the run-time library or operating system the same way from each language (the syntax was different, but the resulting signature was the same). The compiler took care of making the linkages correct. Microsoft finally normalizes their languages to use a common RTL and pretends it's a totally new concept.
Slashdot Mirror
I have friends that demo'd this process for me (I got to toss a few 10M or so hard drives in the shredder). Here's a link (http://www.eworldrecyclers.com/index.php?page=datasecurity&menu=services&submenu=ShredSample) It's pretty effective considering all that's left is little mangled pieces.
Sure you can get a lot of recording equipment that sounds pretty good, but what about the rest of the process? No matter what kind of music it is, you'll most likely have to compress it and mix it right to have it sound good. Remember that most listening environments don't have a listening dynamic range as large as the recording studio. So, how well will a badly mixed or mastered song do? Music in the 70's was greatly compressed (take a listen to Aerosmith's Toys in the Attic on CD not remastered, or listen to the album on tape or LP).
I owned Norton for two years (started as a requirement from a client I was working for). When I renewed (paid) my subscription in 2006, the bloatware they installed took my machine to its knees. I went to the support page to try and get support (since in addition to paying for the software, they want additional money to explain why it doesn't work), and it was broken. As far as I can tell, it's always broken (on the order of months and months). So, as I couldn't easily get my money back, I just ripped Norton off my machine and installed AVG free.
Yes, I could have talked to the credit card company, but by the time you sort it all out, it was cheaper just to take the loss and NEVER buy anything else from Norton.
I will NEVER touch either one of these awful software packages again.
I recommend AVG over and over again. I never have any complaints from my friends who don't work in the industry at all.
Oh, and by the way, having been in this business for multiple decades (EE/CS degree in hand, etc.), the attitude of the Linux community it awful (just a wee bit pompus). The ease of installation and ease of use is nothing to brag about. If the community was building anything that was so much better than the "other" software, it would really stand out.
Having gone back to a SUSe Linux distro (requested by a group at work) for a project, you have to wonder what the group was thinking that tried to emulate the Windows "Start" menu. Come on, at least use some of the principles of good UI design when you decide what to put on that "screen."
It's very apparent that the current group of "leaders" (those who are vocal, probably not those that are smart), don't know their history. CS started at MIT, not Stanford. Neither Eclipse or Visual Studio (don't even bring up EMACS which I was using in the late '70's) can hold a candle to DEC's Language Sensitive Editor and it's enviornment (LSE). Come on, we had better tools twenty years ago (and they were extensible).
At this point it's obvious this industry is all about marketing, not about technology (back on topic: Norton, et. al. market well, and no one's heard of AVG).
Did anyone ever prove that smoking causes cancer? I understand that statistically there is a high correlation, but did anyone point at the mechanism where "smoking does this, which makes this happen, ... which causes cells to mutate and become cancer?" I thought this was why it was so hard to win a smoking lawsuit.
I'd love to see some links.
And where did smoking come from? A group of people who were taken advantage of by another group. Some people might call that justice.
This kind of attitude has caused the largest problem with the public's perception of software development.
"I got it to work, so I must be a programmer. See it isn't that hard."
I have worked at a company that used one of those 4GLs and actually had subject matter experts writing code rather than driving requirements. Some of the constructions that got put into the core product were very hard to maintain and caused certain customer driven customizations and enhancements to be either impossible or extremely difficult (one of the selling points was that you could customize the software somewhat to fit your business model).
This attitude was also a big cause of the dot bomb. If you could spell computer you could get a "software engineering" job.
These people don't know the history of computing and so end up re-writing things that have already been produced and are well known.
Of course I've also seen this kind of thing work well for Microsoft as they actually brag about SMP (Symmetric Multi-Processing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiproces sing) and CLR (Common Language Runtime http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/programming /clr/default.aspx).
DEC had asymetric processing with their VAX 782 processor in the early 80's. If you insist on Intel hardware, we had multiple 80186 and 80286 processors sharing memory in one enclosure running our business in 1985 (80186 and 80286 processors are 8086 processors with extended instruction sets) running a multi-processor predecessor to MS-DOS called MP/M (CP/M, the single processor version is what MS-DOS was based on).
Common Runtime Libraries (RTL) were the way everyone else has always done it as far as I can tell. You called the run-time library or operating system the same way from each language (the syntax was different, but the resulting signature was the same). The compiler took care of making the linkages correct. Microsoft finally normalizes their languages to use a common RTL and pretends it's a totally new concept.