179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

RE: [idm] why digital is bad

18 messages · 16 participants · spans 6 days · search this subject
2000-10-05 21:52Jeff Shoemaker Re: [idm] why digital is bad
2000-10-05 21:55Josh Davison [idm] why digital is bad
├─ 2000-10-06 07:32forel Re: [idm] why digital is bad
└─ 2000-10-06 07:59ben^jib RE: [idm] why digital is bad
2000-10-05 22:04Re: [idm] why digital is bad
2000-10-05 22:48component Re: [idm] why digital is bad
2000-10-05 23:05steve Re: [idm] why digital is bad
├─ 2000-10-05 22:09Josh Davison Re: [idm] why digital is bad
└─ 2000-10-05 22:38Brian MacDonald Re: [idm] why digital is bad
└─ 2000-10-05 22:54Matt Anderson RE: [idm] why digital is bad
2000-10-06 02:10NuBreaks Re: [idm] why digital is bad
2000-10-09 14:48Re: [idm] why digital is bad
└─ 2000-10-11 19:08Geoff Farina Re: [idm] why digital is bad
2000-10-10 04:09Marc 3 Poirier Re: [idm] why digital is bad
└─ 2000-10-10 19:13Jeffrey Price RE: [idm] why digital is bad
└─ 2000-10-10 19:22Ryan Heard RE: [idm] why digital is bad
2000-10-10 13:32jeremy axon Re: [idm] why digital is bad
2000-10-10 23:55steve Re: [idm] why digital is bad
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2000-10-05 21:52Jeff Shoemaker> On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, steve wrote: > > I'd love to hear about your results inany case. I'v
From:
Jeff Shoemaker
To:
Brian MacDonald , idm
Date:
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:52:53 -0500
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <07e201c02f16$9d7ee920$2016fea9@hoss>
quoted 4 lines On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, steve wrote:> On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, steve wrote: > > I'd love to hear about your results inany case. I've been keeping > > my eyes open for a good deal on some form of analog tape machine...any > > suggestions?
i'm probably stating the obvious, but there are a few tape saturation emulators available in software. Steinberg's Magneto is the best i've tried, and it's a lot cheaper than finding an Otari and $50 in tape. you really can get a nice sound with it. of course, it's all limited to whatever resolution you're working with in the digital domain, but i can't see how that's much of a gripe considering that almost nobody has the means to deliver a recording that's been in the analog domain since conception. anyone think that using bit-dithering effects and insisting on analog recording is funny? i do. but i am merely an unfrozen caveman bedroom producer. . . -jeff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-05 21:55Josh Davisonanalogue facts: * an analogue signal contains an infinite amount of data. * a finite amoun
From:
Josh Davison
To:
Date:
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:55:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:
[idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <Pine.NEB.3.96.1001005163440.86389X-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
analogue facts: * an analogue signal contains an infinite amount of data. * a finite amount of data is lost when transferring an analogue signal from one analogue medium to another. * subtracting a finite amount of information from an infinite source still yields an infinite amount of information. * a record has lost a finite amount of data every time you play it, yet still retains an infinite amount digital facts: * a digital signal contains a finite amount of data. * an infinite amount of data is lost when converting an analogue signal to a digital one. * if transferred digitally, no data is lost when transmitting digital information from one source to another, but you will never get the infinite amount of lost data back. * a cd is actually missing an infinite amount of data compared to an analogue recording of the same material. don't you feel like you've been cheated? -- String Theory : Digital Music for Humans http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-06 07:32forelJosh Davison wrote: > don't you feel like you've been cheated? No. On that note, I think a
From:
forel
To:
Date:
Fri, 06 Oct 2000 03:32:36 -0400
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
Reply to:
[idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <B602F612.D79E%forel@mac.com>
Josh Davison wrote:
quoted 1 line don't you feel like you've been cheated?> don't you feel like you've been cheated?
No. On that note, I think any IDMer with a Mac should check out a new softsynth just released- Absynth. You can find it at www.absyn.com . Some kick-ass shite. -- forel elitist fuck --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-06 07:59ben^jib* a record has lost a finite amount of data every time you play it, yet still retains an i
From:
ben^jib
To:
Date:
Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:59:21 +0100
Subject:
RE: [idm] why digital is bad
Reply to:
[idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <LPBBKJBIFDNHOCGEJGGLMELACKAA.benjib@tapir.freeserve.co.uk>
* a record has lost a finite amount of data every time you play it, yet still retains an infinite amount of noise, crackle and pops so that the more you play the lower your signal to noise ratio goes - mmm the sound of well played vinyl sort of like radio static "... to avoid speaking to his mum on CB, Timmy used to fake static..." benjib [ben^jib] www.tapir.madvision.co.uk off to criterion.... heh heh --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-05 22:04Loptimiste@aol.com<<don't you feel like you've been cheated?>> Nope. J -------------------------------------
From:
To:
Date:
Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:04:35 EDT
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <78.b12ec52.270e54f4@aol.com>
<<don't you feel like you've been cheated?>> Nope. J --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-05 22:48componentOnly on the 5% of recordings that are recorded analogue anymore. Raab component records ww
From:
component
To:
Josh Davison ,
Date:
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 18:48:00 -0400
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <01bb01c02f1e$55083720$ac54343f@oemcomputer>
Only on the 5% of recordings that are recorded analogue anymore. Raab component records www.mindstorm.com/component ----- Original Message ----- From: Josh Davison <yoshi@enteract.com> To: <idm@hyperreal.org> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 5:55 PM Subject: [idm] why digital is bad
quoted 38 lines analogue facts:> analogue facts: > * an analogue signal contains an infinite amount of data. > > * a finite amount of data is lost when transferring an analogue signal > from one analogue medium to another. > > * subtracting a finite amount of information from an infinite source still > yields an infinite amount of information. > > * a record has lost a finite amount of data every time you play it, yet > still retains an infinite amount > > > digital facts: > * a digital signal contains a finite amount of data. > > * an infinite amount of data is lost when converting an analogue signal to > a digital one. > > * if transferred digitally, no data is lost when transmitting digital > information from one source to another, but you will never get the > infinite amount of lost data back. > > * a cd is actually missing an infinite amount of data compared to > an analogue recording of the same material. > > don't you feel like you've been cheated? > > -- > String Theory : Digital Music for Humans > http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-05 23:05steve> * if transferred digitally, no data is lost when transmitting digital > information from
From:
steve
To:
idm
Date:
Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:05:06 -0800
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <200010051508.PAA27354@smtp.ixpres.com>
quoted 3 lines * if transferred digitally, no data is lost when transmitting digital> * if transferred digitally, no data is lost when transmitting digital > information from one source to another, but you will never get the > infinite amount of lost data back.
plus most digital transfers are not sample accurate meaning you don't get the same square wave on the transfer..if you zoom in to the wave level on the original then on the transfer..many times they don't have the same zero crossings...so things get rearrangeed a little...but this is really nit picky for most people....it sounds the same. analogue means analogous...its's a wave that represents the original signal..not a bunch of steps that come close to the original wave (signal)...if you can go analog somewhere in the recording process you should. but is anyone on this list using a tape machine..other than a four track? I'd love to hear about your results inany case. I've been keeping my eyes open for a good deal on some form of analog tape machine...any suggestions? steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-05 22:09Josh Davisonsadly i cannot practice what i preach all the time :) i pretty much record everything i do
From:
Josh Davison
To:
steve
Cc:
idm
Date:
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:09:25 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
Reply to:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <Pine.NEB.3.96.1001005170617.86389Z-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
sadly i cannot practice what i preach all the time :) i pretty much record everything i do on an ADAT ... about to graduate to 24bit pro-tools, which will be a helluva lot better. i do use as much analogue source material as possible, including synths, as well as running digital instruments through analogue filters, effects, etc. eventually i want to take a batch of songs to an analogue studio and record to 1/2 inch tape but that costs dollllaaaaaaaarrrssss -- String Theory : Digital Music for Humans http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, steve wrote:
quoted 28 lines * if transferred digitally, no data is lost when transmitting digital> > > > * if transferred digitally, no data is lost when transmitting digital > > information from one source to another, but you will never get the > > infinite amount of lost data back. > > plus most digital transfers are not sample accurate meaning you don't get > the same square wave on the transfer..if you zoom in to the wave level on > the original then on the transfer..many times they don't have the same zero > crossings...so things get rearrangeed a little...but this is really nit > picky for most people....it sounds the same. > > analogue means analogous...its's a wave that represents the original > signal..not a bunch of steps that come close to the original wave > (signal)...if you can go analog somewhere in the recording process you > should. but is anyone on this list using a tape machine..other than a four > track? I'd love to hear about your results inany case. I've been keeping > my eyes open for a good deal on some form of analog tape machine...any > suggestions? > > steve > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-05 22:38Brian MacDonaldOn Thu, 5 Oct 2000, steve wrote: > I'd love to hear about your results inany case. I've be
From:
Brian MacDonald
To:
idm
Date:
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
Reply to:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <Pine.GSO.3.96.1001005153345.11974A-100000@falco.kuci.uci.edu>
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, steve wrote:
quoted 5 lines I'd love to hear about your results inany case. I've been keeping> I'd love to hear about your results inany case. I've been keeping > my eyes open for a good deal on some form of analog tape machine...any > suggestions? > > steve
So far, the stuff I've done on my 1/2" 8-track reel-to-reel using rhythm loops has sounded pretty damn good so far. The problem is: working digitally is handy when you want to change bits and pieces of any track, as the random-access nature makes it extremely easy. The drawback for using reel-to-reels is the whole routine of cleaning the heads, waiting for the song to rewind or forward, etc. The biggest drag is not being to go above 8 tracks total for a song, whereas I think that limit applies for each overdub only as far as digital goes. Then again, you have to go out of your way to destroy a reel of tape. All you need is a hard disk crash to destroy a good amount of digital work. :) ======================================================================= Brian MacDonald <brianm@kuci.org> ======================================================================= --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-05 22:54Matt AndersonI really hate to feed this fire because as someone correctly mentioned, it gets us nowhere
From:
Matt Anderson
To:
IDM LIST
Date:
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:54:48 -0700
Subject:
RE: [idm] why digital is bad
Reply to:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <NCBBKNDBGLJADEIFLFFPGEGMCHAA.655321@telus.net>
I really hate to feed this fire because as someone correctly mentioned, it gets us nowhere... But... Isn't this debate stopped dead as soon as we are recording at a bit rate far past cd quality? If the digital standard was twice or more the compact disc standard it would theoretically be twice as good, wouldn't it? I assume it's the same as different tape speeds produce different quality recording. Faster=better... Perhaps I am completley wrong, but that is my understanding of the digital/analogue relationship... Plus, to not see the glaring advantage of lossless duplication is insanity IMHO! -Matt- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-06 02:10NuBreaks------ Original Message ----- From: Matt Anderson <655321@telus.net> > But... Isn't this d
From:
NuBreaks
To:
Date:
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:10:59 -0400
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <00ec01c02f3a$ac09b5a0$0100a8c0@mpinet.net>
------ Original Message ----- From: Matt Anderson <655321@telus.net>
quoted 2 lines But... Isn't this debate stopped dead as soon as we are recording at a bit> But... Isn't this debate stopped dead as soon as we are recording at a bit > rate far past cd quality?
Not really. You can record your signal in at 24-bit, 96k and edit it as that hi-fi audio. But in the end you have to dither it down to 16-bit to hear it playback on a (regular) audio CD. Therefore all those extra bits and frequencies are basically lost. BUT, to all the digital-haters out there, remember that we can only technically hear up to 20kHz. And with CD's sample frequency of 44.1 - thats allows for 22.05kHz of frequency range...more than enough to compensate for our hearing range. On contrary there are overtones that exceed this 22.05kHz range and interact with others, making a difference (negative) in CD quality. What we need is to change the audio CD standard. DVD audio will hopefully do that for us...but that is a long way off. Did I just prove and disprove myself all in one email? Guess so...ah, this is the essence of the Digital vs. Analogue debate...same with the Mac vs. PC one...circular discussions. Great fun for mailing lists! (Especially when they're off-topic.) I'll cease now. Ed :::::Funk and Fury of the Digital Variety::::: :::::::: http://www.nubreaks.com :::::::: --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-09 14:48Softerandthicker@aol.comIn a message dated 10/5/00 3:45:45 PM, component@mindstorm.com writes: << Only on the 5% o
From:
To:
, ,
Date:
Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:48:55 EDT
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <9e.aa30b31.271334d7@aol.com>
In a message dated 10/5/00 3:45:45 PM, component@mindstorm.com writes: << Only on the 5% of recordings that are recorded analogue anymore. >> That 5% tends to be for the final masters. Fewer people are tracking to tape, but when the mix is done the natural compression that you get from tape, not to mention that you can hit tape with really hot levels, justifies its use. Analogue tape is very pleasing IMHO to the ear. dE3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-11 19:08Geoff FarinaI understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions and the media is
From:
Geoff Farina
To:
Date:
Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:08:42 -0400
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
Reply to:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <B60A32F9.CDD%geoff@secretstars.com>
I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions and the media is something that looks like a video cassette, but is actually a very high-res digital media. You can still retain analog "warmth" through the mastering process, though, if you track to tape. The tape that you track on compresses a bit, boosts some low end, and cuts off a bit of the highs, and does all the things we love about tape, but even though the mastering is digital, it's so high-resolution that it becomes almost completely transparent (not counting what you add during mastering, of course. ie compression, etc.) and is able to adequately retain the sound of the tape. I think it's a misunderstanding that allowing the signal to touch anything digital though the entire process necessarily robs the recording of analog characteristics, and you hear this all the time. g on 10/9/00 10:48 AM, Softerandthicker@aol.com at Softerandthicker@aol.com wrote:
quoted 17 lines In a message dated 10/5/00 3:45:45 PM, component@mindstorm.com writes:> > In a message dated 10/5/00 3:45:45 PM, component@mindstorm.com writes: > > << Only on the 5% of recordings that are recorded analogue anymore. > >>> > > That 5% tends to be for the final masters. Fewer people are tracking to > tape, but when the mix is done the natural compression that you get from > tape, not to mention that you can hit tape with really hot levels, justifies > its use. Analogue tape is very pleasing IMHO to the ear. > > dE3 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-10 04:09Marc 3 Poirier> I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions > and the medi
From:
Marc 3 Poirier
To:
Cc:
Geoff Farina
Date:
Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:09:19 -0400
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <4.3.2.7.1.20001009235827.00ab58f0@virtu.sar.usf.edu>
> I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions > and the media is something that looks like a video cassette, but is > actually a very high-res digital media. You can still retain analog > "warmth" through the mastering process, though, if you track to tape. > The tape that you track on compresses a bit, boosts some low end, and > cuts off a bit of the highs, and does all the things we love about tape, > but even though the mastering is digital, it's so high-resolution that it > becomes almost completely transparent (not counting what you add during > mastering, of course. ie compression, etc.) and is able to adequately > retain the sound of the tape. I think it's a misunderstanding that > allowing the signal to touch anything digital though the entire process > necessarily robs the recording of analog characteristics, and you hear > this all the time. Yeah, I think that basically most people who complain about digital (& most people in general) haven't yet heard higher-than-16-bit-resolution digital audio yet. It's still a newish, somewhat obscure thing. I don't know exactly what resolution the Sonic Solutions thingies work at, but I know that my experiences with 24-bit audio have been magnificently satisfactory. Most folks don't realize how extremely accurate & listenable 24-bit audio is & that, pretty much after that point, all you lose out on with digital is the colouring that analogue produces, which like you said can be achieved by just dumping the musics to analogue tape at some point during the recording/mixing/mastering process. Marc Poirier --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-10 19:13Jeffrey PriceI thought I'd chime in on this one, it was tough to resist, even though the opinions expre
From:
Jeffrey Price
To:
Date:
Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:13:53 -0500
Subject:
RE: [idm] why digital is bad
Reply to:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <NDBBKLKEHLEEPCLLMPMDMEEBCBAA.cymple@swbell.net>
I thought I'd chime in on this one, it was tough to resist, even though the opinions expressed both here and in previous posts are subjective at best. however, that doesn't discredit any of the accurate factual info that ppl have already added. >standard disclaimer< :) fact: high bit rate (and sample rate) digital is more accurate than analogue. but that accuracy largely depends on the bit rate. I agree that the 16 bit standard is a little course. most everyone can hear the difference b/w 16 and 20 bit audio. thankfully, there are some great noise shaping options that can make 16 bit sound a lot better when dithering from a higher bit rate. the premise is that you can shape the noise inherent in the requantinization process to frequencies outside of human hearing.. however, I can't tell the difference b/w 20 bit and 24 bit audio files, even though I've used both extensively. some ppl say they can hear the difference, I'm just not one of them. I think if you polled everybody that had ever a/b-ed the two, if they answered honestly they couldn't hear it either. but, I think the real world difference is buried somewhere with the rest of the arcane mysteries of psyco-acoustics... there are lots of ppl that love the coloration produced by tape saturation. I'm one of those ppl!! but, since I do all my tracking and mixdown in the digital arena, it's a thing of the past for me.. I don't see myself buying a tape saturation plug-in to simulate the effect either.. :) but, I do (routinely) route my synths and such through a vacuum tube compressor. I usually just brush the threshold, which warms the sound without ever dumping it to analogue tape. again, it's just a matter of taste. since someone mentioned it earlier in the thread, I happen to love digital look-ahead limiting! it's had a huge impact on the quality of my recording.. esp. given the nature of synths to send freaked out transients to an unforgiving digital recording system. the result is a higher perceived volume, that would have been difficult to realize without some of the debris of heavy analogue compression either the individual tracks or on the whole program.. as for the purists that discredit any digital involvement in their signal paths, good luck.. that's all I can say. it almost seems impossible to do that anymore... especially, since the end result is usually a 16 bit CD... in the event of release straight to vinyl, it's possible. but in my experience the pressing companies usually want a dat, cd, or mini-disk to master from anyway.. I'll stop here, before the discussion switches to analogue synthesis vs. digital synthesis... I've heard too much on that one too.. besides that's about the extent of what I know... I think the real point is that there are no completely right or wrong ways to record. if the end result is a good recording, what difference does it make if there were transistors, tubes, or digital processors in the signal path?? anyway, I've been long winded, especially for my first day on the list.. :) jeff > I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions > and the media is something that looks like a video cassette, but is > actually a very high-res digital media. You can still retain analog > "warmth" through the mastering process, though, if you track to tape. > The tape that you track on compresses a bit, boosts some low end, and > cuts off a bit of the highs, and does all the things we love about tape, > but even though the mastering is digital, it's so high-resolution that it > becomes almost completely transparent (not counting what you add during > mastering, of course. ie compression, etc.) and is able to adequately > retain the sound of the tape. I think it's a misunderstanding that > allowing the signal to touch anything digital though the entire process > necessarily robs the recording of analog characteristics, and you hear > this all the time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-10 19:22Ryan HeardUgh ugh and UGH. This debate is as ludicrous as someone who debates which operating system
From:
Ryan Heard
To:
Date:
Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:22:19 -0700
Subject:
RE: [idm] why digital is bad
Reply to:
RE: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <NEBBINFIOLBOFHMADDOFEENECDAA.ryan@ryanheard.com>
Ugh ugh and UGH. This debate is as ludicrous as someone who debates which operating system/patform is better. Whatever works/SOUNDS good to someone is all that truely matters. Radio Shack tweeters are extremely accurate... to point where they sound horrible to most folks (that is also why they are $5/ea). Most records go through analog mastering and saturation before hitting 44.1/16 (or anything else for that matter) by and large. fact: Sure there are objective "factual" points to be made, but it truly does not matter (you like how i stick "fact:" in front of my opinions? makes me sound more credible don't it?). I encourage this going private... Ryan Heard PS: You summarized quite nicely in one of your statements: "again, it's just a matter of taste." -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Price [mailto:cymple@swbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:14 PM To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: RE: [idm] why digital is bad I thought I'd chime in on this one, it was tough to resist, even though the opinions expressed both here and in previous posts are subjective at best. however, that doesn't discredit any of the accurate factual info that ppl have already added. >standard disclaimer< :) <snip> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-10 13:32jeremy axon>I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions >and the media
From:
jeremy axon
To:
Date:
Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:32:26 -0400
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <a05001901b608cad26803@[216.123.162.158]>
quoted 3 lines I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions>I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions >and the media is something that looks like a video cassette, but is actually >a very high-res digital media.
maybe i'm wrong, but isn't that an ADAT you're talking about? anyone? -- -- jeremy axon www.objectools.com 243 college st. toronto, ontario, canada M5T 1R5 416.955.0856 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-10-10 23:55stevesonic solutions is a daw...very high end one. like $100k or something silly. kinda like pr
From:
steve
To:
idm
Date:
Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:55:14 -0800
Subject:
Re: [idm] why digital is bad
permalink · <200010101558.PAA38035@smtp.ixpres.com>
sonic solutions is a daw...very high end one. like $100k or something silly. kinda like pro-tools but it's gold plated with diamonds. ----------
quoted 5 lines From: jeremy axon <jeremy@open.ca>>From: jeremy axon <jeremy@open.ca> >To: idm@hyperreal.org >Subject: Re: [idm] why digital is bad >Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2000, 5:32 AM >
quoted 20 lines I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions>>I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions >>and the media is something that looks like a video cassette, but is actually >>a very high-res digital media. > > > maybe i'm wrong, but isn't that an ADAT you're talking about? anyone? > -- > -- > jeremy axon > www.objectools.com > 243 college st. > toronto, ontario, canada > M5T 1R5 > 416.955.0856 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org