| Date | From | Subject |
|---|---|---|
| 2000-10-0522:04 | <Loptimiste@aol.com> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad < |
| 2000-10-0607:32 | forel <forel@mac.com> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad Josh Davison wrote:
> don't you feel like you've been cheated… |
| 2000-10-1013:32 | jeremy axon <jeremy@open.ca> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad >I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions… |
| 2000-10-0607:59 | ben^jib <benjib@tapir.freeserve.co.uk> | RE: [idm] why digital is bad * a record has lost a finite amount of data every time you… |
| 2000-10-0914:48 | <Softerandthicker@aol.com> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad
In a message dated 10/5/00 3:45:45 PM, component… |
| 2000-10-0522:54 | Matt Anderson <655321@telus.net> | RE: [idm] why digital is bad I really hate to feed this fire because as someone correctly mentioned… |
| 2000-10-1023:55 | steve <saw123@ixpres.com> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad sonic solutions is a daw...very high end one. like $100k or… |
| 2000-10-0522:07 | Greg Clow <greg@stainedproductions.com> | [idm] why "digital vs analogue" debate is bad
>analogue facts:
>* an analogue signal contains an infinite amount of data.
>
>digital… |
| 2000-10-0521:55 | Josh Davison <yoshi@enteract.com> | [idm] why digital is bad analogue facts:
* an analogue signal contains an infinite amount of data.
* a… |
| 2000-10-0521:52 | Jeff Shoemaker <cache@texas.net> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad > On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, steve wrote:
> > I'd love to hear… |
| 2000-10-0523:05 | steve <saw123@ixpres.com> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad
> * if transferred digitally, no data is lost when transmitting digital
> information from… |
| 2000-10-0522:38 | Brian MacDonald <brianm@kuci.org> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, steve wrote:
> I'd love to hear… |
| 2000-10-1019:22 | Ryan Heard <ryan@ryanheard.com> | RE: [idm] why digital is bad Ugh ugh and UGH. This debate is as ludicrous as someone who… |
| 2000-10-0522:48 | component <component@mindstorm.com> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad Only on the 5% of recordings that are recorded analogue anymore.
Raab… |
| 2000-10-0602:10 | NuBreaks <freqdafunk@flashmail.com> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad ------ Original Message -----
From: Matt Anderson <655321@telus.net>
> But... Isn't this… |
| 2000-10-1119:08 | Geoff Farina <geoff@secretstars.com> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions… |
| 2000-10-1004:09 | Marc 3 Poirier <mpoirier@virtu.sar.usf.edu> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad > I understand most mastering is done with a program called Sonic Solutions… |
| 2000-10-0522:09 | Josh Davison <yoshi@enteract.com> | Re: [idm] why digital is bad sadly i cannot practice what i preach all the time :)
i pretty… |
| 2000-10-1019:13 | Jeffrey Price <cymple@swbell.net> | RE: [idm] why digital is bad I thought I'd chime in on this one, it was tough… |