ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/mobility/archive/v01.n256

Internet Message Format | 1998-11-13 | 20KB

From: [e-mail] (mobility-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: mobility-digest V1 #256
Reply-To: mobility
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes

mobility-digest      Saturday, November 14 1998      Volume 01 : Number 256



Re: (mobility) Re: mobility-digest V1 #254
Re: (mobility) Re: mobility-digest V1 #254
Re: (mobility) re: captain sensible> universe of geoffrey brown
(mobility) Thanks2 Art
RE: (mobility) Thanks2 stuff
(mobility) honest love
RE: (mobility) Thanks2 stuff
(mobility) re: captain sensible> universe of geoffrey brown
(mobility) re: captain sensible universe of geoffrey brown
(mobility) wow...(anthem)
(mobility) MobyMovies
Re: (mobility) Thanks2 stuff
(mobility) thanks2 subbmission formats
Re: (mobility) MP3s

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:11:09 -0800
From: "Andrew Mullen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) Re: mobility-digest V1 #254

- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 11:16 AM
Subject: (mobility) Re: mobility-digest V1 #254


>how much does a basic (yet good) drum machine and soundboard run for?

Roland or Boss has a nice line of basic drum machines at a fairly affordable
price, however, I don't recommend buying a new one. always buy used drum
machines. Obsolete, but, imo, still a good one is the original R-8. the
cards are discontinued and can be had for cheap. I like the editing features
on it. my friend bought an MC-303 when it came out a few years ago, but I
thought that was a complete waste. IMO, preset boxes date rather quickly. by
"soundboard" what do you mean? I'm assuming keyboard. You could do far worse
than a Roland Juno 106 (mine was stolen two months ago, FUCKING SHIT
THIEVES!!!), or a Yamaha DX (my friend has the DX 27, we use it a lot). I
would definitely recommend something programmable. That's just a couple
possibilities. I'm sure everyone has a different opinion. good luck.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:13:35 -0800
From: "Dr. Killpatient" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) Re: mobility-digest V1 #254

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> how much does a basic (yet good) drum machine and soundboard run for? where
> would one go about aquairing one of these wonderful machines? whatelse would i
> need to get in order to actually creat some music. ive played piano for a
> while and i have a drum set that i play, but i want to get into techno and emo
> and stuff like that. can anyone help me out?

I reccommend getting a used all-in-one type keyboard for starting,
one with it's own sequencer, then graduate to computer sequencers
and multiple keyboards/drum machines.
The Korg 01/w is a great start out workstation, as is the kurzweil
K2500- both can be found cheap used.
If your budget only allows for a drum machine, then don't
worry about sequencing on the computer because most drum machines
have a decent sequencer anyway.

But a soundcard is essential for any computer- a basic soundblaster16
should do everything you need for around $25, no excuse to not have
at least that for your system.

If you are looking to spend more money, I would learn the cheap stuff
first so you can appreciate anything the higher price equipment has to
offer.
paul

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:15:13 -0500
From: Ade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) re: captain sensible> universe of geoffrey brown

>i've seen three copies of this cd in my entire life
>and i bought all three.
>i now have one good copy.
>i can't find it anywhere
>so if anyone discovers where to get it
>please let me know........

CDNOW has it:

http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/SID=0/pagename=/RP/CDN/FIND/album.html/
ArtistID=FRN-CAPTAIN+SENSIBLE/ddcn=MSI-M112473

or you can just do a search for the artist and CD.

$25 though.  Pretty pricey eh?



- --Ade.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:23:14 -0500
From: Ade <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) Thanks2 Art

At 03:16 PM 11/13/98 -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I was wondering if the cover art for Thanks2 had to be done on computer, or
>if I could submit something that was done by othermeans, as I am into mixed
>media/calligraphy/watercolours.  If something such as this is allowed (I
>know it would be reproduced on computer)  where can I send it to, as I
>don't have access to a scanner?   Thank you kindly,
>
>-Jennafur
>
>

I would say to send this to whoever will be handling the cover art in the
final production.  I was just using my site as a gateway to vote on the
art, etc. but I'm not involved in the production at all.  Can someone
forward some info on this?


- --Ade.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:50:10 -0500
From: Steve Giles <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (mobility) Thanks2 stuff

I like my posts to be fun, so I'm putting this link in at the top. Note that
this catalog lists many rare items that this store does not have. They
simply wish to preserve history. If you see a price, they have it, if it
says 'call', they don't. Try searches with Moby entered in the Artist and
Title searches, and Instinct entered for the label search. One at a time, of
course. Enjoy.

http://www.sonicgroove.com


>>>Greg wrote:
Cool.  I'll grab these and post'm on the site.  However, Ade, if you want
to stay the lead on the cover art, by all means, do so!  I'll just post
what you send me.

>>>Ade wrote:
I would say to send this to whoever will be handling the cover art in the
final production.  I was just using my site as a gateway to vote on the
art, etc. but I'm not involved in the production at all.  Can someone
forward some info on this?

Who is willing to scan art for those is need, and forward it to Greg, who it
appears will be taking over the cover hosting? Greg, do you have a scanner?

As for song formats. We need to decide on two: online format, and production
format. Since most of the submitters don't have access to a DAT, I'm
guessing CD would be a good format for entries for Greg. For those without
the CDR, perhaps from high quality digital sound? (WAV, high-quality mp3)

For online, I suppose WAV is good because it can be converted to MP3 or RA.
WAVs are quite large, though. It there are certain MP3 frequency that
retains all of the WAV sound quality?

Honestly folks, I'm in the dark when it comes to sound processing. I'm
trying to keep us coordinated, reading from the same page, humming the same
tune. I'm trying to keep the jumble of information in these messages
organized and understandable for those who need it, as we have no clear
authority. Perhaps we're trying to do too much at once. Maybe we should
decide everything when the times comes for each step. I don't know.

Fighting confusion,
promoting organization,
Steve

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:18:38 +0000
From: clay <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) honest love

i'd still like to do honest love remix
but as my vocalist just had surgery
on his spine
(they went through the throat section)
it will probably not have the new lyric as hoped for>
i'll probably have some sampled vocal bit
and yes
i'm lagging on my track...as well......
and tis getting on the mad season so any extension makes it easier>
let's have this for the new year.


clay

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:34:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Greg Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (mobility) Thanks2 stuff

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Steve Giles wrote:

> Who is willing to scan art for those is need, and forward it to Greg, who it
> appears will be taking over the cover hosting? Greg, do you have a scanner?

If people can submit it to me in electronic format, that would be better,
no?  Then I can go find a dye-sup, wax transfer, color-laser, whatever and
print'm.  I have a scanner here, but its kind of silly to go
electronic->paper->scanner->electronic->paper, no?

> As for song formats. We need to decide on two: online format, and production
> format. Since most of the submitters don't have access to a DAT, I'm
> guessing CD would be a good format for entries for Greg. For those without
> the CDR, perhaps from high quality digital sound? (WAV, high-quality mp3)

I've got a DAT, however, its a DAT for backing stuff up - not for audio.
I know, I know, same technology, but I've never used the drive for reading
anything but stored data - can anyone offer any insite into this?  Anyone
use Seagate/HP DATs on a computer for audio?  As for submission, I can
work with just about anything you send me, but we've got some sound
quality issues to hash through, which leads me to:

> For online, I suppose WAV is good because it can be converted to MP3 or RA.
> WAVs are quite large, though. It there are certain MP3 frequency that
> retains all of the WAV sound quality?

I'd like to hear people's opinions on this...

> Honestly folks, I'm in the dark when it comes to sound processing. I'm
> trying to keep us coordinated, reading from the same page, humming the same
> tune. I'm trying to keep the jumble of information in these messages
> organized and understandable for those who need it, as we have no clear
> authority. Perhaps we're trying to do too much at once. Maybe we should
> decide everything when the times comes for each step. I don't know.

No, we're good - just lots of activity.  Also, I'm hearing Jan 1st as
opposed to Dec 15th.  Fine by me.  And actually, lets make that AROUND Jan
1st 'cause I don't know how many of you will be coherent on the 1st.  :)

Oh, as for artwork, if its under 2MB feel free to e-mail it to me until I
get the ftp site up.

- -G

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:40:39 +0000
From: clay <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) re: captain sensible> universe of geoffrey brown

ade>


thanks man.
i rmember the day i found the cd, for some reason it was 11 bucks for
a new import?!
by the captain?! there was no deciding that one........
i knew there was a god.
well........25 plus sh/handling is pricey but it is a priceless gem
and my offer stands to
(and i hate to limit this but i was getting out there [what's new?]
as tim said)
so my offer is only good to ten people
if any of you get this and hate it i'll pay 20 for each copy>
thta is way more than you'd get a used cd store and besides
once you get the taste and the message you'll never go back.

of course his other work is fine but this is worth the extra moolah>

really....this is the only cd i've ever heard that makes me wonder
why i bother making music sometimes
because truly no one has said better (for me) than the captain
on
the universe of geoffrey brown>

okay...i'll hush!


bye

clay

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:55:07 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (mobility) re: captain sensible universe of geoffrey brown

That's a great album=2E  But it does make you wanna run away from your desk=
 job=20=
and join the circus or something=2E

Only Mad Cows & Englishmen by the Cpt=2E is weak, the rest of his stuff is=20=
incredible pop=2E I have a Robyn Hitchcock poster where Robyn signed "Cpt=2E=20=
Sensible is God Says Robyn H=2E"  Now if only I could get the Cpt=2E to reciproca=
te=20=
on my Vote Sensible poster=2E=2E=2E


Deemo

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:58:01 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (mobility) wow...(anthem)

i'm listening to Moby right now (anthem)..man what a song...it's making me
crazy....i mean...this song at a club with all the energy in it...this is
driving me crazy....ahhhhhhhhhhhhh....it's loud and i love
it.....ahhhhhhhhhhhh....love..elie!!!!!!!!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:41:03 -0500
From: "4 Wilsons" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) MobyMovies

Howdy there, I wuz reading a magazine today, and found myself looking
under the movie releases column.  There is a movie coming out called
"Modulations"  starring Prodigy, MOBY!! and Orbital... It is a documentary
on the life of electronica... and promises to be interesting (provided I
can
find it at any theatres near me!!).  Have any of you heard anything about
where it will be playing?  Its release date is november 27, and I'm hoping
that since Moby is in it, it will be very good (as quite a lot of movies
are
just formula and marketing).  My regards...     -Jennafur

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:59:29 -1000
From: [e-mail] (urreax6c aka yesti)
Subject: Re: (mobility) Thanks2 stuff

>http://www.sonicgroove.com

cool, ill check it out :)

>For online, I suppose WAV is good because it can be converted to MP3
>or RA. WAVs are quite large, though. It there are certain MP3 frequency
that
>retains all of the WAV sound quality?

ive encoded mp3s at 320 kbps, the highest i could find, and the sound
still sounds
compressed (dynamic range) compared to the original 44k, 16 bit wave, but
mp3ing
anything at almost any bitrate is better than RA, even at its highest
bitrate (but cant beat the
file sizes!)
i use soundlimit 1.5, perhaps its not the best encoder??? im going to
check out soundlimit 2.0.
i heard some encoders clip off >16khz of the freq. response for speed, i
guess.

but 320 is A LOT better than 128, i think 192 should be the minimum
bitrate
since waves are 174ish, but i may be comparing apples and oranges.

when i mp3 waves to archive onto cd-r i encode at 192, and havent come
across
the artifacts audible in some 128 encoded songs ive come across, although
the
problem could've been due to ascii file transfer, netscape......or an
infinite number
of other reasons.  sorry if i added any confusion, let me know and ill
clear it up!
peace out.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:13:18 -0600
From: "Andrew J. Davies" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) thanks2 subbmission formats

having experience with this, the easiest way (i had experience with) to do
this is to either get a track on CD, or a .WAV file.  this makes transfer
onto a CDR much easier.  I know that decoding MP3s could end up being a
pain, and from going from whatever format to MP3 back to .WAV, some quality
may be lost.

Greg, please let us know what format you would like to see most of.

andy
gingerbread man

**************************
           Andrew J. Davies

        [e-mail]
         Platteville, WI 53818
            (608.342.2255)

       [e-mail]
          Horicon, WI 53032
            (920.386.2596)
**************************

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:19:20 -0800
From: "Dr. Killpatient" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) MP3s

urreax6c aka yesti wrote:

> >For online, I suppose WAV is good because it can be converted to MP3
> >or RA. WAVs are quite large, though. It there are certain MP3 frequency
> that
> >retains all of the WAV sound quality?
>
> ive encoded mp3s at 320 kbps, the highest i could find, and the sound
> still sounds
> compressed (dynamic range) compared to the original 44k, 16 bit wave, but

Either you are using a really poor encoder of you are fooling yourself-
because anything above 192 kbps has less than .01% loss in the
frequency range, the loss occuring only at the highest frequencies.
As far as the frequency range goes, 256 kbps is studio quality.
Audiophiles can argue about psychoacoustics, but human hearing does
not go above 20kHz (and that's when you are a kid) By the time you
are in your 20's most people can't hear above 17-18kHz and you lose
about 1kHz a year or more depending on damage. Yes, your ears are
slowly wearing out and those loud rock concerts and clubs you go
to make them go twice as fast. They didn't use amplifiers like
this 50 years ago, and think of all the hearing problems older
people have. Image how many more deaf people there will be when
we are all over 60 (if we can survive that long)

Cds have a frequncy response or 22kHz and mp3s over 192 kbps only
have less than 1% loss, which means you'll never hear it-
maybe you'll hear something else weird- but not frequncy response.


> mp3ing
> anything at almost any bitrate is better than RA, even at its highest
> bitrate (but cant beat the
> file sizes!)

they serve much different puposes.RA's cannot be decoded back into
WAVs.

> i use soundlimit 1.5, perhaps its not the best encoder??? im going to
> check out soundlimit 2.0.

Let me give you a better encoder, mail me...I've never heard of that
one, but I know the one I use is one of the best.

> i heard some encoders clip off >16khz of the freq. response for > speed, i guess.

I've never heard that, but stay away from unknown encoders.
What it does do for speed and filesize compression are a few
things- masking, joint-stereo, and eliminating frequencies you
don't hear due to the Fletcher Munson curve, which is a law of
science which basically says that the human ear percieves sound
at certian frequencies differently than others, this law must
be kept in mind at all times with any audio engineering.

>
> but 320 is A LOT better than 128, i think 192 should be the minimum
> bitrate
> since waves are 174ish, but i may be comparing apples and oranges.

You're right here, but personally I encode at 160 kbps to save space
because it's good enough for me, and I like to be able to easily
upload them over the net. I've had people give me the blind taste
test many times with CD vs. MP3 and at 160 I can't tell you which
is which...at 128 I can tell the difference.

>
> when i mp3 waves to archive onto cd-r i encode at 192, and havent come
> across
> the artifacts audible in some 128 encoded songs ive come across, although
> the

It's funny how many people seem to use the word artifact like it's
a specific term...it's really not, it's very general so I really
don't know what you mean by artifact. These are usually things that
occur due to digital distortion (above the 0db threshold) or
missing information in the sample, things that for the most part
occur at specific times rather than the whole entire song, like the
frequncy response being poor. Most artifacts occur in the WAV file
rather than the mp3 encoding.

> problem could've been due to ascii file transfer, netscape......or an
> infinite number
> of other reasons.

If you got it in ASCII, it will never work at all.
If it needs to be "uncooked" it will sound like torture from hell
and nothing like a song. If you downloaded the file from someone
then you just can't confirm the quality of the original WAV-
try decoding these files and run a freqency analysis on them in
a WAV editor, check to see if the levels are too high- things
like that.

 sorry if i added any confusion, let me know and ill
> clear it up!
> peace out.

No, there's alot of confusion already about mp3s out there.
All I can say is if you want to form an opinion for yourself
then do a blind taste test with files you encoded yourself
on a quality encoder. Try having someone encode some songs
you know very well to cassette and listen on headphones- that
seems to enhance any problems with the source.

If you made it this far you might be interested in knowing some
of the specific differences that mp3s use as opposed to cd and WAV-
http://freeflight.cockpit.be/mp3tech/tech.html
You have to understand that masking, joint stereo and the other
differences are not bad, they are advanced concepts you may need
other fundamental info to really grasp. You just have to have faith
in the laws that tell us bass frequencies lower than (?)Hz are
completely omni-directional and are overkill when encoded on
two separate audio channels for stereo, you shouldn't notice
a difference- try the taste test.

paul

------------------------------

End of mobility-digest V1 #256
******************************

-------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [e-mail]
with the line "unsubscribe mobility-digest" in the body.