ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/mobility/archive/v01.n260

Internet Message Format | 1998-11-15 | 23KB

From: [e-mail] (mobility-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: mobility-digest V1 #260
Reply-To: mobility
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes

mobility-digest       Monday, November 16 1998       Volume 01 : Number 260



Re: (mobility) Moby vs.  "cd clubs"
Re: (mobility) My (dumb) Moby question...
(mobility) Techno
Re: (mobility) Re: mobility-digest V1 #254
Re: (mobility) Moby vs.  "cd clubs"
Re: (mobility) Moby vs.  "cd clubs"
Re: (mobility) Thanks2 stuff
Re: (mobility) MP3s (long)

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

Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:04:40 -0700
From: "Teddy Roosevelt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) Moby vs.  "cd clubs"

- --Does anyone, besides me, listen to anything other than electronic music?
(I'm trying to get a feel of how open minded this group really is, and I'm
not just talking about listening to "A.R."  :)

Ah, an easy question.  I listen to a lot of other music, older punk like DK,
minor threat, black flag, stuff like tool, type o negative...all the way
over to rap, public enemy, wu tang and stuff...my taste is really all over
the place.  Moby was the first electronic artist I ever enjoyed.  There are
only 5 electronic groups that I care enough about to actually make an effort
to hear though, so I doubt I'm very indicative of other members of this
list.

- --Does anyone, besides me, cringe at pretentiousness in all it's ugly forms?

Sure.  Especially when/if I realize that I'm a culprit.

- --Does anyone, besides me, feel it's a waste of time to argue about "who's
right"?

Of course it's probably a waste of time, but it's often very entertaining.

The current club Vs. regular store argument reminds me of one that I saw on
this list when I first joined, indie record stores Vs. the others.

- --Can someone tell me if it's O.K. to send a DAT with the Moby cover song on
it?

not me.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:27:06 -0600
From: "Brad Caviness" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) My (dumb) Moby question...

- -----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Colorez

>Okay, I know this is a lame subject, but here goes;
>does anyone know why Moby shaves his head??
>For the same reasons monks do(which I don't know),or maybe just for the
>hell of it, or for erotic reasons?
>
I've read in a couple of interviews he shaves his head because his hairline
is receding, and he'd rather be bald by choice than nature. Though he blames
himself for the fallout because of years of bleaching and chemically
treating his folicles.

>What do you girls on the list think of Moby's shaved head(I'm assuming
>it's still shaved?)? Do you find it attractive, ugly, or you just don't
>care?   Cum on, let me know!
>
I'm not a girl, but I've always thought Moby's head and face were some of
his better features. I'm not sure I'd go so far as sexy. But then, i've
never met him in person, so i really can't say what kind of physical
impression he makes in person. I guess I'd say he's cute in that goofy kind
of way. Which is good, because pretty boy's get tiresom real quick.

BSC

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:56:16 -0500
From: AJ Brustein <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) Techno

I have been without email for 2 weeks and then come back to see Ryu giving up,
Thanks to being postponed, and a new member (Kelly I think) who posts  more
than the rest of the list combined. Which isn't bad, just unusual. As for the
other music, I think pretty much everyone listens to other music. Sometimes
you just aren't in the mood for techno, even if you have someone as diverse as
Moby. PErsonally, I need to listen to music with words sometimes. Even if I
can't understand them which leads me to what I wanted to say. If anyone out
there liked Madonna's new album, and can find music from Japan anywhere where
they live, I would totally recomend picking up Globe. Their last album was
called Love Again and their new one comes out in 2 weeks. They are huge here
in Japan and they sing in Japanese and English, like everyone in Japan. And
one of them is American (or at least white). It isn't much like Madonna, but I
said that only to give you an idea of what it is allong the lines of. Maybe
you can check it out on the WEB, but it is very addictive. IF anyone knows
them, tell me what you think of them. And if someone wants it, but can't find
it, tell me and I will buy it for you here. And it will be a hell of a lot
cheaper than the iport price the online stores offer. Anyway, LAter.
AJ

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:20:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tim Beecher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) Re: mobility-digest V1 #254

Yeah. I know about the lack of funds thing. I've been there
myself and for quite a while. I'm just getting out of it,
thank God.

TMB

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:13:35 -0800 "Dr. Killpatient"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> [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
>

- ----------------------
Tim Beecher
Cranfield University
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:29:54 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tim Beecher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) Moby vs.  "cd clubs"

On
> --Does anyone, besides me, listen to anything other than electronic music?
> (I'm trying to get a feel of how open minded this group really is, and I'm
> not just talking about listening to "A.R."  :)

Yes, I listen to punk, classical, folk and 'world music'.

> --Does anyone, besides me, cringe at pretentiousness in all it's ugly forms?

Yes, but then everybody, if they're totally honest with
themselves, has been guilty of it some time or another.
I suppose you could argue that it's pretentious to say
you've never been pretentious!?

> --Does anyone, besides me, feel it's a waste of time to argue about "who's
> right"?

Yes, and I've been guilty of that too, but then I felt what
I had argued about was right and worth arguing about, as
long as it didn't lead to potential violence.

> --Can someone tell me if it's O.K. to send a DAT with the Moby cover song on
> it?

I don't know.
>
>
- ----------------------
Tim Beecher
Cranfield University
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:20:36 -0800
From: "Dr. Killpatient" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) Moby vs.  "cd clubs"

Andrew Mullen wrote:
>
> I'm sorry to interrupt, but I feel this bickering about nothing is
> completely silly. I've belonged to several CD clubs (and I always recycle
> paper and cardboard mind you!), but doesn't it seem like a total waste of
> energy to be so involved with who's right here? Stop trying to "out tuff"
> each other about something so ridiculous...
>
> Now, I have a question for "the list" (anybody that would be so kind as to
> respond)...
>
> --Does anyone, besides me, listen to anything other than electronic music?

Come on, that's a presumtuious question...of course.

> (I'm trying to get a feel of how open minded this group really is, and I'm
> not just talking about listening to "A.R."  :)

There's literally thousands of non electronic artists I listen to,
so I'm not even going to start with a list becasue I can't finish it.

> --Does anyone, besides me, cringe at pretentiousness in all it's ugly forms?

Pretentiousness is totally subjective, but when it's obvious it's
kinda funny...who would you consider pretentious that makes you cringe?
Jim Morrison was pretty pretentious and it worked for him, it's
not always that bad- he was having fun with it.
I could be wrong, perhaps I'm being pretentious.

> --Does anyone, besides me, feel it's a waste of time to argue about "who's
> right"?

Definate waste- I'm right.

(hahaha)

"We agreed no leader!" "Right, so shut up and do as I say!"
name that quote and win nothing

> --Can someone tell me if it's O.K. to send a DAT with the Moby cover song on
> it?

Did everyone else miss Greg's post about DAT?
He said that he has a DAT drive in his computer (for data storage)
but he does not have a DAT player for audio. If anyone knows
how to read DAT audio with a DAT drive inthe computer, please
speak up. I'm thinking that it's not possible because the computer
will probably only read DATs that are formatted a certain way-
I've never heard of anyone doing this either.

A good question for everyone would be who absolutely CANNOT
get thier song into WAV format on their computer. If everyone
can then there will be much less of a problem.
paul

>
> BTW, I'm covering "No Buttons To Push/Heaven"...
>
> If someone could respond, I'd be much obliged...
>
> --Andrew
> [e-mail]
> --
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Michael Bourke <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 7:02 PM
> Subject: Re: (mobility) Moby vs. "cd clubs"
>
> >>>I have been a member of Columbia House for 6 years now, I doubt that a
> >>bunch
> >>>of junk mail is "harassment" unless you consider tossing a bunch of mail
> >>in
> >>>your trash a monumental task.
> >>
> >>Hmm... lets see... Getting mail addressed to me once a month asking me to
> >>join their stupid CD club... That counts as harassment to me.  But in a
> >>very
> >>general sense
> >
> >And I suppose you've never taken the effort to write them or something
> >asking to be taken off their mailing list?
> >
> >>>sold through their catologues.  Personally I hate these businesses with a
> >>>passion, because
> >>>no money goes back to the artist on these "get 10 cds for a penny" deals.
> >>
> >>>>Where did you get this idea?
> >>
> >>Dammit. I dont' remember the original source.  But I had a debate on these
> >>clubs once and that point came up.  And anyway, I mentioned in my original
> >>post I might be wrong.  Or at least I should of, If i didn't.  I still
> >>think these
> >>clubs are evil.  So sue me.
> >
> >Jesus, you don't have to be so fucking defensive.  After all it was YOU who
> >asked for everyone's "take" on the cd clubs.
> >
> >>
> >>>MP3s are fine is so far that you may listen to them then, if you like the
> >>>music, buy the album, this has been the case many times for me.  If you
> >>>don't like the MP3s then you delete them after you have listened.  You
> are
> >>>being illogical when you claim that mp3ers are the same people who BUY
> >>from
> >>>CH and BMG.  If they purchase the CD then they are still in a sense
> >>>supporting the artist.
> >>
> >>Fine.  Whatever.  I stand corrected. I'm not going to fight about such a
> >>trivial
> >>point.
> >
> >If its so trivial why did you bring it up?  There is no logic in hating CD
> >clubs.  If you don't like them, then don't give them your business.
> >
> >

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:26:25 -0800
From: "Dr. Killpatient" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) Thanks2 stuff

Brad Caviness wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Shipley
> >> 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...
> >
> I have tracked several mp3's off the net and transfered them to DAT by
> playing them on WimAmp through my PC's sound card. Those sound every bit as
> good as a cd. But if you try to use WinAmps' decode to *.wav feature, you
> will face a degradation of sound.
>
> bsc


I've never actually used winamp for that, so I wouldn't know.
But I can say that l3dec works great and I have literally decoded
thousands of mp3s with l3dec and it works fine.
Seems strange though, that you start with an mp3 either way,
only with playing through the soundcard and recording to DAT isn't
it translated in analog before it gets recorded as digital again?
And decoding to WAV is entirely digital. Maybe your DAT just makes
things sound a bit better somehow?
paul

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:06:22 -0800
From: "Dr. Killpatient" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) MP3s (long)

urreax6c aka yesti wrote:
>
> i wrote:
> >> 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
>
> you wrote:
> >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.
>
> allow me to clarify.  by "compressed" i meant dynamic range compression,
> not loss of frequency response.  the mp3 sound wasnt as
> dynamic/transient/powerful as the wave.  its like what they do on the
> radio, compressing the sound so that you can hear it better in the noisy
> car environment.  where they make the softer sounds louder and the
> loudest sounds softer so it all sounds roughly the same volume (depending
> on how much you compress of course!)  cool edit 96 has
> compression/expansion under transform | dynamics.  im sorry for this
> confusion.

As far as I know mp3s weren't designed to do that if they are.
Keeping in mind that the word compression means something entirely
different when used as an audio term (like what cool edit can do)
than when it's used as a term for condensing information in a
digital file where redundant information is eliminated to make
a file size smaller. I've never noticed anything like this
during any of my "taste tests" cd vs. mp3.

>
> you wrote:
> >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.
>
> i wrote: (further down the message)
> >> 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,
>
> yes, this is what i meant by "artifacts": "---weird---".  like when you
> listen to a cooked mp3, but about 1% as bad (kinda like tuning radio
> frequencies rapidly across the dial, best description i can give, that
> garbly sound)

Ahh, I know that problem...yes those are DEFINATLEY artifacts-
This has never ever happened to me when making my own mp3s or wavs,
but it has happened when downloading mp3s off the net. I'm going
to assume it's a problem with browsers like you said because it's
also never happened with FTP as far as I can remember.

>
> you wrote:
> >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.
>
> but arent waves the best representation of an analog signal we have?

Yes, or AU which takes up much more room. I never said the WAV
format had any problems, it's the people and the systems recording
the WAV that create the artifacts.

 i
> know it depends on soundcard quality, CPU power, RAM and HD space,

Don't forget OS problems too...windows 95 has to be working perfectly
for WAVs to be recorded right. There are a thousand things that
can cause WAVs to not get recorded right. I wouldn't bother trying
unless you have a pentium 133 or better, 32 megs RAM minimun,
and a hard drive with 11ms access time or better. Then there is the
matter of software problems which can be endless...all it takes
is the processor being busy for a split second for the WAV to have
info missing, causing an artifact.

what
> im saying is how can we get rid of artifacts in the wave file BEFORE more
> get introduced in the encoding process?  (my faith in accuracy of waves
> is now faltering :P)

WAVs are not the problem at all. Getting rid of artifacts should
never be your goal. Recording WAVs that are artifact free is the
only way to get rid of them because usually there is missing information
that cannot be replaced.
I've had problems with recording WAVs many, many times- it's not
easy if you have a problem. Newer, faster, updated hardware almost
always solves the problem though, no matter what it was.

>
> you wrote:
> >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
>
> thanks for the tip, ill check it out.
>
> >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
>
> yes, i know bass under 100hz, i believe, is omni-directional.  i didnt
> know mp3 encoding provided for this in its encoding scheme.  ill read up
> on it for sure now.
> i havent come across a encoder that offers as many options as soundlimit,
> but i would appreciate any advice/help that anyone can give on this
> topic.

What options? I've never seen that encoder. The most options I've
seen would be the original l3enc for DOS.

>
> i wrote:
> >> mp3ing anything at almost any bitrate is better than RA, even at its
> highest bitrate
>
> you wrote:
> >they serve much different puposes. RA's cannot be decoded back into
> WAVs.
>
> yes, you are correct.  i hope a better encoding scheme is developed to
> kill .ra but with comparable file sizes since i cant stand the quality
> even encoded at dual ISDN bitrates.  but thats my problem :)  the most
> compression i will go is vqf encoding, but thats a whole different story.

VQF and MP3 are compareable, but everyone's so mp3 crazy right now
I don't think VQF will catch on- it would have to be waaay better
for people to forget about mp3 and start over with a new format.
As for RA, they will probably dominate the streaming audio world
for years to come- and yes it does sound like crap, but it's now
an industry standard so everyone has it it does what it's supposed
to for the most part. If something better comes along I would guess
that realaudio would buy it out and use it for themsleves- they
really took over the streaming media field putting Xing and liquid
audio and shockwave way behind.

>
> i wrote:
> >> i use soundlimit 1.5, perhaps its not the best encoder??? im going to
> >> check out soundlimit 2.0.
>
> you wrote:
> >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.
>
> yes please, ill send you private email concerning this,  thanks!
>
> i wrote:
> >> i heard some encoders clip off >16khz of the freq. response for speed,
> i guess.
>
> you wrote:
> >What it does do for speed and filesize compression are a few
> >things- masking, joint-stereo, and eliminating frequencies you
>
> sound limit 1.5 has a variety of options.  i did hear that some un-named
> encoders cut freq. response, but the author of that information failed to
> disclose specific applications.

What he's probably talking about is how mp3s encoded at the
general standard 128 kbps everyone has adopted cut off frequencies
over 16kHz. At 160 kbps you get over 19kHz, higher than 99% of people
can hear. I can't hear above about 16.5kHz...if you want to give
yourself a hearing test use cool edit (or any wav editor or soft synth
that can generate sine wavs) start at like 13kHz or so and work your
way up until you can't hear it anymore (and "i think i hear it"
doesn't count)

>
> sound limit allows you to encode in layer 1-3, stereo, joint stereo, dual
> channel, mono.  it allows for model 1 or 2 psychoacoustics, decoder
> de-emphasis of none, 50/15 microseconds, CCITT J.17, and bitrates from
> 320 Kbps - 32.  Also CRC error protection and copyrighted, original,
> private bit tagging.

I'm not sure what many of those options really mean. Do you know
if it uses the Fraunhoffer codec standard?
Try encoding the same song with that and with mp3 producer pro
or even better l3enc...then decode them back into wavs and run
fournier analysis to determine the frequncy response.

>
> --if anyone can elaborate on the above terms, i would like to hear about
> it, since i just use default settings of layer 3, stereo, model 2, no
> de-emphasis, 192 bitrate, turbo speed (28 frames/sec on my 166 MMX w/ 64
> MB ram). thanks!

Sounds reasonable but who knows what they really do.

>
> you wrote:
> >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.
>
> would you like me to up you beat it (moby mix) again at 160 or 192 Kbps?
> originally i offered up to 320, but you requested 128, let me know.
>
> peace out.

Oh yeah! that was before I decided on 160...my old encoder that
did batch processes only went up to 128, and everyone else seemed
to use that rate too. But I started running into more and more
people using 160 so I switched to that after hearing a noticable
difference without too much of a filesize increase.
No, I'm fine with the 128 kbps- after all it's just for previewing
basically for me. Something to listen to to see if I want to
buy the cd or not. 256 is good enough for pro quality IMO though,
320 seems like overkill...the frequecny response is as good as
it gets 256 and over.

paul

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

End of mobility-digest V1 #260
******************************

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