de reggae dubplates. We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen 12" copies made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall dweebs like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright law in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to begin with. But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told we owe $10k/song for records nobody else wants. And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity in microeconomics. I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu. 700MB on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my work network (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some other research institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest link in the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall. Soon enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be available at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then. TCB "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html > >Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your >computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed. > >Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long it >takes to download... > >We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette >for use in the car, why not for the iPod? > >Let's hope the RIAA loses this one. > >DC >I received this from a friend. It is supposed to be from Al Jazeera television.. The woman is Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American from Los Angeles. http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv &ak=nulThe Answer is and has always bben to "get back to Live playing". The Live Experience of a 'said" musical act will again emerge as the must have event. People will pay to see their fav artist perform. These artist(s) can then sell a CD or data stick at their shows. Just look at the outrageous money old acts are making $$$ ..These acs did not make these kinds of monies when They were current.. The video music genre has got to change. Video spins like ring tones must be counted as "sold" song sold. As for file sharing, some kind of "Intelligent" tracking software needs to be attached to each song of a CD that can monitor where it has been transfeered. As well as, Songs can only be copied once, then locked .. Well, the work around on this is, to use or copy via analog. Oh well.. Another "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html > >Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your >computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed. > >Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long it &gt
nal//EN"> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> &nbsp; "Bill L" &lt;<A=20 href=3D"mailto:<a href="mailto:bill@billlorentzen.com" target="_bla
ttp://download.yousendit.com/0341E85377D3681A" target="_blank">http://download.yousendit.com/0341E85377D3681A Kelly Stereo Tools http://www.kellyindustries.com/stereo_tools.htmlhi john. there are allot of ways to thicken vocals depending on the genre and arrangement .the way I would suggest is take your time and experiment. generally you want to start off with recording vocals DRY, and mixed dead center with kick,snare and bass. chorusing can be panned hard left and right.you can use several different short delays panned left /right (10-20 ms.)which is what chorusing is basically. you can also use several different short reverbs panned differently. the main starting point is making sure it is SUBTLE.by that I mean bring the effect up to where it is clear , and then back it off so it is barley there. EQ ing the effect returns a little differently will help . you don't want to smear the rest of the sound field with the vocal thickening so try to keep it out of the way of whatever else is there. its not going to be as easy as just plopping a plug in on the vocals.it WILL take some time.allot of time another trick is to duplicate tracks and delay the copy by fractions of a millisecond.,point 1 or less just make sure you leave the dry vocals center to ensure the most clarity." <no@no.com> wrote in message news:477a3c54$1@linux... ><br /
is a few hundred and works good for a front end? Everything I am seeing > in the music stores (online) are typical mixer... I prefer direct outs if > possible... since I record all instruments (not at the same time) > > Any help, suggestions or advice? Thanks and Happy New Year! > > ~ Ed >On 1 Jan 2008 14:12:08 +1000, "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >How would a woofer go behind car carpet? Worse still, what if the situation >necessitated the woofer being one third to half covered with wood at the >front also. I'm picturing carpet hurting the mids somewhat. What about thick >cloth? This cloth doesn't appear to be dense, but it's got a kind of backing >sponge. I suspect that even 2-4k would pass through alright, which might >just get me to tweeter territory... > Does it really matter? All the cool kids have stereos that have no freq response over 200Hz. As long as that woofer can make sheet metal buzz, that's all that really matters. Save your money on those ribbons and mids. Nobody who knows ANYTHING about car stereo actually uses those things -- well, maybe some really nerdy old people, but certainly nobody cool. pabPaul Braun <cygnus_nospam@ctgonline.org> wrote: >Save your money on those ribbons and mids. Nobody who knows ANYTHING >about car stereo actually uses those things -- well, maybe some really >nerdy old people, but certainly nobody cool. Hehe. It's really very like that isn't it. ;o) I love the irony of having everything gold plated to play your MP3's. ;o) People don't seem to realise that the quality degradation of a good non-gold connector is so minimal that it makes an MP3 look like Everest... I actually just discovered that, well, I'm now suspicious that I have revolutionised car audio in Australia without actually knowing it. ;o) Back in about '91 I put a car stereo together from 8 ohm house speakers by using two in parallel to make 4 ohms. Suffice to say it blew away spending the same money on normal car speakers as I had twin 8 inch woofers and "real" tweeters back when subs and split systems were just a dream in the pants of some dude from the hood. ;o) We demo'd it to both the store where we bought the head unit, as well as the electronics store who sold us the speakers and crossover components. A year later the electronics store we bought the speakers from started having their own brand of 4 ohm "non-car" speakers made in Asia somewhere, and my mate who had helped me install the system in my car was training the stereo installers at the shop we bought the head unit from. It's a chain store so he trained people for maybe 10 stores in the top car audio shop in Melbourne at the time (JB HiFi for those from Aust). The following year the Australian car audio show was blown away by some dudes who bought these speakers and installed them in a couple of cars. They won every category because they got good speakers rather than crappy 6x9 thingies and built a home stereo into a car. So while I don't actually know what went on in between, I am highly suspicious that I made a fair difference. Ironically they still don't listen to me about the gold plugs though. ;o) Suffice to say I am benefiting from the spoils of my work here. That store now sells amps which also win every show, which will be in my car. There was talk of class A amps until I was told of the current drain issues... ;o) ....but while subs are different, I don't think many people are biamping the tweeters. I might win a car audio prize yet, and if I do I'm going to stand on that podium and say "If you use gold connectors to play MP3's you're a bloody moron". ;o) I doubt I will bother to enter though somehow. ;o) Cheers, Kim.Has anybody tried one of these? The price is right, I wonder how they sound. http://www.guitarcenter.com/Nady-RSM-4-Ribbon-Studio-Microph one-104473939-i1127184.gcThey are great on fiddles and work well on guitar cabs. Too dark for t
hannels are not hot enough, although in the monitor of the mixer, it is over powering. I know that I may not be explaining it very well... but that is what seems to be happening. I have switched the 8-in cards to Pro, instead of Semi-Pro. That helped a little, but not enough. Another way to think of this is... Say my vox is on mixer channel 1 (to be recorded) and is fed thru the Direct Out to Channel 1 on the 8-in. And say channels 5 thru 16 have guitars, drums, keyboards and backup/harmony vox. And this is a rock song, so it isn't soft. I have the Paris main/monitor outs fed to the mixer channel 25 and 26 for playback/monitor... If I turn up my vox to slightly over power the monitor (and is almost max w/o distortion), it is ok in the mix, but not in the recorded levels. So remember, what is going out the Direct Out is controlled on mixer channel 1. This has been my dilemma for months... erlilo <erling.lovik@lyse.net> wrote: >Hey Ed and Happy New Year to you too! > >Sorry to hear about your levelproblems with the SL mixer. > >In the first Paris years I used an Alesis Studio 32 with 16 direct >outs, as Martin talked about. Used it for some years but it began to >be more and more faulty on some of the channels. So I went the >Behringer wagon and get an MX3224X and an UB2442FX-Pro. Have used them >for years now with my two Parissystems without problems. One of the >systems are mobile and is using the UB mixer to feed 8 direct outs to >a Paris 8-ins card. For me, the headroom is good enough for most of my >recordings when travelling with it. But the MX3224X is one of the >best, if not the best in it's class. The exstra big external power >(150 watts/ 7kg) supply is built for extreme uses and have headroom >enough to most jobs. 16 direct outs, inserts on each channel, 4 groups >outs, in line system etc. >http://www.behringer.com/MX3242X/index.cfm?lang=eng > >After looking at the specifications on the different Behringer mixers, >I see that max input level is the same on these kind of mixers. Max >output are from +22dBu to +28dBu, where Xenyx, MX and SL have +28, so >maybe your problem isn't the mixer at all but the Paris 8-ins card? >Are you sure it's calibrated correct to work optimal? On the back of >it, you can calibrate it with a little shrewdriver. I know there have >been written here about how to do this correct but I can't find the >papers here. Maybe some other have them yet, so you can try it out. > >ErlingJamie, You're confusing 'value' with 'price.' TCB Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote: > >If you're saying costs of delivering data is decreasing, that's >certainly true, and predictable. > >But the primary driver of the decrease in data transmission costs is the >value of the content and services that people are seeking. The demand >creates opportunity. Consequently, delivery capacity is added by the >marketplace. Adding more delivery capacity doesn't necessarily devalue >the products being delivered. Rather, it's a consequence of the demand >for the content and services. Without compelling content and useful >services, no one would be online. > >Gutenberg's invention sparked a huge new marketplace of books. It >increased rather than reduced value. You can call books "commodity" but >they aren't like an interchangeable computer part. There must be value >in the content itself for anyone to seek out a particular book. It's not >just a wad of paper. > >I don't believe the dynamic of a growing marketplace is something to >fear. People are becoming more involved with content, not less. Content >has value when people want that content. The challenge is to grow that >demand and build workable business models around that value. > >Apple has done pretty well, for example, with iPods and the iTunes >online store. They sell music encoded as ones and zeros, but they are >not marketing the ones and zeros, that's merely the carrier (a carrier >with some major advantages over plastic disks). They are marketing >portable, quick and convenient music and video playback hardware as a >fashion accessory, and the artists are getting paid. > >Another model is the one you suggest, selling ancillary products and >playing live. Those ideas won't work for every artist (especially >composers who don't play live), but they aren't the only possibilities. > >Along those lines, it's a bit tiresome for independent musicians to hear >that music should be given away for free to promote live shows, and live >shows should be done at a loss to promote the music. It would be easy to >burn the candle at both ends with that combination of common armchair >advice. Also, not every artist aspires to be a T-shirt shop. > >As for the RIAA, they are not a forward thinking bunch. I think we would >agree about that. > >Cheers, > -Jamie > www.JamieKrutz.com > > > >TCB wrote: >> Well, maybe I put that incorrectly. I should say the price of data decreases, >> but I stick to it. Just as there are some microeconomic situations where >> prices can behave oddly, on occasion this rule can be (temporarily) breached. >> Technological innovations in general are hard to contain. Gutenberg invented >> movable type in 1452. Even with typesetti
it was >floorless whist I was using it, (over 5 years). > >Martin >Hi Erling, Interesting you mentioned about the calibration. I will have to look into that... and perhaps that is where my problem lies. As I stated, when I go directly into the 8-ins from the preamp or DI or whatever, I have no problems getting levels. But when I feed through the Behringer mixers, the wet c
ng books were a major PITA to produce, >> but in comparison to copying them by hand using tempura ink on vellum it >> was a serious step in the right direction. By 1500 there were over 1000 printing >> shops in Europe producing 20 million books yearly. So in fifty years the >> output went from nearly zero to 20 million, and books were well on their >> way to being commodity items. >> >> I don't see how the 'content providers' are going to fight that dynamic with >> the internet. OpenBSD used to make a lot of their money from CD sales because >> it was a huge PITA to download over a slow connection. I still buy the CDs >> to support the project, but I download the ISOs if I need them. >> >> If you're in the business of selling one and zeros I don't see how that price >> dynamic doesn't eventually win out. You can create scarcity (and thus price >> control) with a live show (no band/artist can be in more than one place at >> a time) a T-Shirt, and a lot of other things, but as long as music can be >> stored as 1s adn 0s, which means for the foreseeable future, it's just the >> way things are going to go. >> >> TCB >> >> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote: >>> "As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases." >>> >>> That's not automatically true. That would be like saying when the supply >> >>> of trees goes up, the value of books and newspapers goes down. It >>> doesn't necessarily work that way. You're not just selling trees, they >>> are a carrier for the content you are selling. The carrier price has an >> >>> impact but it isn't the main value. >>> >>> As long as there is a demand for the content itself, there is value. >>> When people show an interest in your content by listening/viewing or >>> acquiring it, they are reaffirming that it has value. Otherwise they >>> wouldn't bother with it. >>> >>> Granted, when content becomes easier to acquire without paying, there's >> >>> a marketing and business model challenge. But it's not insurmountable. >>> Companies have created viable businesses with over-the-air radio and TV, >> >>> and with web content. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -Jamie >>> www.JamieKrutz.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> TCB wrote: >>>> Are you even the _tiniest_ bit surprised by this? If so, you haven't been >>>> watching the RIAA closely enough. >>>> >>>> There are a few online places where friends of mine and I trade reggae >> dubplates. >>>> We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen 12" copies >>>> made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall dweebs >>>> like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright law >>>> in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to begin >> with. >>>> But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told we owe >>>> $10k/song for records nobody else wants. >>>> >>>> And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value of data >>>> decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity in >> microeconomics. >>>> I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu. 700MB >>>> on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my work >> network >>>> (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers >>>> to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some other >> research >>>> institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest link >> in >>>> the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall. >> Soon >>>> enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be available >>>> at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then. >>>> >>>> TCB >>>> >>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote: >>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html >>>>> >>>>> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your >>>>> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed. >>>>> >>>>> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long it >>>>> takes to download... >>>>> >>>>> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette >> >>>>> for use in the car, why not for the iPod? >>>>> >>>>> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one. >>>>> >>>>> DC >>>>> >>I can try... how are you measuring the latency, though? Neil "D
59-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://www.sweetwater.com/store/manufacturer/Euphonix Or at least posted on Sweetwater's site. Sadly, and not mentioned in = Sweetwater's listings, it's Mac only. Sounds like a Euphonix + Apple + Apogee deal - rumor is maybe PC support = in late 2008. =20 Imho, that may be too late. Someone else will push out a PC/Mac = controller to usurp the MCs by then. Dedric ------=_Next
face=3DArial=20 size=3D2><a href="h
OLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: pre; = >LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: = >2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; = >-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; = >-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: = >auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0"><FONT=20 >face=3DArial size=3D2>Dedricsize=3D2> > >I stereo mic the vocal. Specifically, I use a pair of Neumann U89i in Figure 8 mode in an XY configuration (crossed blumlien). The result is huge and mono compatible. I have also had great results with a tube C24. David. John wrote: > I am trying to get a subtle stereo vocal sound like the one in this link below. > Can anyone tell me how they think this was recorded and does anyone have > some tips to take a mono vocal and get it to simulate this sound. > > It's not real obvious when listening normally but if you use headphones and > the Kelly Stereo tools and pick the preset "Mute Left Center Right" or "Mute > Right Center Left" it will take a channel like Left and put it in both channels > or right and put it in both for a mono effect. Switching this back to default > (stereo) makes the subtle stereo effect very obvious. > > I have plenty of reverbs and delays if you have things for me to try. Maybe > it's not possible and I just have to record in stereo. Do you think this > vocal was recorded in stereo or what? Thanks. > > Vocal > http://download.yousendit.com/02BE268D26657759 > > Saxophone > http://download.yousendit.com/0341E85377D3681A > > > > > Kelly Stereo Tools > http://www.kellyindustries.com/stereo_tools.html >Sweetwater says PC support is in the works, but we'll have to see what really transpires (I've emailed Euphonix about it). The sales rep says they saw it in their product preview and it's a very nice unit - way better than the Mackie. He says Euphonix thought of everything, except PC support of course. Post market only? Imo, that depends on what you need for a music only studio - if a Mackie control does the job for a music studio, the MC Mix/Control would likely do it better - more control and functionality and control of their monitor software as well (Mac of course). I hear the end caps come off so you can attach multiple units and have a larger controller. Also the MC Mix can function alone, or in addition to the MC Control. It does use Eucon, but no mention of there being an extra cost for it, so it sounds like it's included (e.g. no limitations with HUI or Mackie control protocol support). Regards, Dedric "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:477bd84f@linux... > > Thanks Dedric.. Wow.. Mac only (for now). I have to see one of these up > close. > It looks liek these are meant for the Post market still. Not for > musicians.. > > "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote: >> >> >>http://www.sweetwater.com/store/manufacturer/Euphonix >> >>Or at least posted on Sweetwater's site. Sadly, and not mentioned in = >>Sweetwater's listings, it's Mac only. >>Sounds like a Euphonix + Apple + Apogee deal - rumor is maybe PC support > = >>in late 2008. =20 >> >>Imho, that may be too late. Someone else will push out a PC/Mac = >>controller to usurp the MCs by then. >> >>Dedric >> >> >>&l