Re: Forward into the 19th Century


Subject: Re: Forward into the 19th Century
From: macCormac (macCormac@shaw.ca)
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 19:36:34 EDT


thank you Senor Eldadio :-)

as Monsieur Dufort pense / escribe 'it's all in da loop' (dufort, louise)

and / or 'it's all in da loop / loop / loop cycle'. (variation on a theme /
comple-mints to th composers)

best, mCm

Eldad Tsabary wrote:

> Jay, you can always say that you were only checking if we're awake or
> are we lost in our own stream of ideas.
>
> Of course nobody will believe you though...
>
> But that's ok also as sylvi will surely verify.
>
> Eldad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca
> [mailto:owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca] On Behalf Of Jay Smalridge
> Sent: October 21, 2004 5:27 PM
> To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
> Subject: RE: Forward into the 19th Century
>
> ouch...I knew I should have kept my mouth shut...
>
> On Thursday, October 21, 2004, at 02:00PM, Eldad Tsabary
> <eldadsabari@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jason smalridge wrote:
> >
> >"I think that technology doesn't have to change to be better. Some
> past
> >
> >technologies were actually better then newer "advancements". Correct
> >me if I am wrong but doesn't the vinyl records produce better sound
> >quality then electric tapes and CD (when I say quality I mean frequency
>
> >range)."
> >
> >
> >Well. Not really - they do not produce better frequency response - on
> >the contrary, vinyl has a thinner frequency response and a much less
> >flat (accurate) one - meaning it does not respond equally to all
> >frequencies - unlike digital processing. Not only vinyl has a fairly
> >lousy frequency response it also has a much lousier dynamic range.
> >
> >Even more disturbing, is the fact that vinyl's frequency response and
> >dynamic range which are already lousy to begin with deteriorate the
> >further we move into the inside of the vinyl as a result of the shorter
> >spins and the angle of the needle - in the past there were experiments
> >with vinyl records manufactured to begin on the inside part and play
> >outwards to get better quality towards the end of the side - especially
> >designed for symphonic music which normally develops on a longer scale
> >then pop music songs.
> >
> >In fact, CDs were invented with classical music in mind because of
> vinyl
> >being such a lousy format for it - normally too short to include an
> >entire symphony on one record and even then it is on two sides (not
> >continuous). Also, the dynamic range of the symphony orchestra is huge
> >- probably up to approx 110dB, while the normal LP could handle about
> >50dB.
> >
> >With digital recording the dynamic range is solely limited by the
> number
> >of bits per word (16 bits CD allows about 98dB - a serious improvement
> >from vinyl) and frequency response is solely dependent on sampling rate
> >- roughly half of the sampling rate minus compensations for aliasing
> >filters slope etc...) - audio CDs are pretty good up to 20,000Hz
> >
> >However, back to the original subject....
> >
> >Does this mean quality? Frequency response and dynamic range? They are
> >part of it for sure but they do not define quality. Quality is a much
> >bigger concept and has to do with what we want as well. Do we want
> this
> >clinical accuracy of the digital sound? Apparently not.
> >So those of us who prefer vinyl on cds (or at least sometimes)... What
> >is it we want? What do we find as having better quality in them?
> >Apparently - to your question Jason, vinyl does not have better
> >specifications than cds - but it is still more desirable for other
> >reasons.
> >
> >What would they be? I'd love to hear some ideas....
> >
> > A few that I can think of:
> >
> >1) It has a lousy sound quality and we love it: the fact that its
> >frequency response is not flat - it emphasizes certain frequencies
> which
> >gives its sound an identifiable character which we grew to love.
> >2) Again, it has a lousy quality and we love it: its limited dynamic
> >range inevitably requires compression which limits an accurate
> >reproduction of the music but perhaps gives it more punch and maybe
> some
> >clipping distortion which we also got used to and learned to identify
> as
> >a certain character.
> >3) It's mechanics is much more understandable to us - it is very
> direct:
> >we hold the needle in our own hand and lay it carefully on the LP and
> >sound begins to play.
> >
> >In short - it has character so we can love it. Digital media does not
> >have an identifiable character - except for being accurate and mechanic
> >- it is easy to appreciate it but not necessarily to love it.
> >
> >Eldad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca
> >[mailto:owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca] On Behalf Of Jason Smalridge
> >Sent: October 21, 2004 11:49 AM
> >To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
> >Subject: Re: Forward into the 19th Century
> >
> >I agree.
> >I look around my room here and see a midi keyboard that plugs into my
> >computer so that I can have access to "analog" synths. A digital
> >camera that works with the same principles as my old analog one(except
> >for an LCD screen of course). A guitar amp that is a reissue of a tube
>
> >amp (When I bought it, they were emphasizing the fact that it actually
> >had tubes in it. It was actually more expensive then the only
> >transistor amps).
> >
> >I think that technology doesn't have to change to be better. Some past
>
> >technologies were actually better then newer "advancements". Correct
> >me if I am wrong but doesn't the vinyl records produce better sound
> >quality then electric tapes and CD (when I say quality I mean frequency
>
> >range).
> >Either way, I know that my phone doesn't have a "normal" ring, only
> >stupid songs, and I keep it on vibrate all the time. I think the
> >novelty of technology tends to wear off fast and then we realize, "hey,
>
> >what we had before was actually a lot better. Let's go back a step."
> >
> >Jay
> >On 21-Oct-04, at 11:32 AM, chri_gal@alcor.concordia.ca wrote:
> >
> >> I've noticed three times in the past week now, phones (usually
> >> expensive
> >> flashy digital ones) which have a ring which mimics the old style
> >> analog bell sound, except of course produced digitally, which makes
> it
> >
> >> sound
> >> dull and processed.  This morning I was talking to a receptionist
> here
> >
> >> at
> >> Concordia and her phone rang with the analog style ring.  After she
> >> was off
> >> i asked her about it, and she said it was one of the custom settings
> >> she can
> >> choose on the phone.  I asked her if she liked it better, and she
> said
> >
> >> she
> >> still hates the sound of phones ringing (as most receptionists
> >> probably do),
> >> but it was the best option available.  I find it very interesting
> that
> >
> >> we've
> >> gotten to the point where we use our new technology to re-create
> >> out-dated
> >> technology, and just as interesting that given the choice people seem
>
> >> to
> >> prefer sensations which connect back to the old technology.  I
> thought
> >
> >> back
> >> to the section in Shafer's "Tuning Of The World" where he foretold
> >> that one
> >> day people would be able to choose custom rings which could play
> songs
> >
> >> and
> >> such, which has obviously come to pass.  I wonder though if he ever
> >> imagined
> >> that we'd get to the point where given the choice people would simply
>
> >> select
> >> the type of ring which already existed then.
> >>
> >>   Any thoughts or comments?
> >>
> >>     and ever...
> >>
> >>       - chris galanis
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:04 EST