Linux-audio-user February 2006

linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

207 participants
268 discussions

[linux-audio-user] Re: Free Software vs. Open Source: Where do *you* stand?

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Pete Bessman: > > Well, I'm about to crack open a can of worms, but let me just say that > I'm 100% not interested in starting any debates/fights/riots/states-of- > emergency. All I'm interested in is hearing where people stand and why > --- I don't want to persuade people one way or the other, and I'd like > to ask that everyone restrain themselves when feeling the urge to tell > someone that they're wrong. > <snip> Well, if you find windows software better suited for your needs, you should definitely go windows. Music is what we work for, right? But please, IMO, don't pay for any non-open source software. There are lots of excellent p2p tools you can use to get the software you need. Please don't support makers of non-open source software.

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Digital Fidelity

by Maluvia

>perhaps we should fork this discussion off at some point...... Done. >> I guess, then, that *real* 24-bit resolution, or something very close to >> it, would yield what I am looking for - if it can be achieved. > >Are you sure that's what you are looking for? Well, I guess I would have to hear it to be able to answer that. :) >Fidelity is a measure of how closely the signal you get out of your >recorder matches what you put into it. Agreed. That is all I am after. >It's more likely that you are hearing differences in quality from one >component to the next. I can hear the difference between an Apogee 24 >bit converter and a cheap no-name 24 bit converter. I have no doubt that this is indeed a significant factor . . . >Ah, but there are so many other differences between those effects than >their bit depths. Let me guess, they sound better in the chronological >order they were released in? The amount of DSP available and the quality >of the code has changed too... . . . in fact, I don't have any way of knowing *what* is really in a piece of hardware, regardless of what the specs say, the company that manufactured it, or even how much I paid for it. I only know that some components sound much better than others - I can't say for sure why. If they claim to have a higher resolution, it is of course natural to assume that has something to do with *why* they might sound better. >Can you prove you can hear the difference between 24 or more if >no real 24 bit converter does exist ? It is _extremely_ difficult >and expensive even to do a valid test at 20 bits. Some people >have done it, and they all arrive at the same conclusion. Not without being in a lab under controlled conditions - no, of course I can't prove it. >> Again, what do you base this on? > >Working knowledge of how good analog recording is, understanding of the >theory of sampling and quantisation, undisputed results from >psycho-acoustic >research, and elementary physics and mathematics. I have some basic background in those subjects as well, yet I do not agree. Psycho-acoustics is by its very nature *subjective* - you cannot have 'undisputed' results from this - it is as fallible as any statistical sampling, and as easily skewed. >Yes. A correctly dithered signal converted back to analog is mathematically >equivalent to the original unquantised version plus some noise. There is no >way, not even in theory, to detect it was ever quantised. Since it can't >be detected, you can't hear it. But you could fool yourself into thinking >you can, as many have done before you. After (correct) dithering the only >'defect' that remains is noise. And with 24 bits and standard signal levels >this is well below the thermal noise of any analog amplifier that exists, >and also well below human hearing thresholds. If there is one correct way to do this, then there should be no reason for different 'noise-shaping' algorithms. In fact, why are there different noise-shaping algorithms if the noise can't be heard.? >> I can hear the distortion of the audio signal created by Dolby - and I >> don't like it. > >What has that to do with this discussion ? I merely mentioned that as another example of psychoacoustic masking that supposedly one cannot hear - yet I can. I can also hear the difference between a digital copy and the original sound file, and between the same generation of digital copies on different hard drives. I can hear radical differences in audio quality between CDs burned at different speeds. Theoretically - or mathematically as you wish to present it - I shouldn't be able to hear any of this: they are all mathematically the same, and should sound identical - but they do not. Perception by the human ear and human mind cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation, however much you may wish to do so. There are organic fragrances that never have, and never will, be able to be synthesized, or even distilled - even with the most refined and careful processes - for the same reason. Perception is not mathematical - and that applies as much to that which is perceived as to the perceiver. >Buy some *good* converters, add Ardour and the result is *far* better >than any 24 track analog machine that ever existed. That is if your >idea of quality relates to fidelity and not to some specific typical >analog distortion that you may like or mistake for 'correct'. By 'good' >converters I mean at least the quality of RME, or better Apogee. That, I would be most happy to do. I thought RME was the pinnacle of quality, but if you say Apogee is even better - we will certainly try it (finances permitting, that is. :) >You still probably won't believe me, but the fidelity of a �100 card >like an audiophile 24/96 will be greater than that of 24 track 2". > >The audiophile will have a lower noise floor, better linearity, no >scrape flutter or wow, much lower cross talk between channels, much less >IMD, wider frequency response (and a more solid bass end).... but it >might not sound as 'good'. > >I don't know if you have ever worked with tape, but you really did have >to be so much more careful than digital about getting a good level to >cut down noise, putting non critical tracks on 1 and 24 as they always >got a bit knackered on reels and transport, recording at lower levels if >the source has lots of hf content, line up and bias.... all this stuff >was a total pain in the arse. Most everyone used some kind of noise >reduction, unless they were pushing the tape really hard, in which case >the distortion figures are laughable compared to digital. Yes, I realize that there are all kinds of problems - especially noise - with tape, and it is not the 'perfect' way to record, and I am equally well aware of the great advantages digital has over analog. My point has not at all been to criticize digital recording technology. I want very much for digital recording to match or exceed analog in quality - I am just not yet convinced this has been achieved. >I submit that the perceived 'superior' perfomance of good analog tape >recorders, of any track width, is more a long term ear training result >than anything else, after all, we have been listening to such >machinery, faithfully encoded even on our cd's, and before that on our >lp records of yesteryear, for 3 or 4 generations now. Do that for 55 >years, and the ear thinks thats what its supposed to sound like, >effectively becoming its 'Gold Standard'. You certainly have a good point there - I think there's a lot of truth to that. But what I'm after isn't a perceived 'Gold Standard' of analog recording. I'm just after the most faithful possible reproduction of what I hear live. That is what I mean by fidelity. >That diff of tape or no tape isn't always that obvious, and I had that >hammered into me one evening in about 1961 when I had a chance to >listen to one of Emory Cooks 78 rpm lp's that had been recorded in >trinidad, live to disk, of some of their then infamous steel drum >bands. No tape in the path, straight from Altec M21 mics thru the >preamps & to the cutter head making the master. > >The hair stood up on the back of my neck, it was that real. There was >stuff from the background crickets at 17khz or more that was as live >and real as if I had been standing in the middle of those crickets >myself. Even the whispers of the drummers as they kept each other in >step, probably 55db below the drums, could be heard well enough to >understand it if they were using english, which some didn't. Look - I do understand what you guys are trying to say, and respect the fact that you have some science and experience to back it up. I will just say this: We have an old Tascam portable 8-track, which is now ready for the junk heap, but we got close to perfect fidelity (after a lot of hard work) of what we recorded on it with respect to the live sound. If I wasn't looking, I couldn't tell if my husband was playing live, or playing back his recordings. Our early attempts to record that live sound through our Gina card directly to the hard-disk sounded just plain bad: harsh, strident, thin - cold, but more to the point - not at all like the live sound. The analog recordings have a warmth to them - a midrange 'fullness' that I don't hear digitally. Digital can sound very sterile. (When we attempted this through our earlier Pinnacle Multisound, it sounded like a midi guitar.) When we record now through our hdsp9632, the fidelity is very good - very clean (almost *too* clean), but still not quite the live sound - though very close. When I am unable to tell whether my husband is playing live, or playing back a digital recording of his music - then I will believe that the digital technology has matched analog. If all it is going to take is a better quality AD converter - then I will be thrilled! >I know by now I've bored all the knowitalls here to tears, so I'll go >back to my corner now. > >-- >Cheers, Gene Not at all, Gene, I enjoyed your comments. >Dogma warning: You're not taking all the potential phenomena into >account that have not been scientifically explained yet. > >I'm not saying Maluvia can hear a difference, I'm just saying you don't >know that she can't. Thank you, Carlo. ;) - Maluvia

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] [ANN] Bristol Audio synthesiser emulation

by Nick Copeland

Bristol Audio has been re-released, version 0.9.1 and is available on http://sourceforge.net/projects/bristol Bristol emulates several synthesisers and organs: Moog Mini Moog Voyager Yamaha DX-7 Roland Juno 6 Rhodes Stage-73 Hammond B3 Vox Continental Sequential Circuits Prophet-5/52 Sequential Circuits Prophet-10 Oberheim OBX Another Oberheim (OBX-a) and a mixer are under development. The application emulates the synthesiser algorithms of the original instruments and gives a representation of their layout. It is currently standalone but work is underway for Jack integration. All emulations can be played simultaneously by the multitimbral engine and can be driven from a midi keyboard or ALSA midi sequencer. Bugs and feature requests to the author or via sourceforge. There are known issues with the Oberheims so mileage may vary. There are known issues with note off in layered emulations on a single midi channel. The mixer only implements the graphical user interface, there is no engine algorithm behind it and it can best be started with the '-libtest' option. Nick Copeland nickycopeland(a)hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] new music

by Dan Easley

Well, it's not much, as I seem to be moving from Sonar to Linux-based stuff at a glacial pace - by no means due to problems with Linux - all that's gone swimmingly - I just have too many unfinished products laying around on the windows system - and for both aesthetic and technical reasons i refuse to switch horses mid-record. But anyway, here's a minute and a half of music I made for use in a short film by a friend. Equipment used: a Shure SM58 and a Kawai K4r run via cheap Behringer mixer into an M-Audio Delta 44 connected to a p2.4g/512mb CCRMA box running Freewheeling - output to a windows box running Sonar (gratuitous windows use due to increasingly antiquated workflow), which I used only for a fade-out at the end (two hours practice with Ardour would likely reduce my need for windows to nil. Unfortunately, I'm spending those two hours learning how to play drums.) http://towndowner.com/audio/etc/theme-from-some-assembly-required.mp3 comments either on/off-list appreciated. -- dan(a)towndowner.com dan(a)burntpossum.com daneasley(a)gmail.com http://towndowner.com http://burntpossum.com

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Re: bad words

by Maluvia

Re: 'ergo ipso fucto' and rosicrucian-audio-users, Silflay hraka, u embleer rah :D

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Re: Digital Fidelity

by Maluvia

>good grief, i never suggested that you *leave*. stop being so absurdly >personal and . . . Telling someone that they are either 'completely ignorant or deliberately ridiculous' is getting *personal*, Paul. You are being disingenous. >your complaints are not specific to open source digital audio, but are >about about digital audio in general. > . . . . . . . >if you want to discuss audio >fidelity and how to improve it, you would **be better off** in a forum >focused on such matters. And why is it I would be ''better off' in such a forum? I see all kinds of topics discussed here that are not specific to Linux or open-source (or even music). The thread about Quiet PCs, or guitar levels are good examples recently. I didn't see you telling any of those people that they would be 'better off' in some more 'general' forum to do with computer recording, audio tweaks, or whatever. You are being hypocritical here. In fact, this is a good place to mention something I have noticed for a long time on these lists: There seems to be an attitude prevalent among some of the long-time members here of - shall we say - 'impatience' with newcomers - especially those who are not of the programmer variety. I have seen newcomers post on these lists (I mean here all 4 of them), with great enthusiasm and excitement - happy to have discovered Linux Audio or Ardour, full of eager, albeit 'newbie', questions or problems, and have seen a number of them treated with irritation, sometimes bordering on open contempt and disdain. I honestly don't think you realize how you often sound to others - and since I am already in disfavor, I have nothing to lose by bringing it up now. This is no way to build a healthy and happy community. I would think you would be anxious to bring more people into this community - both as testers, and also potential code contributors, and would endeavor to make them feel more welcome, and not subject them to ridicule for their inexperience or lack of knowledge. Bringing more people into the community brings with it the potential for more donations and more help with development, as well as more word-of-mouth. I can understand why you programmer veterans don't welcome those kind of posts on the developer lists - in which case it would be best to tactfully and good-naturedly redirect them to the user lists. But I have also seen people treated with unneccessary brusqueness on the user lists - and that should not be happening. At least it was my impression that the user lists were intended to be much more open both in topics, and in skill level of participants. I think it would be extremely beneficial for all concerned if the veterans here tried to create a more friendly and casual atmosphere - a more 'open' atmosphere - perhaps try working on your interpersonal communication skills a bit. If you are going to tell me that you are all paragons of graciousness, I can only say you don't have much objectivity. Some of you are - some are definitely not. I have seen newcomers come here happy and eager, treated brusquely - and they have not returned. That is a real shame - unless you just want the linux audio community to be a closed clique of code-hackers and engineers and are not interested in reaching out to the greater musician community. >why is that *nobody* who makes these kinds of audiophile-esque claims is >ever willing to do the leg work? when the rest of the measurement >industry switched to double blind testing 40-50 years ago for everything >else, why is it that hearing is somehow exempt? First, I do not subscribe to any "audiophile-esqe" philosophies - that is just more tired dogma. In fact I find some of it to be silly, extreme and often irrational. When I have come across 'audiophile' ideas, or *any* suggestions in the way of audio tweaking that I find interesting or plausible - I simply test them out when possible. In fact, one recent attempt to implement one of these ideas, gleaned from tweaks suggested by the Mapleshade Records site, involved buying and applying a special silver paste contact enhancer (a lot like the thermal paste you use on your heatsink but optimized for audio rather than thermal conductivity). (Called SilClear: http://mapleshaderecords.com/audioproducts/silclear.php, if any of you are actually interested in trying it out.) Suffice it to say this experiment did not go well for us - we think we trashed some very expensive cables and a good preamp trying to use it. Maybe we just applied it wrong - maybe it didn't agree with our equipment - maybe it just doesn't work. I don't believe we will be repeating this experiment however, as we cannot afford to keep replacing expensive equipment. I cannot say whether this stuff works or not, but it didn't work out for us. Apparently, though there are many people who swear by it. Are they wrong? If it works for them, and they are happy with it - great! [Incidently this site: http://mapleshaderecords.com/audioproducts/index.php, has tons of ideas and products w/re to audio tweaking in the form of vibration control devices, racks, and stands, high-quality cabling, contact enhancers and CD treatments. Some of you might actually find it interesting or useful.] I find it quite plausible that they may yield improvements in audio quality, but as they are quite expensive we can't afford to try them out. I am just keeping an open mind concerning their ideas. >why not try the experience of a double blind test? you haven't suggested >any test, any experience that any of us can try that would test your >claims. several of us have suggested to you that a double blind test >would test them and would provide you with a new experience that in your >words might be inconsistent with your current belief system. I would ask you: why you are so insistent that I need to 'prove my claim'? How on earth did my simple comments about what *I* hear stir up so many bees in so many bonnets? I merely mentioned in passing that I hear those subtle differences on the way to trying to explain why I think bit-depth matters - this was after being told that I was not really hearing differences in bit-depth, but rather just differences in quality of electronics, or basing my perceptions of quality on some subjective bias rather than what I heard - which I even acknowledged was quite possible. I am not out to convince you or anyone else that I hear what I do. I regret now even mentioning it - since it has elicited such an outraged response. Do you think I have some desire to convince you all of what I hear - that I have some agenda to convert people to agreeing with my perceptions, or some big theory to prove? I do not. >and why do they put so >much effort into avoiding this simple test (which could be done in your >home with perhaps 30 minutes of set up time) . Perhaps for the same reason you have not subjected your preference for Apogee converters to a double-blind test. You trust what you hear, you like your equipment and are happy to continue using it. You apparently feel no compulsion to prove to yourself that your perceptions are correct. I am already satisfied that I am hearing what I hear - and my husband hears it as well, btw. We do conduct single-blind experiments all the time both with regard to the issue being debated here, and with regard to different mixes we are evaluating. (I even try to do it sort-of double-blind by trying to hide or mix up which mixes are which, and we test each other out as well - I'll play the tracks while he listens - not telling him which is which, then we rearrange their order, and he plays them back for me.) And amazingly - to me - more often than not we hear the same things and agree. But I have also come to recognize a behavior we both have - which may be universal - where there is an *initial* tendency to think that anything that sounds different sounds better, or whatever sounds louder sounds 'better'. (Kind of like the Pepsi challenge thing, I guess.) But we are well aware of this tendency, and you can get past it and train yourself to listen more carefully - to specific frequency bands, for example, or specific effect paramaters, etc. etc. and eventually get to a more objective headspace with your listening. Certainly part of the challenge of the art and science of being an audio engineer. (I hope the above comment is not going to be taken as another 'claim' which I need to 'prove'.) Seriously, can I make an observation regarding my views and perceptions without being bombarded with a fusillade of indignant demands that I must 'prove my claim'? There *is* a difference between making an observation or voicing an opinion, versus claiming something to be an indisputable fact which then needs to be subjected to rigorous scientific or legal inquiry. Perhaps we will try the double-blind test someday, I don't know. Right now we're much more interested in getting a good-sounding mix on the guitar, fine-tuning our patches, and on the purely creative and compositional aspects of the music. We have very little free-time to work on our audio-related projects, and your double-blind test suggestion falls low-to-nonexistant in our list of priorities. In fact, I am finding that trying to keep up with this list, let alone participate on it, seems to be taking far more time and energy than I can reasonably justify. I was interested in trying to become a more active participant in the community, but it is feeling rather hostile and counterproductive. I am working on putting up a blog site (linuxaudyssey.com) - relating our experiences trying to set up our Linux DAW, and making the transition to Linux and open-source tools for audio recording. I hope that eventually I can develop it into something of more general use to the community - at least the newbies/non-programmers like ourselves. (Not really anything there yet as I am just now setting it up and have found I need to switch web hosts.) Perhaps I'd best confine the bulk of my observations to that site. Paul, you and I seem to rub each other the wrong way - and I regret that. Just happens sometimes. Regardless of our differences, I very much respect and very much appreciate all your hard work (and the work of everyon else) on making Ardour a reality. I think it is already fantastic. I wish very much that we could send you a big chunk of money in support of this project and to show our appreciation - and we will definitely do so when circumstances permit. I admire your steadfastness in continuing to work on this project despite virtually non-existent financial support. I'm afraid that, for the most part, musicians and others likely to be attracted to this project, are not 'well-heeled'. Carlo - what can I say? Keep being yourself. Be cool. Make beautiful music. Pax, Maluvia

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] .asoundrc file for an RME Digi9652 card?

by Jason White

I finally bought an audio card to provide digital i/o to my other equipment. Thanks to advice last year from subscribers to this list, I managed to get an RME Digi9652 card on the used market within my budget. Now to the configuration. I am looking for a working .asoundrc file for this card. The closest I could find was in a Linux Journal article discussing the Hammerfall HDSP cards, which are not the same as the Digi9652. I adapted the configuration found in the article somewhat, but wasn't able to produce output. The kernel module is loaded and identifies the card: 0000:00:0c.0 Multimedia audio controller: Xilinx Corporation RME Digi9652 (Hammerfall) (rev 03) and I have been able to modify the amixer settings (these are appended to this message for reference). My attempt at an .asoundrc file is as follows. I don't understand what the ttable values mean and couldn't find an explanation on the alsa.org site or elsewhere. pcm.rme9652 { type hw card 1 } lct.rme9652 { type hw card 1 } pcm.adat1 { type plug ttable.0.0 1 ttable.1.1 1 ttable.2.2 1 ttable.3.3 1 ttable.4.4 1 ttable.5.5 1 ttable.6.6 1 ttable.7.7 1 slave.pcm rme9652 } Note: for testing purposes this is only supposed to cover the first ADAT interface. aplay -D adat1 runs without error. One possible cause of trouble is a hardware conflict I know to exist with an EEPro 100 network card on my system which doesn't work now that the RME Digi9652 is installed. I am working on this. Configuration experiences/suggestions and any .asoundrc file from a working system would be much appreciated. Jason. Amixer settings: numid=5,iface=MIXER,name='IEC958 Input Connector' ; type=ENUMERATED,access=rw---,values=1,items=3 ; Item #0 'ADAT1' ; Item #1 'Coaxial' ; Item #2 'Internal' : values=1 numid=6,iface=MIXER,name='IEC958 Output also on ADAT1' ; type=BOOLEAN,access=rw---,values=1 : values=on numid=10,iface=MIXER,name='IEC958 Sample Rate' ; type=INTEGER,access=r----,values=1,min=0,max=96000,step=0 : values=-1 numid=16,iface=MIXER,name='ADAT1 Input Source' ; type=ENUMERATED,access=rw---,values=1,items=2 ; Item #0 'ADAT1' ; Item #1 'Internal' : values=0 numid=11,iface=MIXER,name='ADAT1 Sync Check' ; type=ENUMERATED,access=r----,values=1,items=4 ; Item #0 'No Lock' ; Item #1 'Lock' ; Item #2 'No Lock Sync' ; Item #3 'Lock Sync' : values=0 numid=12,iface=MIXER,name='ADAT2 Sync Check' ; type=ENUMERATED,access=r----,values=1,items=4 ; Item #0 'No Lock' ; Item #1 'Lock' ; Item #2 'No Lock Sync' ; Item #3 'Lock Sync' : values=0 numid=15,iface=MIXER,name='ADAT3 Sync Check' ; type=ENUMERATED,access=r----,values=1,items=4 ; Item #0 'No Lock' ; Item #1 'Lock' ; Item #2 'No Lock Sync' ; Item #3 'Lock Sync' : values=0 numid=9,iface=MIXER,name='Channels Thru' ; type=BOOLEAN,access=rw---,values=26 : values=on,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off,off numid=14,iface=MIXER,name='Passthru' ; type=BOOLEAN,access=rw---,values=1 : values=off numid=8,iface=MIXER,name='Preferred Sync Source' ; type=ENUMERATED,access=rw---,values=1,items=4 ; Item #0 'IEC958 In' ; Item #1 'ADAT1 In' ; Item #2 'ADAT2 In' ; Item #3 'ADAT3 In' : values=1 numid=7,iface=MIXER,name='Sync Mode' ; type=ENUMERATED,access=rw---,values=1,items=3 ; Item #0 'AutoSync' ; Item #1 'Master' ; Item #2 'Word Clock' : values=1 numid=13,iface=MIXER,name='Timecode Valid' ; type=BOOLEAN,access=r----,values=1 : values=off numid=3,iface=PCM,name='IEC958 Playback Con Mask' ; type=IEC958,access=r----,values=1 : values=? numid=1,iface=PCM,name='IEC958 Playback Default' ; type=IEC958,access=rw---,values=1 : values=? numid=4,iface=PCM,name='IEC958 Playback Pro Mask' ; type=IEC958,access=r----,values=1 : values=?

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] linux MIDI controller keyboards

by Chaz Worm

any suggestions? chaz

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Accessibility: Tips for making sounds for the masses?

by Carlo Capocasa

After my thread got hijacked so nicely about drawing in developers with little musical interest to help do music tools coding, I felt encouraged to raise another discussion. It is my goal to make music as accessible as possible, IE it's gotta be valuable to your average working man (or teenager) in terms of entertainment, identity, cult status, etc. The reaction I want from people is: "MAAAAAAN that's so cool why can't the sucker produce as fast as I can listen? MORE MORE MORE!!!!" :) One technical approach I found that is quite effective at that is to jack everything through compressors. (I know, it's not new, I just didn't know that). Get some white noise with an envelope, a formant filter, and a low pass filter, and pipe it through two sets of LADSPA compressors jacked to max (small attack, small release, large knee, maximum compression, small theshold) and it sounds like your average FAT dance track snare from scratch. Penetrating enough to make your average metal worker notice it. Another strategy I found effective is to combine the familiar with the new... That makes it an adventure with a guide. A little adventurous, but not so much as to be perceived as different and strange. (Personally I WANT to be different and strange but I respect that not everybody does). So ya wanna use generative synth? Fine, with a dance beat. Gonna make completely synthed tracks? Cool, add some vocals. To me, that makes strange synths sound "household object". So you wanna make stuff that people can enjoy ("people" meaning in terms of popular listening familiarity NOW)? What do you do? Carlo

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Cheap Ass Gear

by Carlo Capocasa

After throughly discussing the matter with myself in one of the recent threads, I have decided to buy one of these babies. http://www.musicgate.ch/oxid.php/sid/ 80a0861528715ba10d991d222b7cea8e/cl/ details/cnid/6de41fdfcc49e8d26.98526461/ anid/a64439d2dcebda552.04446416/Samson-C01U/ (For an explicit photograph of it it is necessary to piece together the URL, but this is probably not the greatest length you have gone to to find pleasing imagery online) I've been screaming all around how there is no linear scale of quality and how everything is subjective while secretly drooling over Paul Davis' latest phidelity discoveries. That's pretty hypocritical to say the least. It so happens that I'm living on a series of loans the Swiss government is issuing to me on grounds I don't get into trouble (it has been a big sacrifice) which aren't exactly designed to match up with the latest and greatest in the QBDD* tested section of Pro Audio hardware designed to be pleasing to people who bias themselves by reading the specs before listening in order to give quality statements that are generally accepted as non-biased. Whew :) And since I have to decided to change this situation purely over sine waves and my own sexuality (recorded in the waves) it makes sense to run low overhead for a while. I've seen these two chicks recently, one of them fat, causing quite a stir in me playing UKULELEs. One of them smiles heftily enough to move a jackhammer through freshly pressed and carefully crafted brick pavement (or whatever), and I like that. http://www.thehazzards.com I actually bought a CD from them, which I will never listen to, they sound awful, but for some reason I wanted to give them money and there's a pair of red luscious lips on the cover. Wish me luck with my el-cheapo USB mike! I'll be posting irrevent music soon. Nobody will be speared. Uh, spared. I think. That's Carlo Capocasa, reporting live from my uncleanly apartment in St. Gallen, Switzerland. Carlo *Quadruple Blind, Deaf and Dumb

19 years, 1 month

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Linux-audio-user February 2006