9 Mar
2013
9 Mar
'13
1:53 a.m.
Respectfully, you are all missing the point.
No matter how sound is produced, it is consumed acoustically, and this
is best done in a room with a low noise floor, dynamically high
ceiling, decor that is clean and clear yet has punch and sparkle, and
of course the room must be oxygen-free -- which is the origin of the
expression "no windows".
On 9 March 2013 13:40, Folderol <folderol(a)ukfsn.org> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 01:00:51 +0100
Hartmut Noack <zettberlin(a)linuxuse.de> wrote:
Am 08.03.2013 11:02, schrieb Ben Bell:
Without wishing to be critical, you're all rather failing to see the elephant
in the room. The biggest corrupter of sonic purity is worn and dirty
electricity. Think of it. The electricity you're using today was quite likely
being squirted through a heavy industrial processing plant yesterday. It may
even have passed through a sewage works. Yes I know that's pretty disgusting
but we have to face the facts.
Now, I know that you can apply mains filters and proper on-line UPS units and
that will clean the electricity up a lot, but don't you think all that scrubbing
only makes it even more worn and takes some of the 'sharpness' out of the sound
you make with it?
No, the only answer is to use a rotary converter. By its mechanical action, this
will actually use the stale electricity to create brand new electricity. You
will be amazed at the improvement. The clarity will be so stunning you will
even be able to tell the point number of the kernel your OS is using, and it
has been said that under these conditions some people are able to detect the
nuances of the different formulations of the hard disk surface.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 07:28:46PM +0100, Jeremy
Jongepier wrote:
The compiler alone can improve any audio-software a lot.
But remember, that the chain is only as strong as its weakest segment.
Try to make sure, that the source code for your apps and drivers is
written in vi, if possible with code-highlighting switched off.
Highlighted code will inevitable cause artifacts in your audio
(everybody knows pink noise OK?). Code written in Emacs may or may not
make the driver sound sterile. To be sure you could print the code
(vintage needle printers are your best choice) and retype it without
highlighting in vi (vim and other compromised derivatives of vi cannot
be trusted either).
> 4) Kernels sound better after they've been worn in a bit. Don't expect your
> newly built 2.4 kernel to have that warm sound until you've run with it
> for a few weeks, but for a really classy sound here's a trick: compile the
> kernel and then put it somewhere safe (ext2 partition, obviously) to mellow
> for a month and then boot into it at the last minute before you start
> recording an important session. Your clients will thank you.
>
> Ben On 03/07/2013 06:45 AM, david wrote:
> Yah, but which one sounds better - Windows or Linux? ;-)
Linux of course if you have to believe the audiophile forums.
Well obviously. Anyone with ears can tell you that.
More importantly, does a vintage kernel sound better than a more recent one?
I've been doing some testing and the results are pretty clear, not that
they should surprise anyone who knows anything about recording:
1) Older kernels sound much warmer than newer ones.
2) Kernels compiled by hand on the machine they run on sound less sterile
than upstream distro provided ones which also tend to have flabby low
end response and bad stereo imaging.
3) As if it needed saying, gcc4 is a disaster for sound quality. I mean,
seriously if you want decent audio and you use gcc4 you may as well be
recording with a tin can microphone.