Re: logical paradoxes

From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 08/23/04 

Date: 23 Aug 2004 03:29:06 -0500

Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote:
>"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in
>news:41263f26$0$90170$45beb828@newscene.com:
>
>My studio was only an 8 track. In 1982, that was a fairly respectable pre-
>production rig. I did a couple of years' apprenticship in a 24 track
>studio.

Ok, now you're talking! That's way cool.

>That's where I learned all my esoteric but now redundant
>knowledge. For example, did you know that we always stored our tapes with
>the tail out? That minimises magnetic print-through, from one layer of
>tape to the next. If you store the tape tail out, the print-through makes
>a softer post-echo, which is virtually inaudable. If you store it head
>out, the print-through makes a louder pre-echo.

I remember. Got a few old reels in Mom's basement marked "tails out."
I'm one of those who asked you if you could speed up 4% so everyone
would think I was playing blues in Db.

>>>My theory is that electronic keyboards sounded better as the human
>>>interface improved. Velocity sensitive logic circuitry (along with
>>>nicely weighted keys) enabled the electronics to more closely
>>>reproduce what the user was doing.

I don't think I've ever had a keyboard without properly weighted keys.
Wait - an old Lowrey organ. You'd cut your fingers on it. Really, blood.

>> I disagree, I think, sort of. There, you're talking about performance,
>> not programming a sequencer.
>
>Right, but that's my point. In the early days, you had to programme the
>amplitude envelope. Once the envelope is programmed there are no subtle
>changes that normally result from playing an instrument differently.

Ok. I give you that. We're talking pop, etc. and you just want to play
parts, or a written part, or the playing is secondary to the
arranging (and I can respect that too). Sure, much easier just to hit
the key than program it, especially with the "programming keyboard"
(weird buttons, etc.). Giving it more thought, I was off-base with my
comments. Sure, you could spend months programming a tune. The
"human interface" would be a life-saver.

><snip> For example, if you crop the
>first X milliseconds from the start of a note from both a guitar and a
>piano, you can't tell them apart anymore (where X is the the attack + decay
>portion of the envelope). I'm probably exaggerating to make my point here.

Slightly. <g> But agree sometimes you cannot ID the instrument being
played on a recording unless you are a long-time prof. player of that
instrument. You can't always tell by sound alone. I used to argue
against this, thinking I had "The Ear." But my wife gave me a test, and
I failed badly. Thought a pan flute was a pipe organ!

<Edit for sheer length>

>> Larry, not so worried about being off-topic when 90% of posts are
>
>I'm sure sci.logic can stand a little off-topic chatter. After all, it's
>not like we're just repeating the same things to each other, over and over
>again.

LOL. I'm told that math and music are highly related. Probably as much
as the 10th willhalt() variation. I suspect there are many musicians
here or at least accomplished appreciators. I think Herman Jurjus is
the resident expert on classical piano and probably classical music in
general.

Larry