July 2002 - Kraftwerk - mailman.xmission.com

( OT ) Re: what's "better" ??? can u define it ???
by Oh Jay 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs(a)cuug.ab.ca> > Is one car better simply because its engine has more accurate timing? > Or is "better" determined by the one with the better gas mileage or > softest leather interior? It always depends on who you ask! :-) well ... in formula 1 racin' it's VERY_OBVIOUS that ferrari has currently the best car & also that michael schumacher is currently the best driver ... & that's why he'll DEFINITELY be the world champion also this year ... maybe even tomorrow in france !!! *slyest_grin* ;-))) however ... many greetinx , oh jay ;-) ~*~ jvr network program - july 2002 : http://mitglied.lycos.de/cybernetx/program.html ( incl. live stream via internet ) studio webcam - live : http://stream.ok-bremen.de/studio.html radio show & playlist archive : http://friends.schallreflektor.com/ohjay/alien_disco for more info , send your request(s) to : oh_jay(a)kraftwerk.nu ;-) *~\^/~*

2 1

Technopop Site
by Electram 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

Hello to all, Technopop Site has news. There is new images in the following pages: - 3 images at 70 Years page, - 16 images at 80 Years page, - 9 images at 90 Years page. Do a visit and enjoy! Marcelo Duarte Dante de Conti http://kraftwerk.technopop.com.br Brasil

1 0

Re: Efofex (was: hdcd (World Without Wars))
by jtalbert 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

> Just visited the site, and heard the sounds.. Great stuff! Thank, Peo! I quite appreciate your comments. > Some songs remind me a lot of Kraftwelt (listen to "Slinky - Edit" in the > mp3 archive for instance), > while others are original little pieces. Quite fascinating music - makes me > want to hear more of it! Kraftwelt has really been no influence at all (although they are an interesting band). "Slinky" has heavy influences in Josef Zawinul of Weather Report fame and mid-70's Kraftwerk (as well as some other influences). I will publicly admit that Kraftwerk have been a great inspiration to me. To be frank, it was the first time I heard The Robots on Detroit radio (thanks, Mojo!), that my entire view on music was redefined. I can honestly say that both Man Machine and Computer World albums had a dramatic impact on me -especially Numbers. I must have played that song "non-stop" seven days a week back then! For most, it was the drum line - for me, it was the intense and complex layering of the electronic and processed voices and the chaotic percussive "snap effect" panning that grabbed me. > jtalbert, is the "Proof" CD very out of print, e.g. you have no copies left > at all? I'd like one.. :) Sorry, but the Efofex debut CD "Proof" sold out a few years ago. The 2000 release, "Stress" (which contains the Independent Music Award nominated track "The Forms" and "Slinky") is still available as this was a financially sponsored project resulting in more copies pressed. At least two other releases (plus the "World Without Wars" single) are in the queue but are temporarily held up due to scheduling constraints. If you (or anyone else) would like further information, please drop an email to me directly: jtalbert(a)efofex.net > Keep up the good work! Thanks for the encouragement, Peo. :) Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/

1 0

Re: (hd)cds vs. vinyl ... or digital vs. analog
by jtalbert 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

> Using objective standards is > the ONLY way to conclusively say that one is better than the other. Ah, but herein lies the flaw... There are no "objective" standards for which piece of audio equipment is "better." The standards can only show which is more accurate in a particular aspect (total harmonic distortion would be one, for instance). But all properties taken into account requires a subjective analysis. That's the reason for the debate! Is one car better simply because its engine has more accurate timing? Or is "better" determined by the one with the better gas mileage or softest leather interior? It always depends on who you ask! :-) Interestingly, just last evening, I read a series of letters in Mix magazine (a professional recording magazine) from readers who were arguing over opinions presented in a previous issue by several industry recording engineers who were against the Digidesign Pro Tools Digital Audio system. Not surprisingly, some readers feel it is great while others feel it is too "clinical" sounding. Both sides were passionate in their viewpoints. So clearly, simple measurements of accuracy (Pro Tools is now 192 KHz, 24 bit) will never prove which is best to some given population. > It's like arguing about which of two deist religions are right - it's > never going to accomplish anything because neither side can prove their > god exists. Exactly! Which is why I don't think digital or vinyl (analog) is better in all cases. The easiest response is: It depends! I think some music sounds better on vinyl and some better on CD. It is helpful to remember that since the mastering process is different for each, one may sound better or worse for this reason alone. The Mix, for me sounds better on vinyl (maybe because it was a high quality German pressing). I'm not sure on Expo 2000 comparisons as that track was VERY heavily produced which may have robbed the track from some of its presence. But its all subjective, so all that matters is that the listener is satisfied with his choice of medium. Heck, to some people's ears, MP3 is indistinguishable from CD quality while many would argue that point. > If indeed it is impossibly to construct a "warmth" detector, then "warmth" > is something that exists only inside your head, and therefore is not > actually contained in the music. Inside the head or not, this is how we listen to music. There's no way around this. But going a bit further, "warmth" and lack thereof is probably something that you have experienced yourself without realizing it. For instance, I think most people would agree there is a certain "difference" in Kraftwerk's early recordings (pre - 1983) and 1986's Electric Cafe, 1991's The Mix and Expo 2000? One might say that there is more warmth in the earlier recordings. Interestingly, those were all done on analog instruments. EC was recorded with digital equipment on analog tape - already somewhat "colder" than say Tour De France (all analog). While The Mix and Expo 2000 was all digital. Completely different sound, and much more clinical than the classic recordings. Which is better? I won't even start that discussion! But perhaps you get my idea. > In my experience, "warmth" and "smoothness" in audiophile code language > mean "lacks high frequencies", and "air" means either "stereo seperation" > or "echoes". Machines can be devised to detect those conditions. Actually, these aren't audiophile terms, they are used in the industry by audio professional in every area of the field. You can find a very good article on "warmth" here: [URL may wrap] http://www.audiomedia.com/archive/features/uk-0799/uk-0799-warmth/uk-0799-w… But it does not mean "lacking in highs." The original Computer Love had warmth but it was not lacking in highs. "Air" denotes a certain level of frequency content in the 12k - 15k area. Air can give a recording a sense of clarity and presence with the side effect of helping the listener to perceive the spatiality around individual instruments in the mix. In singing, it might be the aspiration in pronunciation of certain syllables. And no, a machine can't detect "air" because there is no pre-determined boost value in the "air" frequency range that would have the same objective effect for all recordings. It is the job of the mastering engineer to use his ears (not measuring instruments) to find it and adjust it to make the recording sound best. Although a machine can in fact measure certain distortions (sometimes related to warmth), it cannot measure what amount is right to give a sound that property. > Oh, certainly. As I've said before, CD audio as it is now sucks. Exactly! Which is why some (I stress the term "some") people prefer vinyl over CDs in certain instances. Although I'm not out to change anyone's mind in the vinyl vs. CD debate, I will state it is likely (though not guaranteed) that you will hear a difference when listening to good vinyl on better components. Likewise, you are likely even to hear a difference with the *same* CD when experienced on a high quality system with exceptional D/A converters. There really is a difference. And its that difference that drives audiophiles. Sound is their passion. Everyone has a passion that not everyone else will understand. For instance, I don't collect old cars and spend ten times their worth restoring them - but some people do and I can still enjoy the fruits of their efforts without wanting to do it myself. > Yes. Today I finally realized this important property of the debate: Vinyl > supporters say that *some* vinyl systems (ie, good records, expensive > equipment) sound better than most CDs, whereas I say that *most* CDs sound > better than most vinyl, regardless of equipment. >From my viewpoint, it really depends. As I mentioned, I'm not a diehard for either. I have preferences in both mediums - depending on the album and artist. > I prefer the bulk solution because it's *generally* better. Vinyl can be > considered a better format for a niche market, just as I could build > myself a super high-quality digital recorder and make my own high-quality > CD format if I cared to. Yes, you could create your own format. But you'd have to control the recording and mastering process as well to get the best quality. Even with higher bit resolutions, until some engineers stop squashing the dynamics of digital audio with brick wall limiters to make it as "loud" as possible, digital audio can still sound flat. > > http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html > > Excellent article. This one sentence explains it all: > > "A typical D to A converter derives its system clock (the clock that > controls the sample and hold circuit) from the incoming digital signal." > > That sucks. That's a cheap-ass solution. Actually, it has to be that way. When two digital devices are connected, they MUST be synced and only ONE can be the master. If both run at even the slightest different speed, you get artifacts in the audio stream. The alternate methods are to either have the most accurate clock as the master or have a more expensive dedicated, highly accurate master word clock that drives all digital devices. > They should be buffering the data > in a FIFO and using a crystal oscillator to deal it out to the DAC. Digital audio is a continuous stream. What if the transmitting device runs every so slightly faster? Then eventually you get a buffer overflow and you drop bits. If the transmitter runs slower, you have underflow resulting in gaps in the audio. There must be a master clock. > As he > mentioned later, transients in the power supply voltage can affect crystal > oscillators too, which I didn't realize, but there are solutions for that > too. The basic idea of the article (and other articles on the digido.com site) is that digital audio is a strange beast. There are benefits as well as drawbacks and quality equipment and techniques are important in dealing with it. And believe it or not, *sometimes* that means adding something analog to the processing chain. > Eh? I haven't heard of MP4. Whose work is it? These pages may answer a few questions: http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/ http://www.psytel-research.co.yu/showcase.htm Currently Apple's latest beta version of Quicktime Pro will generate and play back MP4 files. It is available for both PC and Mac's. I was referred to Apple by Dolby Laboratories when I inquired about the AAC format. > > The choices of which to use is based upon a unit's *sound* and NOT > > simply which component is the most scientifically accurate. > > I would argue that the unit that most accurately reproduces the sound that > was recorded should by definition be the best, most realistic-sounding > one. Well in truth, in the production process, recording gear is chosen by its sound or character and not always for its accuracy. This is true for both instruments and processing modules. Many recordings are purposefully run through analog and tube pre amps, compressors, equalizers and microphones PURELY because of the character each imparts to the sound. They are far from accurate, but add a certain quality that artists and producers insist upon. > > 16 bit audio is the primary reason we now have 24 and 32 bit audio formats > > with tools that run at 48, 64 and 128 bit internal precision. > > *Nice*. I want to get me some of those! DVD Audio is already 24 bit 96 kHz and multi-channel. But the format is still young and needs to catch on to the masses before more titles become available. For 32 bit and higher, you'd need the raw audio files and in some cases, the matching software to play them with. In Kraftwerk's case, you'd have to do lots of convincing begging to get hold of those, I'm quite sure! :-) Take care. Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/

3 2

Re: hdcd (World Without Wars)
by jtalbert 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

Amir wrote: > ---------------- > Efofex - A World Without Wars sounded cool.... > neat watercolor album cover. > I like the minimalist and artsy web site, too. > Thanks, Amir! :-) Last year, I was approached from a Greek organization to donate the title track for a multi-artist, multimedia, anti-war CD project that was to have been entitled "A World Without Wars and Violence" But the seemingly, CD production never went through seemingly for logistical reasons - I have no other details. The clip you heard is the result. The reason there is only a short clip on my web site is because I was holding the full track until the official release in Greece. That never happened and since then, it has undergone a few minor changes as well as the addition of a vocoder-only version. At this point, I am considering going forward with a 3 track single with ALL proceeds going to charity. I've just had some snags in my own release schedule due to unexpected events (I'm late with at least 2 other projects). I'll try to keep anyone posted who might be interested. Thanks again for the compliment. Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/

2 1

Re: (hd)cds vs. vinyl ... or digital vs. analog equipment ( again ;-) ...
by Oh Jay 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs(a)cuug.ab.ca> > "I see no reason to insult me, Captain." well ... it was U , who @ least ANNOYED or even insulted EV'RY vinyl "advocate" as u've written that we're all livin' in some kind of "dream world" , which was totally unnecessary & also UNJUSTIFIED for a mature discussion about the advantages & disadvantages of vinyl & cds , imho ... & the ONLY reason , why i've stepped into this - by now rather POINTLESS_!!! *sigh* :-o - discussion !!! :-o > You could try explaining it. sure , i could ... but as the troll that u are ( sometimes ) , u'll find a more or less intelligent way to say somethin' against it , so i really DON'T see a point in continuin' this discussion with u ... UNLESS u really LISTEN to what we vinyl "advocates" have to say & to PROVE ... & THEN try to refute it with some actual ARGUMENTS ... & NOT jus' tell us your humble opinion about what U ( alone ) think is "better" then , because we all have a diff'rent opinion about what sounds "better" !!! i'm actually ONLY interested in what IS "better" ... & NOT jus' in what sounds "better" in your or my humble opinion !!! that's where we differ too , mate !!! ;-) anyway ... to get back to my grayscales example ... once & for all : digital = 0 & 1 = black & white analog = an endless array between 0 & 1 = an endless array of grayscales is that "clear" enough for u by now , mate ??? *jus'_curious* > Because you claimed it could. i DIDN'T_!!! it's now obvious that i jus' haven't made myself "clear" enough for u to understand what i've really meant , as i've written "well ... it's jus' A_PLAIN_FACT that vinyl has a much greater frequency spectrum than a cd or - until today !!! - ANY digital medium could ever have !!! ;-)" to make it "clear" right now ... once & for all : i was talkin' about the AUDIBLE frequency spectrum of vinyl & cds , in which case vinyl INDEED has a much greater frequency spectrum ... as EV'RY sound engineer can PROVE to u WITHOUT_ANY_DOUBT_!!! *slyest_grin* ;-))) > Well, my PC has a 66MHz PCI bus, ... [ ... ] > so if you think vinyl has a wider spectrum than any digital medium, > you'll have to show that it can reproduce higher-frequency signals > than a computer can output. WHY should i ??? *puzzled_look* to remind u of the actual topic we are talkin' about here : it's actually about what u can HEAR or maybe FEEL ... & what is REAL & MOST_DEFINITELY_NOT about what is technically possible to achieve !!! that's the main mistake that cd advocates like u almost ALWAYS seem to make !!! *sigh* :-o to give u a definition of the term "analog" in general : "ANALOG" = quality , which changes continuously & CANNOT ( !!! ) bein' quantified in "DIGITAL" values !!! i really think that this definition speaks for itself now !!! *slyest_grin_u_can_imagine* ;-))) ... or to say it in other words : "ANALOG" = ORIGINAL / LIFE / SOURCE "DIGITAL" = COPY / ARTIFACT / IMITATION so HOW on earth can ANY "DIGITAL" medium EVER be "better" than ANY "ANALOG" medium then , eh ??? :-o well ... if u prefer A_CLONE or A_COPY to THE_ORIGINAL , then it can , but otherwise it simply COULDN'T_!!! PLAIN_FACTS_!!! PERIOD_!!! as i've already said in my very first postin' concernin' this tread : a cd can sound "clearer" than a vinyl record , but NEVER - in respect to the above definition of the words "analog" & "digital" !!! - "better" than it !!! fyi : "DIGITAL" values can get very close to the "ANALOG" original , but they can NEVER be exactly the same !!! PERIOD_!!! so "DIGITAL" will ALWAYS be inferior to "ANALOG" - albeit it may sound "clearer" , due to the REDUCTION of "ANALOG" noise ( or what people may recognize as "noise" then !!! ;-) - , simply because it can only get "near to PERFECTION" !!! ( a.k.a. THE - of course "ANALOG"_!!! ;-) - ORIGINAL_!!! ;-) > Ah, now you're qualifying it by saying "audible". That's different. ... but that's WHAT we are actually talkin' here about the whole time ... & NOT how it's technical possible for a digital medium to ( almost ) PERFECTLY_IMITATE_&_RECREATE an analog source / sound !!! :-o > No, I prefer superior CDs. :) well ... what u prefer is AN_ARTIFACT , AN_IMITATION of / to THE_ORIGINAL then , which is rather sad , ihmo !!! *sigh* :-o anyway ... i'll ALWAYS prefer THE_ORIGINAL of EV'RYTHIN' that i can get hold of to AN_ARTIFACT or AN_IMITATION of it !!! ;-) > How is "clearer" not better? What do you mean by clearer anyway? see my explanation above ... & reread the numerous other messages concernin' this tread again , if necessary !!! *sigh* :-o anyway ... as your whole opinion in this case seems to be biased & also based on ARTIFICIAL_VALUES , u'll sadly NEVER understand what i & all those other vinyl advocates mean !!! *deeply_saddened_sigh* :-o however ... many greetinx again , oh jay , who's REALLY tired of this whole thread by now & therefore has chosen NOT to reply to any further messages concernin' it , as it would jus' be a waste of my precious time then , sorry !!! :-/ ~*~ "life's too short to be ARTIFICIAL_!!!" ;-) *~\^/~*

3 2

Re: [Kraftwerk] KW remastering, maybe?
by muziknut2＠juno.com 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

>>> Excuse me, has this HDCD anything to do with Sony's super audio compact disc (SACD)? Thanks in advance. <<< No. HDCD is an encoding process that brings back the analog "warmth" that some feel is missing in the digital medium to standard compact discs. SACD (super audio CD) is a new format that is 96kHz rather than the standard 16-bit of CDs and will not play in standard CD players. http://www.hdcd.com Peace.

1 0

blinking ties...
by Kadmark Mats 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

Hi, has anyone built any blinking ties yourselves? It wouldn't be that difficult if you had some knowledge about how to build electronics (I don't know how)... It would be nice if someone could write a step-to-step guide on how to build your blinking tie ! Come on all engineers and write one! Greetings from Sweden! Mats www.electron.tk

2 1

Re: [Kraftwerk] KW remastering, maybe?
by muziknut2＠juno.com 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

>>> I've never seen a HDCD. How can this possibly work? I thought CD players were hardcoded to expect 16 bits per sample. <<< HDCD is NOT a format, it is a mastering process, 100% compatible with ordinary CD players. It brings back the "warmth" that many people feel lack with digital recording and/or mastering. Go to http://www.hdcd.com for more info and which CDs are HDCD-encoded. All of Joni Mitchell's early CDs are HDCD-encoded, for example. from the website: High Definition Compatible DigitalÂ® (HDCDÂ®) is a patented encode/decode process for delivering the full richness and detail of the original microphone feed on Compact Discs. Peace.

4 3

55th anniversary
by Der Automat 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

Wolfgang Fluer was born on July 17th, 1947 in Frankfurt. Happy birthday Mr. Fluer! DER AUTOMAT

1 0