July 2002 - Kraftwerk - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Kraftwerk] Kraftwerk in Holland
by Dirk Matten 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

Holland? Belgien (Belgium)! Dirki kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com schrieb am 18.07.02 19:08:49: > Well, the europeans fans have one more option to see Kraftwerk this > year (Holland, 23 september). If any member buy the ticket, please > send the scan to us (and the poster are welcome too, of course). > See more informations about the new show at: > http://kraftwerk.technopop.com.br/news.php > > > Marcelo Duarte > Dante de Conti > http://kraftwerk.technopop.com.br > Brasil > > > _______________________________________________ > Kraftwerk mailing list > Kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kraftwerk ______________________________________________________________________________ WEB.DE MyPage - Ultimatives Kommunikationstool! Ihre Message sofort online! Domain aenderbar! http://www.das.ist.aber.ne.lustige.sache.ms/

3 3

(no subject)
by Jorge estiels 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

Hi! what you Think about Kraftwelt and Komputer? Thanks! Soy un ser de luz!!

3 2

Re: hdcd
by jtalbert 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

> > Besides, any music that is not played on purely digital instruments (e.g. > > "constructed" sounds) started their life as analog, > > since sound itself is analog ;) > > -------------------- > Interesting...the real world IS analog! > This may mean that digital will always be inherently inferior to real, > continuous sound waves! I've always felt this way. But I do find value in digital audio. I just happen to prefer analog in many respects (certain albums, instruments, etc.) > On the plus side, CD's aren't destroyed by needles, > and most human ears in the human marketplace can't tell the difference anyway. > Except for us KW audiophiles, of course! I suppose I would have to admit I'm one of those Kraftwerk audiophiles. Sadly, I can hear these minute differences we're talking about. Its almost embarrassing at times. :-D > Maybe a good comparison of digital to analog > is floury white bread compared to grains/wheat bread. > All the vitamins and minerals are washed out in white bread > and after 70 years, the crud adds 5 pounds to the walls of the intestinal system; > > not natural like the colon cleansing grains & fiber-loaded wheat bread. > > Maybe not so good a comparison...he he Whew! I'm glad I only eat wheat bread. Hmmmm, I wonder if there's some connection of a wheat bread diet and audiophile listening tastes. :) > There is currently a device (a cochlea implant) which helps deaf people to > hear... this is tested by passing an electrical current through some wires.. > the patient "hears" a noise... > > Therefore in years to come it would be possible to have music "heard" direct > from a keyboard or other electronic instruments. > > Well.. that's my opinion anyway! Wow. What a thought. We can all have S/PDIF or AES/EBU connectors in the back of our heads! :-P 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 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs(a)cuug.ab.ca> > Huh? You're not making any sense here. well ... it makes perfect sense , but u simply don't seem to get it , mate !!! *sigh* :-o however ... has anybody else a problem with the grayscales example of mine ??? *pure_curiosity* ;-) i sincerely hope NOT_!!! *G+* ;-) > Okay, so prove that vinyl can reproduce frequencies in the GHz, > or even in the MHz. That seems to be what you're saying here, > with that "any". WHY should vinyl "reproduce" such frequencies , as they are simply INAUDIBLE for ev'ry human bein' ... incl. u & me ??? *puzzled_look* :-o vinyl "reproduces" ALL audible frequences & harmonics MUCH_BETTER ( but not always "clearer" , which is the main reason , why people like u seem to prefer inferior cds to the good ol' vinyl !!! *sigh* :-o ) than EV'RY cd that i've EVER heard so far ... & i've heard THOUSANDS of totally diff'rent cds until today !!! ;-) anyway ... read the last message that i've forwarded here called "The Audio Debate: Vinyl or Compact Disc?" carefully & thoroughly ... & believe whatever u want , mate !!! *BWG* ;-))) thank u !!! however ... many greetinx again , 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

Re: (hd)cds vs. vinyl ... or digital vs. analog
by jtalbert 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

> > I've never been a fan of measurements. I find them totally irrelevant > > actually. You know, it's quite > > simple to produce for instance an amplifier that measures virtually > > perfectly but sounds totally awful. > > Well, that pretty much puts an end to the debate then. You're being > totally subjective, which means that what sounds good to you sounds good > to you, but doesn't necessarily sound good to others. Jumping in here a bit...that's the problem with music and sound...it will always be subjective. Sure, one can easily apply measurement tools to "prove" accuracy but, in the end, personal preferences, listening environments and equipment quality will be the determining factor. I'm not a fan of measurements either. They may be a good starting point for selecting equipment but there will always be a need to use one's ears make a final decision. This is the way music is created, mixed, produced and mastered - by ear, and not by specifications. > To be fair, I and everyone else also have these subjective opinions. But a > real judgement on the relative merits of CD versus vinyl, or more > generally analog versus digital, can only be made using measuring > equipment, which doesn't have opinions of its own. Measuring equipment can only measure objective accuracy. It can not measure things subjective things like "warmth", "air," "smoothness" and other factors that shape the listening experience. > I still think that CDs produce the better sound. More generally, I think > that CD technology has brought a vast improvement in sound quality over > vinyl to the general (ie, non-audiophile but still caring) population. I would somewhat agree. But CD digital audio does have many imperfections in its current format. 16 bits is simply not enough. If by some miracle we could hear Kraftwerk's more recent (i.e., digital) music in its original 24 or 32 bit format, the difference would be quite apparent on any decent sound system - with good convertors I might add! :-) > > Personally I'm only interested in what I hear, not if I have a harmonic > > distorsion of 0.012% or not :) > > Same here, until someone starts saying vinyl is better than CD, or analog > is better than digital. Then scientific comparisons must be made. I would argue that neither one is better than the other in *all* aspects. Neither format is perfect in any way. > You know, I've never heard this jitter thing. I've played regular audio > CDs as well as different types of CDRs on different players, and I've > never heard anything that could be described as jitter. What does it sound > like? Rather than attempt to answer this here, I'll point to a great article on jitter by mastering engineer Bob Katz: http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html I was personally referred to this page a while back by another mastering engineer who does work for Warner Brothers when I myself had questions about problems I was perceiving in working with digital audio. This essay answered many of my questions. Of course, not all people have this level of hearing sensitivity, but obviously some do. > That said, MP3 is by far the most convenient format yet. I've encoded my > entire CD collection and bought a portable player so I can take my music > to work and school with me. Music makes life worth living! I'm in complete agreement here, too. MP3 of course is not perfect, but it is quite convenient and good enough for casual listening. I've already tried MP4 and it sounds even better. I'm just waiting for it to catch on. > If I could, I'd plug the speaker wires directly into my brain to avoid > having the sound pass through imperfect speakers and air molecules. > Let's make the music electronic all the way from instrument to audience! > :) Actually, that could never be done. Humans can't make any sense from the meaning of a stream of 1's and 0's without some kind of analog conversion. > > [...] And again, that is on a standard turntable with a total > > system cost probably under $2000. > > Well, maybe one day I'll be able to afford one of these rare beasts and > see for myself. That's still years off though. Again, that $2000 (probably more like $1700) was the cost of the total system (multi-disk player, cassette, etc.). The price of the turntable, amp and speakers was no more than $800 - $1000. Not super cheap, but far from the price of an expensive audiophile system (that will come later!) but I could still hear the differences in the vinyl and CD version of The Mix. The vinyl version, imperfections or not, sounded more "alive" for lack of a better word. > > [...]And of course, mistakes in the performance > > have nothing to do with the recording medium! :-) > > What I meant was, using electronic instruments to produce the music, and > keeping the music in electronic form (preferably digital) at every stage > of the process involved in getting it onto a CD. That means studio, no > crowd, no microphones if possible, no environmental noise other than > electrical transients which should be eliminated anyway, and mistakes > edited out in the computer. OK. Now I understand what you meant. > > Without the original studio final mixes, there would be no way of > > making this type of comparison accurately. Especially when one takes into > > account that each medium will have been mastered slightly differently. > > Use an artificial reference sound designed for testing purposes then. Again, a scientific test using pink noise and a sine wave can only prove accuracy and is not very close to a real world listening experience. Not to mention the fact that you or I can never "listen" to music in the way that a scientific test would be done due to differences in acoustical environments (including headphones, shape of the ear, etc.). Having said all that, the music process these days is made up of a combination of analog and digital whether it be a digital compressor or an analog compressor. The choices of which to use is based upon a unit's *sound* and NOT simply which component is the most scientifically accurate. > I agree that the ADC and DAC are important, but I still find it hard to > believe that a crystal oscillator would emit pulses with enough > irregularity that it would be audible to humans. I may seem hard to believe, but it is true. There is a difference in a side by side comparison. An appropriate analogy might be like the the way a person with less than perfect eyesight might perceive things before and after lasik surgery. No problem may have been perceived for many years but all of a sudden with perfect 20/20 vision, the experience is completely different. Really, not all digital is the same as we have been led to believe. > > Again, the kind of timing "clock" referred to in digital audio has a completely > > different purpose. A bad digital clock can adversly affect the quality of the > > signal. Its not be easily noticeable on its own, but when comparing with a > > convertor that has a *high* quality clock, the difference in remarkable. > > Well, this is another place where some impartial measuring equipment would > help settle the issue. These types of tests have already been done. And since we're talking about comparing digital to digital, the testing would be quite easy! A scientific measurement would indeed prove the affects of a bad clock in a digital convertor - or the affects of any process applied to a digital signal for that matter. Bit resolution, word clock, dithering, jitter and sampling rates are major issues in the digital audio field. And the limitations of 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. The bad part is that to get all that back into a 16 bit CD, much digital information is lost. Weather it's perceivable or not will depend on the listener, the listening environment and the genre of music in question. I really do enjoy listening to The Mix on vinyl more than CD. But I would truly love to have a 24-bit DVD audio version of the same album. It would put the 16 bit CD release to shame. DVD audio versions of the other releases would be a great improvement as well. Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/

2 1

Fw: The Audio Debate: Vinyl or Compact Disc?
by Oh Jay 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

fyi : the followin' can originally be found @ http://www.solstice.dsl.pipex.com/debate.htm !!! ;-) ~*~ The Audio Debate: Vinyl or Compact Disc? Compact discs are definitely the format of the masses nowadays, but are they the best media for music? Both formats have their advantages and disadvantages. The aim of any music recording and playback system is to reproduce the musical performance as near as possible to the original. Human hearing at its best has a frequency range from around 15Hz to 22kHz, although as you get older you lose some of the higher frequencies. However musical instruments, both traditional and electronic, are capable of producing a much wider frequency range. Whilst this may seem rather pointless, in fact it is very important when you consider harmonics. We can hear harmonics of sounds that we can't hear, so these inaudible sounds must also be recorded and reproduced so that we hear the harmonics. Vinyl Records: Advantages: Full frequency range reproduction due to analogue recording Records retain quality if stored correctly If partially damaged the rest of the disc is still playable Lovely LP sleeves - great art work Disadvantages: Easy to damage playing surface if mis-handled or damaged stylus Prone to interference from dust on playing surface Prone to damage from heat (warping) due to size Requires good vinyl for best results - not all manufacturers do their best Requires good quality turntable for best results Compact Discs: Advantages: Cheap to produce and package Ease of use (programmable track selection) Portability Disadvantages: Artificially expensive to buy - so the manufacturers and retailers can make bigger profits Technically incapable of producing a full frequency range recording due to the artificially fixed 20Hz to 22kHz reproduction so losing some harmonics Still in infancy of production - prone to faults (disintegration of recorded data over time due to faulty manufacture process), chemical reaction with substances (eg storage cases, sticky labels, pens) can damage data, one small scratch can render the whole disc unplayable Personal experiences: If, like me, you have been buying records since you went to school, then I'm sure you'll understand the excitement of going into a record shop and finding that new LP sleeve, with great art work. Spending your hard earned pocket money and going home to play it. There you'd get the record out of the inner sleeve, which quite often contained more art work and the lyrics to the songs. The smell of the new vinyl... mmm. Then listening to side 1, before turning over to side 2. What an experience. Over the years upgrading the Hi-Fi system to get even more out of the vinyl. Then in the early 1980's along came the announcement that a superior sound system had been produced and the new discs were indestructible and lasted forever (a claim that was soon retracted). So suckers that we all are we rushed out and bought new CD players and expensive Compact Discs. Yes they sounded different - no scratch or dust crackle on the sound, but didn't sound just right. Anyway believed them that this is better and bought some new releases on CD and thought they were OK. Still not too sure, decided to buy a better CD player (at twice the price I'd paid for my turntable). Still sounds "OK". After a couple of years bought a second hand LP copy of one of my favourite CDs - wow what had I been missing? The rest is history - traded in those CDs that I could get an LP copy of. Still always buy the new LPs now unless not available, then wait for a sale before buying a CD unless the music's something special. Problems I've had with CDs: One of the first CDs I bought was "Big Generator" by Yes. This disc lasted about 6 months before it was unplayable. Gaps (silences) appeared in the music! Obviously at this time the shops/manufacturers were keen to push the medium and happily replaced it for another even without a receipt! Also be careful when handling your CDs. You'll probably get away with scratching the playing side of the disc, but whatever you do don't scratch the label side! The actual data on the CD is just under the label, and one disc I've got with a scratch on the label no longer plays! Warning check the packaging - one CD had been on my shelf for nearly a year when I decided to play it again. To my surprise the disc had become crazed from the outer edge towards the middle, looking a bit like a frozen pond. Half the tracks are unplayable. Panic set in and I started going through other CDs, another one in the same type of packaging (digipak) was starting to show the same problem. I've never had an LP deteriorate on a shelf. Oh yes, and don't whatever you do stick anything on the label or write on it as this too can attack the data just under the label. Conclusion: Do you play music while relaxing, doing the housework, etc. OR do you listen to music? I think this is the key to choosing the format for your music purchases. If you listen to the music then you want the best medium capable of reproducing the music as close as possible to the original. If your just want to hear music then the easiest to use is probably better for you. For the reproduction of music, the best media is the Vinyl record. For ease of use the Compact Disc wins. It's a bit like choosing whether to go to a restaurant or a fast food outlet. Both have their uses, but one is always going to be better than the other at quality. Of course if the owners close all the restaurants they expect us to go for the fast food, well they're wrong! *~\^/~*

2 1

Re: top 5 favorite albums / hdcd ...
by Oh Jay 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

From: Electram <electram(a)terra.com.br> > The Rolling Stones - Let it Bleed > Beatles - Revolver > Pink Floyd - Saucerful of Secrets and Wish You Were Here > David Bowie - Scary Monsters and Heroes > Kraftwerk - The Man Machine well ... i really do think that the first 4 bands or artists are pretty much OVERRATED ( plus elvis , of course !!! ;-) & i can only agree to "the man-machine" by kw !!! *BWG* ;-))) to the topic of hdcd encoded cds i can only add that it was ALWAYS a reduction to encode cds in 16-bit format , but - sony - the inventors of the first cds thought that it was a good idea ... jus' like the pretty crappy vhs format for videotapes by their inventors jvc !!! *sigh* :-o btw : we were also spoiled with 74 or 80 min. cds for way too long , as it's NOT a problem to have 90 min. cds , but the industry simply doesn't wanted it that way ... for obvious reasons !!! :-/ 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 ;-) *~\^/~*

7 26

Fake Florian Schneider
by Electram 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Florian Schneider won't like this... http://www.florian-schneider.com/ Marcelo Duarte Technopop Site Brasil

4 3

Re: Re: [Kraftwerk] Fake Florian Schneider
by Dirk Matten 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Is this the brother of Florian Scjeider? http://www.helge-schneider.de/ Dirk kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com schrieb am 18.07.02 20:52:59: > He's no fake, he's just an opera singer who happens to be named Florian > Schneider :) > It's not the most uncommon name in the world I guess, hehe.. > > Cheers, > Peo > > _______________________________________________ > Kraftwerk mailing list > Kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kraftwerk ______________________________________________________________________________ Seien Sie dabei und sichern Sie sich 500 WEB.Cent, 100% Leistung und 100% Vorteil. https://digitaledienste.web.de/Club/?mc=021110

1 0

RE: [Kraftwerk] Fake Florian Schneider
by Figueroa Rene Marcelo 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Wow, at least this guy has more hair ;) , really is a Florian Schneider's fake ? or 2 persons with the same name ? Marcelo Figueroa, Cordoba - Argentina -----Mensaje original----- De: Erik Jälevik [mailto:erik.jalevik@ntlworld.com] Enviado el: Jueves, 18 de Julio de 2002 14:31 Para: kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com Asunto: Re: [Kraftwerk] Fake Florian Schneider Haha! Brilliant, that made me laugh. Anyone familiar with this fake Florian's work? :) Erik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Electram" <electram(a)terra.com.br> To: <kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:55 PM Subject: [Kraftwerk] Fake Florian Schneider > Florian Schneider won't like this... > http://www.florian-schneider.com/ > > Marcelo Duarte > Technopop Site > Brasil > >

1 0