MOTM

Easy! Start another interesting discussion that isn't OT to distract us
bored posters!

Moe

> Can someone tell me how to get off this web graphics standards discussion
> list?
>
> David.
>

On Fri, 26 May 2000, David Bivins wrote:

> Can someone tell me how to get off this web graphics standards discussion
> list?

  Heh heh.  There is an old story that goes around animation studio
circles that describes how the lead animator would ask the team members
what they least liked to draw.  The least favorite character, object, etc.
After getting the answers, the lead animator would then assign those very
disliked items to the people who mentioned them, explaining: "*every*
aspect or our work is important, not just the cool scenes.  Even if you
are sick of drawing doorknobs, I still expect to see the best damned
doorknobs ever drawn when this shows up on television." 

  Not trying to be critical here, but I think that, if folks are trying to
define ways to create MOTM-like panels, a well-defined, well-discussed
infrastructure of the procedures is as important as asking for feature X
to be included in the next module design.  That MOTM raises the level of
everyone else's work should make things like panel file formats
"on-topic".

  The animation story is true, by the way.  I friend of mine who worked
in the Japanese Animation industry from 1981 to 1986 had this very thing
happen to him!  I guess it is with a bit of synchronicity that the show in
question, called Urusei Yatsura, that I will now point out the composer of
most of the music for the TV shows, movies and direct-to-video releases.
His name is Anzai Fumitaka, and I first contacted him in 1985 about the
music he was doing for the show (still on-air at the time).  He has a
*glorious* studio, and a recent solo album of all-analog synthe.  (Well,
all of his stuff, soundtracks, etc. are analog synthe. :)

  Oh, I've already mentioned MOTM to him.  Seeing as he has Doepfer, Moog,
Roland, Paia and CML stuff, I figured he should at least be aware of the
best module series currently available. :)

http://www.sound.co.jp/~f_anz/English/

Crow

/**/

Can someone tell me how to get off this web graphics standards discussion
list?

David.

Great story Old Crow, true words, but I thought the discussion I was
smart-assing about was about how to get Paul's MOTM catalog PDF smaller in
size, not about the actual panel graphics as screen-printed onto metal. I'm
actually very interested in the latter discussion!

How small can a simple oscilloscope be made? I.e. not the full complement of
features. Could we fit one into a 3U panel?

>   Not trying to be critical here, but I think that, if folks are trying to
> define ways to create MOTM-like panels, a well-defined, well-discussed
> infrastructure of the procedures is as important as asking for feature X
> to be included in the next module design.  That MOTM raises the level of
> everyone else's work should make things like panel file formats
> "on-topic".
>

This question is especially for Bald Bastard and Puffboy, on account of
I've listened through most of their stuff on MP3.com.  Makes great coding
music.  (I've only listened at work so far because I don't have a real net
connection at home.)

Anyway - How close do your MP3s sound to what you think of as your 
"real" track?  I have a roommate who has encoded much of his music as MP3
and he spends a great deal of time delicately tweaking the encoder to get
exactly the sound he wants.  Indeed, when he first started using it, the
results didn't sound that much better than a high-bandwidth RealAudio.
Now, the MP3s sound good, but since the format was developed to encode pop
with vocals and such, I just wonder - how good do _you_ think it
sounds?  Does it faithfully reproduce the special qualities of the MOTM?
Do you have to work hard to get the sound?

I'm also aware that, if it doesn't sound right, that is likely because I'm
using a workstation PC with a piece of junk motherboard sound chip; the
few MP3s I've downloaded at home sound rather cleaner on that machine, and
it's only got a thirty-dollar Creative Ensoniq AudioPCI.

(The roommate in question is Loren Wilson, and his music is at
http://loren.uchicago.edu/.  A track of ours appeared on Analogue Heaven
Tape Compilation 4 as Coaster: $hkpkax_python.  He hasn't used my MOTM for
anything yet, but he does share our affection for sophisticated synths -
right now he's trying to decrypt his Yamaha FS1R.)

peace,
Chris Jeris

Hi Christopher:

I've found that although encoding a track to mp3 doesn't do *too* much
damage to it,
a lot of detail (esp in the high end) is lost.  This would show itself
especially on subtle sounds
(READ: MOTM)   Depending on the encoding bitrate (I usually do 128),
sometimes the high end sounds a little saturated, or in extreme cases, I get
phasing / flanging.

That being said, sometimes I like my music BETTER after it's been encoded.
I think that encoding
music does some sort of black magic multi-band compression, and that
combined with a little high-end
saturation gives some of my tracks a really neat sound.

I *can* tell a difference.   It doesn't sound "right" if you are comparing
it to the original, but it's really
not that bad in most cases.  If you buy a cd from mp3.com (BUY MINE, BUY
MINE!), it still sounds
very good.  I have 2 of Bald Bastard's cd's (BUY HIS BUY HIS!)and I listen
to them all the time &
they sound like "cd quality". but, I bet if I compare them to the originals,
they won't quite sound the same.

Anyways, the purpose of mp3's for me is to let the world hear my music
through the net, and I think for
that purpose, it's great.  When I send demos or masters off to Labels, I
wouldn't send an mp3.  I always
send cd's....

I Hope that this kind of answered your question...?

-paul
http://mp3.com/puffboy   (for music)
http://puffboy.com     (for pics, etc)
(who also runs the Analogue heaven Radio Station on mp3.com
http://mp3.com/stations/ah)




----- Original Message -----

From: "Christopher Jeris" <cjeris@...>
To: <motm@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 3:48 PM
Subject: [motm] [Semi-OT] MP3ing MOTM music


> This question is especially for Bald Bastard and Puffboy, on account of
> I've listened through most of their stuff on MP3.com.  Makes great coding
> music.  (I've only listened at work so far because I don't have a real net
> connection at home.)
>
> Anyway - How close do your MP3s sound to what you think of as your
> "real" track?  I have a roommate who has encoded much of his music as MP3
> and he spends a great deal of time delicately tweaking the encoder to get
> exactly the sound he wants.  Indeed, when he first started using it, the
> results didn't sound that much better than a high-bandwidth RealAudio.
> Now, the MP3s sound good, but since the format was developed to encode pop
> with vocals and such, I just wonder - how good do _you_ think it
> sounds?  Does it faithfully reproduce the special qualities of the MOTM?
> Do you have to work hard to get the sound?
>
> I'm also aware that, if it doesn't sound right, that is likely because I'm
> using a workstation PC with a piece of junk motherboard sound chip; the
> few MP3s I've downloaded at home sound rather cleaner on that machine, and
> it's only got a thirty-dollar Creative Ensoniq AudioPCI.
>
> (The roommate in question is Loren Wilson, and his music is at
> http://loren.uchicago.edu/.  A track of ours appeared on Analogue Heaven
> Tape Compilation 4 as Coaster: $hkpkax_python.  He hasn't used my MOTM for
> anything yet, but he does share our affection for sophisticated synths -
> right now he's trying to decrypt his Yamaha FS1R.)
>
> peace,
> Chris Jeris
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FREE 16 track CD with Purchase at Virgin Megastore Online!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4208/5/_/529958/_/959381320/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>