MOTM

Anybody download & listen to the '420 demos yet?

Paul S.
awaiting feedback

I did. #4,5 and 6 won't play. For some reason when opened in winamp they are 
0 bytes long. The others are superb. If this is the poorest circuitry,(as 
described on the web page) I can't wait for the 410. I can't wait to get my 
420's built up.

Time is too slow for those who wait.

Jim


>From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
>Reply-To: motm@onelist.com
>To: "MOTM listserv" <motm@onelist.com>
>Subject: [motm] Well??
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:05:52 -0500
>
>From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
>
>Anybody download & listen to the '420 demos yet?
>
>Paul S.
>awaiting feedback
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ONElist:  the best source for group communications.
>http://www.onelist.com
>Join a new list today!


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

They all played for me just fine. James must have had a download problem.
They sound great; I've never used a MS-20. I had no idea it sounded so
brittle! It's almost like a different flavor of the 303 filter, but with a
steeper slope to it.

Paul--is the wavering a characteristic of the filter or did you have too
much caffeine before touching the knobs? Really, I'm serious.

Thanks,
David.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: james holloway [mailto:jimh54@...]
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 2:21 PM
> To: motm@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] Well??
>
>
> From: james holloway <jimh54@...>
>
> I did. #4,5 and 6 won't play. For some reason when opened in
> winamp they are
> 0 bytes long. The others are superb. If this is the poorest circuitry,(as
> described on the web page) I can't wait for the 410. I can't wait
> to get my
> 420's built up.
>
> Time is too slow for those who wait.
>
> Jim
>
>
> >From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
> >Reply-To: motm@onelist.com
> >To: "MOTM listserv" <motm@onelist.com>
> >Subject: [motm] Well??
> >Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:05:52 -0500
> >
> >From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
> >
> >Anybody download & listen to the '420 demos yet?
> >
> >Paul S.
> >awaiting feedback
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >ONElist:  the best source for group communications.
> >http://www.onelist.com
> >Join a new list today!
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Make your voice heard!
> http://www.onelist.com
> Sign up for the ONElist Weekly Survey.  Go to homepage for details.
>

[re 420 demos]

yeah.  _whoa_.  especially nos 3 and 6 are impressive.  (how much high
harmonic content didn't survive the transition to mp3 format?)

that's just one 420 module?

peace,

Chris

james holloway (11:20 AM 6/17/99) wrote:

 >I did. #4,5 and 6 won't play. For some reason when opened in winamp they
 >are 0 bytes long.

Winamp (v2.23) had problems with all of them for me. I think it's the 
decoder is choking on the 256k sample rate.

I'm running under WinNT 4.0 on a PII-333 and 128k, so it *shouldn't* be the 
CPU.

I ended up using MusicMatch Jukebox (http://www.musicmatch.com) which works 
fine. MusicMatch uses the Xing decoder which has proven pretty reliable 
everywhere.


Nice sounding filter Paul... :)


Mark

> From: Mark Pulver <mpulver@...>

> Winamp (v2.23) had problems with all of them for me. I think it's the
> decoder is choking on the 256k sample rate.
>
> I'm running under WinNT 4.0 on a PII-333 and 128k, so it
> *shouldn't* be the
> CPU.

I just downloaded 2.23 and played all of them fine. I'm using NT 4 Service
Pack 4, P2 300 with 128M.

I think you should try more RAM. You must have done some serious tricks to
get NT to run in 128k.

Nyuk nyuk,

Moe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Pulver [mailto:mpulver@...]
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 2:11 PM
> To: motm@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] Well??
>
>
>
> james holloway (11:20 AM 6/17/99) wrote:
>
>  >I did. #4,5 and 6 won't play. For some reason when opened in winamp they
>  >are 0 bytes long.
>
>
> I ended up using MusicMatch Jukebox (http://www.musicmatch.com)
> which works
> fine. MusicMatch uses the Xing decoder which has proven pretty reliable
> everywhere.
>
>
> Nice sounding filter Paul... :)
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for a new hobby?  Want to make a new friend?
> http://www.onelist.com
> Come join one of 170,000 e-mail communities at ONElist!
>

Dave Bradley (02:13 PM 6/17/99) wrote:

 >I just downloaded 2.23 and played all of them fine. I'm using NT 4 Service
 >Pack 4, P2 300 with 128M.
 >
 >I think you should try more RAM. You must have done some serious tricks to
 >get NT to run in 128k.

Well, I guess I should of pointed out that it's actually Linux running in 
128k on a 386, and I'm running an XServer to get a view of the NT box which 
is in that quad processor PIII-500 over there.



:) (whoops)

those dang k's and m's get me all the time...

good thing I've got a "Q" to save the day!

(ouch!)

In a message dated 6/17/99 8:59:11 AM, synth1@... writes:

>Anybody download & listen to the '420 demos yet?
>
>
>
>Paul S.
>
>awaiting feedback

WOW!!!!!!! I've only downloaded a few, but...with resonance like that, who 
heeds feedback!

Sorry! I'm missing Larry's "presence" this week.

BTW, to whom it may concern, I'm not sure if the RG-174 is really appropriate 
for patch cords. It seems as though guitar cable technology has really 
improved over the past several years with incredibly flexible materials. I 
assume that both the jacket material, as well as the conductors are more 
flexible, and don't breakdown over repeated flexings nearly as quickly as the 
"old timey" cable. I would trust Paul's judgment here (as always), or just 
buy a professional cable since they seem to be so cheap now.

So, to sum up, the 420s ROCK!
JB

JWBarlow@... wrote:
>
> BTW, to whom it may concern, I'm not sure if the RG-174 is really appropriate
> for patch cords. It seems as though guitar cable technology has really
> improved over the past several years with incredibly flexible materials. I
> assume that both the jacket material, as well as the conductors are more
> flexible, and don't breakdown over repeated flexings nearly as quickly as the
> "old timey" cable. I would trust Paul's judgment here (as always), or just
> buy a professional cable since they seem to be so cheap now.
>
I purchased three rolls of Canare Cable (GS-6). I was able to get red, blue,
and black. It is flexible and has a nice expensive feel. Audio quality is
better than anything I have used (which may not be saying much). I liked it
so much I've used it everywhere in my studio. Including patch cables. The color
coding is nice too. I originally made cables with ground not connected on one end
for my rack, and used blue. Red for patches and black for semi permanent
connections. Of course, it seems it would be nice to use color coding for
lengths; red for 1', blues 3', etc. This way when you're madly patching away
standing in a pile of cables you can look down and grab the right length.


> So, to sum up, the 420s ROCK!

Totally. I wonder what a fuzzed out guitar would sound like thru one of
these.

Thomas

> From: JWBarlow@...
> WOW!!!!!!! I've only downloaded a few, but...with resonance like that,
who 
> heeds feedback!
> 
> Sorry! I'm missing Larry's "presence" this week.

Thanks JB.  I am back!  Hopefully I will be getting those 420 files soon
(after I get all this mail caught up).

Larry H.