Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Yes! A complete signal chain with quality equipment is the best way to get your $whatever sound.
I've been writing and recording songs for most of my life, and have been all-digital for many years. By the time I kind of knew what I was doing, I took a step back and re-learned how to listen to music, with the question in my mind, "What the heck is wrong with how *my* stuff sounds vs. classic recordings?" The answer I arrived at was: The absence of analog saturation. All of the old-school analog hardware that all of the old beloved classics are recorded through *add distortion* in the form of the harmonics created by analog saturation. This distortion makes sounds more pleasing to human ears. I had lingered for years under the impression that leveraging the "exactness of digital" was a desirable achievement; but the "color of analog" is the secret audio sauce.
So, does vinyl "sound better" than digital? The "science of vinyl" shows that it absolutely cannot match the dynamics of a digital recording. Digital is capable of better stereo imaging; a 26db better dynamic range; and can reproduce a higher frequency bandwidth. Unfortunately, the superior specs of digital recording have been abused since the inception of CDs because of the so-called "loudness wars." Some early digital mastering engineer must have thought, "Thank goodness I don't have to worry about the needle jumping," and subsequently turned everything up to 11, forgetting what "dynamics" is all about. And so, dynamics did, in a sense, vanish from popular digital recordings. If you've only been exposed to digital re-masters that are louder and less dynamic than the original recordings, or contemporary music recorded digitally to be "loud" and "sound good on earbuds," I can see how the limitations of vinyl would represent a "more dynamic" sound to you.
The resurgence of vinyl seems-- at best-- a cute and hip marketing ploy to collect something, and "Sound Quality!" is the mantra of the suckers who own lots of vinyl. It's about the analog saturation and dynamics of the recording. And digital can reproduce that better than vinyl. I'd much rather collect music in a medium that sounds best, requires no physical maintenance, and will retain the quality of the recorded material forever, without degradation.
Maybe, one day, the loudness wars of the Music Industry will end, and great-sounding (and appropriately saturated) digital music will become the norm and sound awesome through an excellent set of speakers. Or earbuds. Or your little monophonic cell phone speaker.
As a musician, I've been in situations where someone tries out for my band. He has really nice gear, and can play some neat licks. But when it comes to playing an actual song, or even writing a part, it becomes clear that he doesn't really have any talent. He has definitely practiced and acquired some skill (and I'm not claiming to be some kind of prodigy), but I can detect that he isn't "feeling the music" and won't be invited back. TFA seems to summarize a scientific explanation for this type of "band tryout" story.
As a parent, I'm mindful of the balance between nurturing my child's perceived innate talent and getting her to try new activities until she can figure out what she likes. Hopefully, what she likes will relate to her innate talent so that she'll thrive rather than struggle.
Link to Original Source
Look, you can all sit there in your cynical, sarcastic universes, laughing at this poignant initiative; but I, for one, actively welcome the forthcoming Utopia, of which this is just one building block.
I'm holding out for Google 'Stache.
I have shelled out ~$140 to legally watch the first few seasons of a Showtime series which is currently in its last season. I would *gladly* pay to legally obtain access to the current season. Unfortunately, it is not available for me to do so. Therefore, I have to comb the internet every single week to find the new episode. This is becoming more and more time consuming and complex.
I'm curious about where the link to the legally available episode would point to? I assume that it would point to Showtime.com where I would be advised to contact my local cable company to purchase service and subsequently subscribe to Showtime. Suddenly legally purchasing one episode of a tv show becomes a several-hundred-dollar affair.
This seems wrong. Having cut the cable several years ago, this is the kind of punishment that I have been subject to repeatedly.
The government is very good at manufacturing reasons; that is why the 4th ammendment doesn't guarantee a right to privacy.
That's the first thing I wondered. Until I got my current job with a software company, I was around the same type of IT people. The big difference was that the IT department in my other companies was seen as a necessary expense in order to keep everything running. This tends to shape the attitudes of IT folks, who only get yelled at when stuff doesn't work but who otherwise are relatively invisible. The IT department in my current company absolutely must work in concern with developers, customer support, and executives because our infrastructure simply must support a complex, secure, and ever-changing environment.
Some of the wisdom that you will probably gain if you stick with it is that change in any IT infrastructure is absolutely frightening, be it hardware or software. Veterans understand that each and every piece of hardware and software is tweaked to meet the business requirements of your company, and any small change to anything can bring the whole thing down. Even an OEM-recommended upgrade to a server that has been tested thoroughly can have unexpected and disastrous results. An enterprise level OS upgrade is "nontrivial" and, if your system was already working with XP and there was no compelling reason to upgrade, their attitude is completely understandable.
As you learn how to coexist more peacefully with your IT co-workers, you will notice that everyone has specialized knowledge that everyone else relies on and respects. It is that specialized knowledge that makes them good co-workers. If you respect that and understand that--like you-- they are just doing their jobs, you will understand that the "pat on the back" you seem to desire will come in the form of their mutual respect.
Lastly, as someone you would consider an "older" co-worker, I would say that the any new workers who don't know The System have the potential to be relatively dangerous. They landed their respective jobs because they have lots of knowledge, but don't know enough about The System to understand why things are the way they are. So if you feel coddled or treated in some way that makes you feel under appreciated, I'm guessing it is because you haven't made any impression otherwise yet. You were just doing your job.
http://www.vhsps.com/ -- check it out.
"not getting the job done."
If there is anything impeding your ability to get your job done-- AND you wait until your performance review to say something-- I do not want you to work for me. That shows a complete misunderstanding of what it is to be an employee of a company.
If you inform your immediate supervisor that you are having trouble getting your work done, and s/he doesn't take action, then you need to go up the chain until you can find someone who will listen. However, you must also realize that it is perfectly legitimate for them to tell you to work within the constraints that you are given or get the hell out. You must also realize that the tool you "need" to get your job done might not actually be necessary or warrant an expense for the company.
If your company *truly* cripples employees' ability to get the job done, then you should jump ship anyway because it won't be long until they're out of business.
This looks like an example of the blind acceptance of perceived authority, like this guy's experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram
Of course there is an element of danger in publishing false facts under the guise of authority, because most human beings have no ability to objectively weigh facts and opinions against their own viewpoint to inform and evolve their own positions on various subjects.
This paragraph reminds me of a baseball game. Way too long, and packed full of stuff that makes me sleepy.
I won't, but I found it curious that Facebook recently attempted to convince me that I needed to add my home address and phone number to my profile to "make my account more secure."
Ah, you are outlining how you were victimized by a difficult childhood marked by irresponsible "adults," substance abuse, and the illegality of that substance. This is not-so-subtly similar to problems that exists in many other households where "pharmaceuticals" or "intoxicants" are readily available and abused by others.
Many of these substances have equally devastating results on children, even though they are legal. So, singling out marijuana, based on your singular experience, and arguing that it is any different, is simply misunderstanding the larger issues.