Dusty Chalk
Head-Fi-holic: With headphones would just be a benny.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 6,565
- Likes
- 15
Quote:
I don't know, I just remember reading that once. I got the impression from the article that it was fairly recent, like in the 90's, but it could have been as early as in the 80's. He's not old enough to have been fooling around with this **** back in the 70's. And no, he didn't make a whole freakin' synthesizer, the context of the statement was that he had a modular synthesizer, and that he had made his own modules for it, you know, like obscure waveshapers and rise-time filters, and oscillators etc. Quote:
Yeah, except that some people enjoy tweaking. RDJ is a serious tweakhead. Quote:
Nord Modular is 18 bits, 96 kHz: http://www.clavia.se/nordmodular/hardware.htm ; Kurzweil is 20-bit:
http://www.kurzweilmusicsystems.com/html/k2600r.html ; those are just two off the top of my head, but that's not even the point. Even if all the synthesizers you use are 16-bit, once you mix 'em, if you do it with high enough fidelity, it goes up. Quote:
First, most people who sample for themselves use 16/48. Most are 16/44.1 only because they use audio CD's. But since many of them are making the move towards computers (Gigasampler is very popular), there's no reason to stick with this, and now they use .wav files and such.
Secondly, what's funny is, once you get going in, for example, ProTools, you don't even need sound sources any more, so whatever the fidelity of the system is, is the fidelity that you end up dealing with, and has no bearing on what you start with. Quote:
Older only. No serious sample maven would put up with anything less than 16/48 unless he was deliberately going for that low-fi sound.
Look, whatever, you are absolutely right, it is impossible for an electronic musician to produce anything of merit, fidelity-wise. You are a DJ, you receive this drivel all the time, you should know. I will stop pestering you with information to the contrary. The fact that magazines use electronic music to test, for example, the tightness of the bass of speakers all the time probably does not mean anything, either. Goodnight.
Originally posted by tktran When was the last time he made a module? Or made extensive use of a module(s) in his works? |
I don't know, I just remember reading that once. I got the impression from the article that it was fairly recent, like in the 90's, but it could have been as early as in the 80's. He's not old enough to have been fooling around with this **** back in the 70's. And no, he didn't make a whole freakin' synthesizer, the context of the statement was that he had a modular synthesizer, and that he had made his own modules for it, you know, like obscure waveshapers and rise-time filters, and oscillators etc. Quote:
Today few people have the technical know-how to make brilliant synthesisers to compete with those of Roland, Yamaha, EMU etc and even if they could, investing all that effort into making a device takes a lot of time (a lot of musicians are more concerned with MAKING music) when it can be bought off the shelf... |
Yeah, except that some people enjoy tweaking. RDJ is a serious tweakhead. Quote:
[a lot of digital synthesizers are higher than 16/44.1 these days.] Which synthesier? |
Nord Modular is 18 bits, 96 kHz: http://www.clavia.se/nordmodular/hardware.htm ; Kurzweil is 20-bit:
http://www.kurzweilmusicsystems.com/html/k2600r.html ; those are just two off the top of my head, but that's not even the point. Even if all the synthesizers you use are 16-bit, once you mix 'em, if you do it with high enough fidelity, it goes up. Quote:
I know of DAWs use 20/24/32 bits for higher internal mixing precision. But their sources are usually at 16bit/44.1Khz. |
First, most people who sample for themselves use 16/48. Most are 16/44.1 only because they use audio CD's. But since many of them are making the move towards computers (Gigasampler is very popular), there's no reason to stick with this, and now they use .wav files and such.
Secondly, what's funny is, once you get going in, for example, ProTools, you don't even need sound sources any more, so whatever the fidelity of the system is, is the fidelity that you end up dealing with, and has no bearing on what you start with. Quote:
In fact a lot of samples are of lower bit/sample rate than this. |
Older only. No serious sample maven would put up with anything less than 16/48 unless he was deliberately going for that low-fi sound.
Look, whatever, you are absolutely right, it is impossible for an electronic musician to produce anything of merit, fidelity-wise. You are a DJ, you receive this drivel all the time, you should know. I will stop pestering you with information to the contrary. The fact that magazines use electronic music to test, for example, the tightness of the bass of speakers all the time probably does not mean anything, either. Goodnight.