July 2002 - Kraftwerk - mailman.xmission.com

Re: Komputer
by Sergi G. Reniu 22 Jul '02

22 Jul '02

> > My beef with Komputer was that they had ripped off Kraftwerk > > and apparently denied any influence, thus commiting plagiarism > > - the bad kind of ripoff. > >well ... as komputer are from england ( or @ least from the u. k. ;-) , >they >have a certain kind of humor that some people jus' don't seem to understand >... >& that's also the main reason , why their comments about kw were totally >misinterpreted ... first by the journalist , who's interviewed them & later >by >the folx , who read his article !!! :-o Mmmmm... Komputer denying KW influence? Well its so obvious that they owe all they are to KW, but they say just the opposite thing... it must be something called er...I dont remember now...when literally something means exactly the opposite as it REALLY means...ooooh! Its called irony! But I dont think using irony has nothin to do with being from UK... See ya! _________________________________________________________________ Charle con sus amigos online usando MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

1 0

Re: Komputer
by Oh Jay 22 Jul '02

22 Jul '02

From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs(a)cuug.ab.ca> > My beef with Komputer was that they had ripped off Kraftwerk > and apparently denied any influence, thus commiting plagiarism > - the bad kind of ripoff. well ... as komputer are from england ( or @ least from the u. k. ;-) , they have a certain kind of humor that some people jus' don't seem to understand ... & that's also the main reason , why their comments about kw were totally misinterpreted ... first by the journalist , who's interviewed them & later by the folx , who read his article !!! :-o anyway ... yes , komputer once were known as fortran 5 , but i liked that project more than i like komputer , albeit they've made a more or less decent album !!! ;-) 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 ;-) *~\^/~*

2 1

KW concert warm up music.
by Enrique Correa 22 Jul '02

22 Jul '02

Ever wondered if you were picked to be a warm up DJ for a Kraftwerk concert? (Yes, daydreaming again...) My blend would probably include several tunes from the following artists: Autechre, Aphex Twin, Higher Intelligence Agency, William Orbit, Boards of Canada, Monolake and Anthony Rother among many many many others. I'd leave Elektric Music, Komputer and Yamo out for obvious reasons... don't want to piss Ralf and Florian off :-) Anyone knows if R&F actually bring their own DJ / warm up tape, or the venue provides them with one? E

4 3

Komputer
by Oystein Moe 21 Jul '02

21 Jul '02

Can you verify that the members of Komputer were previously known as Fortran 5? This is another rumor I've heard. I highly enjoyed Fortran 5's album "Blues". >From what I heard, it's one guy from Fortran and one from I Start COunting? Inerestingly, especially regarding their Kraftwerk influence, they kind of knocked my feet away from underneath me during that interview, as they DENIED having been in other groups of interest before... ...so maybe they have said something about not being inf'ed by Kwk after all, and hoped the claim was so preposterous we'd know they were joking? It could be, I haven't seen this interview either, but for any band playing synths it would be either stupid or witty denying a Kraftwerk influence. Period. And now, even though it's late, I'm going to play Singapore rather loud and dance in my special Andy McCluskey'esque fashion. It's raining outside. Goodnight my brethren, Oystein _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

1 0

Re: (hd)cds vs. vinyl ... or digital vs. analog
by jtalbert 21 Jul '02

21 Jul '02

> Now I'm starting to get a better picture of the problem. From what you're > saying, the real issue is not the recording media alone, but matching an > individual pair of ears to the audio engineer's performance on the > recording instruments. Somewhat. The whole audio production and consumption process is a complex one from the moment a musician plays or sings a note until the final sound emanates from a sound system chosen by a single listener. All through the chain, many people use their perception of sound to shape the result. In the end, the listener perceives the final result in his or her own way - a result that can be further skewed by the type of playback hardware, listening environment, mood, etc. > That explains why some people spend $80,000 on a high-end stereo system > and are still unsatisfied with the sound. High quality is not necessarily > the best for a particular person. It's just more likely to be good. That's exactly correct. As shocking as it may seem, some people consider music nothing more than background noise (gasp) and might forever be happy listening to 24 hour talk shows on a $5 radio! On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who can't live without good music and perfect sound who also happen to have the funding to pursue audio excellence at any expense. The rest of us fall somewhere in between these two extremes. And in actuality, none of these viewpoints is more valid than the other. > > I wouldn't say that it's psychological. Its just that everyone has > > different hearing capabilities as well as different listening environments. > > For instance, if a person has ultra sensitive hearing in the mid frequency > > range, that person may be more likely to chose a system that has the side > > effect of "cutting" the mid-range. A system that accurately reproduces > > midrange may actually hurt this person's ears or be perceived as boxy. > > Isn't that what graphic equalizers are for, though? Sure, an EQ can rectify this, but not everyone knows what one is or even how to use it properly (some people only understand treble and bass). Then again, there are others (some purists, some not) that consider the usage of EQ as sacrilege! And so, because of the weaknesses of our human perception, we sometimes purchase the components that "seem" to sound the best to our personal perceptions rather than buy additional units like an EQ to make up what "seems" to be a deficiency of some other component. > > Not quite so. For the perceiver, perception IS reality an thus not so > > irrelevant. > > I see. You're very good at explaining these things. Thanks! You're quite welcome. > > Again, this is a process of mastering (final sweetening > > of the mix prior to duplication and release). Its really hard > > to explain. But if a recording did not have it, digital or analog, the > > music may sound flat. > > The things they don't tell you. Incredible, isn't it? And amazingly, there's even much more than we've discussed - some are even considered closely guarded secrets of the industry! > Now I'm wondering what really goes into my McDonald's hamburgers. :) Some things are best never to be questioned! :-D > > Try just going into a store that sells high end gear and test some > > of this stuff out we're talking about. You will hear the difference. > > You may not be able to justify the costs, but at least you'll know. > > I'm not good at bluffing the salesbeasts, and they always pounce on you in > those places. Yes. This is true. I suppose the key is to go there when customer outnumber the salepeople. That may lower your chances of getting pounced upon. :-P > > You've said nothing that has offended me. I think you have been > > very friendly and I've heave greatly enjoyed the debate. > > Thanks. You're a pleasure to converse with. I thank you. > > A ha! That would be considered having a master then! > > I guess that settles that then. :) Whew! :-) > > Yes. There is much more processing of audio than you may have > > realized prior to the time it lands on a CD or vinyl. And depending > > on the final format (CD or vinyl), the process can be different. > > Now I understand why people compare different releases of the same > material even on CD. Indeed so. Its been fun, Soleil! Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/

2 1

( OT ) Re: what's "better" ??? can u define it ???
by Oh Jay 21 Jul '02

21 Jul '02

From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs(a)cuug.ab.ca> > Please be careful with your attributions, OJ. > I'm not the one who wrote that. INDEED_!!! >:-O i'm sorry , as i've realized this jus' after i've already send out my message to the list that it was originally written by "mr. efofex" ( ;-) & only quoted again in one of your replies !!! :-o anyway ... it would be nice , if "mr. efofex" could edit his replies a lil' more clearly & indicate to whom he's actually replyin' & also leave a space between his reply & the quoted text above his reply then !!! [ ... ] > Just gotta have the last word, eh? :) well ... i could accuse u of the same then !!! *BWG* ;-))) > You're a fine one to talk about bias after all that flamage surrounding > the list switchover. HUH_??? >:-O fyi : the list switchover was simply necessary , as the ol' majordomo list had some major malfunctions & some messages never appeared on it , as we all hopefully remember !? so what the heck are u talkin' about in this case , mr. lapierre ??? *jus'_curious* how can u say that i'm biased in that case ... anyway ??? *puzzled_look* > IYHO only. In the first place, my opinions were not deliberately > inflammatory. It was quite a while later that I finally remembered that > mailing lists tend to have more sensitive people than I'm used to, and > apologized. In the second place, my intent was not to annoy people but to > express my annoyance with what I saw as an unreasonably biased viewpoint. well ... what u see as "an unreasonably biased viewpoint" is A_PERFECTLY_REASONABLE_&_UNBIASED_VIEWPOINT ... not only imho ... as the discussion here has proven very effectively , but U_ALONE still seem to be way too stubborn to admit that u were simply WRONG with what u've assumed & have presented NO_REAL_ARGUMENTS_AT_ALL here & therefore only stoop down to a level of communication , where u can INSULT others , like me , with your pretty narrow-minded & - imho !!! - totally biased point of view , sorry !!! :-/ > For future reference, here is the actual definition of "troll": > > http://tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html that's what U are : A_TROLL in this definition ... @ least for me !!! PERIOD_!!! > Send me some money and I will. to buy a new stylus really ISN'T that expensive , mate !!! *G+* ;-) > Also don't forget some extra for a turntable, amp and speakers > since I obviously must not have any decent instances of those either. > Oh, and replacement records for my worn-out ones too. > Based on what others have said, $3,000.00 should do for a start. ha ... with the above UTTER_NONSENSE , u've jus' proven AGAIN , what kind of SILLY_TROLL u are then !!! *sigh* :-o ... & if u actually thought that it was somehow "funny" , then u've simply forgotten the smiley behind it !!! :-/ > No, but I have from CDs. *LOL* ;-))) do u actually know , what A_REAL_BASSLINE is then ??? *BWG* ;-))) i highly doubt so , as u obviously have only heard what u call A_BASS from such inferior 16 bit encoded standard cds , which is simply RIDICULOUS_!!! :-/ > Bass is kind of irrelevant to your points about signal reproduction > though, since low frequencies are much easier to record. if this is indeed true ( which it simply ISN'T , of course !!! ) , then please tell me WHY vinyl can reproduce such low frequencies MUCH_BETTER than ANY inferior cd EVER could , eh ??? *slyest_grin_u_can_imagine* ;-))) now ... U'RE_TRAPPED , mate !!! *hehehe* ;-))) so the conclusion of it simply is that as vinyl can reproduce such frequencies much better than a cd can , cds are inferior as their frequency range is simply SMALLER than the one of a vinyl ( i. e. analog ) record !!! *slyest_grin_again* ;-))) case closed !!! u're dismissed ... finally !!! > More undefined terms. are u man or machine then , mr. lapierre ??? *XLG* ;-))) > Anyway, I found this thread to be fun and informative. yeah ... mostly thanx to "mr. efofex" & peo , as they were the ones , who've added some really interestin' & also TRUE_ARGUMENTS to this discussion , which U_DIDN'T_!!! *sigh* :-o > I learned a few things to be sure, and I hope others did too. well ... what i've learned - especially from the debate with u !!! - is that it's rather pointless & fruitless to reply to such a biased & stubborn troll like u are !!! :-/ > I still think CDs generally sound better though. u are free to think / believe & also express this wherever u want , BUT ... you're NOT free to claim that u're right with what u assume , as u simply AREN'T right with it ... & are also NOT willin' to learn or to be convinced by some really good arguments , like they were presented here by "mr. efofex" or peo ... only for instance !!! *sigh* :-o p. s. : as i've written in one of my previous messages here , jus' ask ANY sound engineer about this matter & he'll tell u WHY analog ( vinyl ) is indeed still "better" than digital ( cd ) !!! *sly_grin* ;-) sorry , but my limited knowledge of the english language is sadly not enough to convince u of THE_PLAIN_FACTS_!!! *sigh* :-o case closed now ... @ least for me !!! 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 ;-) *~\^/~*

2 1

[OT] new song if interested.....
by The Claycomb's 21 Jul '02

21 Jul '02

If any one is interested I have a new song up.. right now it's up at Ampcast...... probably 10 more days until MP3.com....... Any who, "SoniQue Mystery" is a Q dominated song..... in fact all synth sounds are the Q and some percussion sounds are from the Q.... I did use MW 1 to back up one sound...... all other synth sounds are the Q!!! :D I programmed (((on the Q))) a sound like the snare effect/sound from "The Robots" and even used the Q's vocoder to make it sound even more authentic...... It's added along with several different snares...... Christian Claycomb UniQue Werkx http://www.ampcast.com/uniquewerkx http://www.mp3.com/christianac http://www.soundclick.com/bands/uniquewerkx_music.htm http://stage.vitaminic.co.uk/unique_werkx/

1 0

Komputer
by Oystein Moe 21 Jul '02

21 Jul '02

Now, Kraftwelt I know nothing about, or rather; what I know didn't encourage me to delve further into them. Bah, humbug. But when the Sun god has the impertinence to utter: >Komputer is the opposite. They sound a lot like Kraftwerk, but with >slightly cheesier modern techno sounds, and they have refused to >acknowledge that they're influenced by Kraftwerk. A couple of their >earlier songs are direct KW ripoffs - notably "Oh, Synthesizer" which >is >just a permutation of Kraftwerk's "Neon Lights". I beg to differ. I've interviewed them (late '98, they toured and played Oslo, unlike most bands), and they talked quite a bit about their obsession with Kraftwerk. Yes, and other bands, like the ones they mention on Mute's site, But if you're uncertain about where they "come from", take a look at their name, f'chrissake. Not Computer Magic Orchestra. Not Computelex. K-omputer. Gettit? Rewriting Kraftwerk's songs, as indeed they have done, is a more mature, more dignified and more musicianly tribute to Kraftwerk than merely doing their songs. (Which, as most will agree, has been done immaculately by, yes, Kraftwerk). The World of Tomorrow is Highly Recommended. If you recognize a riff here and a chord change there, know that they want you to. So there. Oystein _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

4 3

Re: (hd)cds vs. vinyl ... or digital vs. analog
by jtalbert 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

> Good point, but those are all quantifiable attributes. The vinylists > keep appealing to attributes they can't even define, let along quantify. > Things like "clarity" and "warmth" and "air". Yes, my friend, those attributes are indeed difficult to define. It's always hard to describe subject things. But these are true attributes of audio. And it has taken many audio engineers many years to learn their craft because there are no books that describe what these attributes really are and how to get them. Its learned by word of mouth and thousands of hours in from of a pair of speakers. > By objective standards I was referring to measurement of the accuracy of > sound reproduction - ie, the difference between what the musicians played > and what the home audience heard. Not at all easy to measure, but still > possible. Yes. It is easy to measure. But again, were talking about two imperfect audio formats - analog and digital. There are different benefits and drawbacks to each. And everyone's ear will perceive these nuances differently regardless of what which format a measuring device says is best. Its an age old problem. > Yes indeedy. I'm quite happy using my portable MP3 player to take my > music to work or school. It helps keep the work flowing to have a beat to > listen to. I'm sure we all dance in our office chairs from time to time. > :) Whew. I could never get away with dancing in my office chair! :-) But I do take music with me everyone I go. > > Inside the head or not, this is how we listen to music. > > Oh, I'm not disputing that. I hear those things too. I'm disputing whether > it's measurable or psychological. If it's psychological, then it's > irrelevant to choosing a system because it's not actually a property of > the music the system produces. I wouldn't say that it's psychological. Its just that everyone has different hearing capabilities as well as different listening environments. For instance, if a person has ultra sensitive hearing in the mid frequency range, that person may be more likely to chose a system that has the side effect of "cutting" the mid-range. A system that accurately reproduces midrange may actually hurt this person's ears or be perceived as boxy. There just is no standard that can please everyone. I *thought* I once hear you say (forgive me if it wasn't you), that you liked bass in your music. Well, there are people who find heavy bass to be "boomy." Its an endless subjective chain. Welcome to the world of sound. :) > If it's measurable, then it becomes part of > an impersonal test to determine the system's quality of sound > reproduction. And if it's both, which it probably is, it makes no > difference because the psychological part is irrelevant and the real part > can be measured. Not quite so. For the perceiver, perception IS reality an thus not so irrelevant. > > [URL may wrap] > > http://www.audiomedia.com/archive/features/uk-0799/uk-0799-warmth/uk-0799-w… > > Good article, but it doesn't mean much to me. He seems to be > saying that it's partly psychological - an attachment to the sound > you grew up with - and partly harmonic distortion, which is measurable. Yes. Its partly lots of things. Again, its hard to describe and measure because its different things for different people. For most of us on this list, Kraftwerk is great music, but I can believe there are those out there that would differ. Why, because they perceive what is good different than others. > Tape - ugh. I was a diehard cassette tape fan for years. It sounded > not quite as good as vinyl, but was more durable and vastly more > convenient. I resisted this newfangled CD thing for a long time. > Friends told me I'd be converted and would have a huge CD collection > in no time. And... they were right. It sounded soooooo much better > than all previous formats that it blew all my objections away. Now > tape sounds like telephone to me - very narrowband. In the pro audio world, tape does not refer to cassette tape. Tape refers to very expensive multi-track tape recorded and played on expensive machines which run at speeds far higher than the consumer cassette format. And since you mentioned tape - analog tape has one quality that digital cannot reproduce. That is, when one saturates analog tape, (turns up the input volume very loud), the resulting distortion is something that can be very musical. However, if digital audio is saturated, a harsh, unlistenable distortion occurs. As a result, digital audio must be artificially limited or reduced in volume on the way in. One out of place transient can ruin an otherwise good recording. > Now I occupy myself with resisting DVD technology on principle. I've > experienced it, and found it good, but those MPAA crooks need to be > under 6 feet (of dirt) before I'll give them any money. :) I don't want to resist the technology, but I do completely agree with you on the MPAA! ;-) > I don't quite understand. If it has to do with power within a certain > frequency range, then why not measure those levels during the performance > and again during playback and compare the measurements? But sometimes air has to be added to the recording to make it sound more professional. It doesn't always occur naturally in the recording processes. Again, this is a process of mastering (final sweetening of the mix prior to duplication and release). Its really hard to explain. But if a recording did not have it, digital or analog, the music may sound flat. > This will necessarily be a test left until my (hopefully early and > wealthy ;) retirement. I just hope my ears haven't degenerated too much by > then. Try just going into a store that sells high end gear and test some of this stuff out we're talking about. You will hear the difference. You may not be able to justify the costs, but at least you'll know. > Good speakers need to come even before that. A friend introduced me to the > Sony MDR-D33 eggshell earphones, and I was blown away by the difference > they made. Fortunately they had fallen to a reasonable price by virtue of > having been discontinued, and I managed to snag one of the last pairs in > the city. :) See! The components in an audio system really do matter. You may not have realized what you were missing before getting the new headphones. And in reality, it can get better form there. You really do get what you pay for. If you knew all the corners companies cut in order to mass produce "consumer" grade products, you'd be amazed. We've all been burned by that in one way or another. > True, true. Sound is important to me too, but as a student > I can't afford to spend progressively larger amounts on > progressively smaller improvements in sound quality. I can completely understand this. > I tend to pounce on people who go around asserting things that I consider > untrue or misleading, that's all. Consider it debate practice - win or > lose, it's a learning experience. Apologies if I've punctured any > thin skins. You've said nothing that has offended me. I think you have been very friendly and I've heave greatly enjoyed the debate. > But if the transmitting device is a CD, which I assumed from context, then > you simply change the motor speed or skip a rotation if the buffer fill > level becomes a problem. Suffice it to say that digital audio is really not as simple as it may seem. In the interest of not putting everyone (including myself) to sleep, its probably best not to delve into the specifics. > In the more general situation, then instead of a master clock you need > an asychronous protocol. When the FIFO gets too full, it tells the data > producer to pause briefly. A ha! That would be considered having a master then! > To avoid jitter, data transfer only needs > to be perfectly synchronous during A/D and D/A conversion. Exactly. Hence the need for a master clock. We're not talking about copying digital WAV files (which is a simple process). We're talking about real-time conversion. When one is converting audio in real-time (either from analog to digital or the reverse) things become much more complex. > > http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/ > > Whew! I'm relieved to see that it's actually from the MPEG. I was afraid > for a moment there that it was some proprietary Microsoft format. Yikes! I shudder at the thought! > So then the recording and mastering system is essentially being used as a > musical instrument itself - a complementary one that adjusts the output of > the other instruments. This I did not know. No wonder people are left > trying to find playback equipment that matches the recordings. Yes. There is much more processing of audio than you may have realized prior to the time it lands on a CD or vinyl. And depending on the final format (CD or vinyl), the process can be different. > > available. For 32 bit and higher, you'd need the raw audio files and > > in some cases, the matching software to play them with. > > Also some kind of super-expensive sound card, I'm sure! Well, there are sound cards that are mid priced (under $1000) that are 24 or 32 bit and have reasonably good convertors. But the really good stuff is far more expensive. In general, the more expensive, the better the convertors and the better the quality of the digital output. If you want to experience great digital audio, unfortunately, that is the only way. Consumer electronics always fall short because of the compromises in the components. Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/

2 1

( OT ) my ( hopefully !!! ) final message concernin' the analog vs. digital debate ...
by Oh Jay 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

sorry y' all , but i simply couldn't bite my tongue , as long as this troll called soleil is annoyin' us on this list with his totally biased nonsense replies any longer !!! *grumble* :-/ From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs(a)cuug.ab.ca> > I am not a troll. Trolls are those who start new threads with deliberately > inflamatory remarks intended only to irritate people and/or draw > attention. That's entirely different from posting your opinion on an > existing topic. At least learn the definitions of your insults before > using them. sorry , but imho , u PERFECTLY fit the above definition of a troll ... albeit it wasn't u , who's started the topic , but it was U alone , who's started to CONSTANTLY_ANNOY people like me here with your "deliberately inflammatory remarks" then !!! :-/ that's why i'm NOT goin' to answer your message ( or ANY future messages from u concernin' this topic here or in private !!! ) any further , as it's jus' a pure waste of time to convince such a totally stubborn & biased person like u that he's WRONG with almost ev'rythin' that he's posted in this case here !!! *sigh* :-o btw : i highly suggest that u buy yourself a new stylus & play your vinyl records again then , as your ol' one seems to be too dirty or already completely damaged !!! *slyest_grin* ;-))) MAYBE that'll convince u that vinyl is "better" than cd ... finally !!! *hopeful_look* p. s. : have u EVER actually felt THE_BASS that comes from a good vinyl recordin' ??? *jus'_curious* ;-) however ... where analog has "soul" , digital is "cold" !!! *utmost_convinced_look* over & out !!! oh jay *~\^/~*

2 1