Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
that's the point ! no weird interference (or even better : the right interference) It's the same when you hold a mic close to the speaker (you'll get a feedback loop) Also that's the same with bootlegging from vinyl I've seen a lot of speakers wobble with little to no bass in the track (but there are many factors that could create that) But if a track is mastered right (and played on a good setup and system) it will let the solid kick or bass be redirected back to the needle, creating a massive solid bass. But you're also right about isolating your sl's I have played on numerous 'spring' isolated tabel setups and although I hate the unsteady sl's I love the solid sound it produces. (and raises the dynamics of a record and creating a major different than played from Dat or live :-) Anybody heard those jimmy jams breaks ?? that's rock solid ! finest mastering I've heard ever ! DMT n.p. petestrumentals - Original Message - From: Michael Kim [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. this would most likely, in effect, damp the resonances. in other words, making sure the table is very heavy would most likely damp a lot of the vibrations (although the bricks most likely would transmit a lot of it). i say isolate the table as well as possible. while a trick like that might be cool nothing is worse than having a needle jump. Mike From: DJ DMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313 detroit 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:12:46 +0200 I can make a nice drawing of this but it's actually true I've tried certain setups where it came clear to me that resonace injected from the speakers react different to the needle through wood, metal or bricks. just make shure that the table you place you're 1200's on is heavy with lot's and lots of bricks But maybe you can tell me something about th'm different frequenties the quartz resonates to ? dmt - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. needle resonance can add dynamics if mastered properly. 154 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. your answers
actually, the machines producing your favorite sounds are producing AT LEAST, and DONT ARGUE 24bit sound, sometimes even at 48000 or higher khz. when this is mixed down professionally and PRESSED (NOT BURNED, DIGITALLY) to vinyl, that sound is kept, because of it's format. speakers are analog, and they must put out analog sound. therefor, when your CD plays, the data is converted by the speaker so it can play. when you burn higher quality music to a cd, the quality is automatically dithered to 16bit, sometimes with adverse effects. the vinyl produces a sound for the speakers, that digital can only emulate, and can for the most part only reach 16bit quality. say you like the quality of the cleanest CD you've ever heard, now imagine TWICE that quality! kinda hard.. huh maybe that's why people tend to go crazy to the vinyl - Original Message - From: --autopilot-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. I think alot of the quality of the audio goes out the window after digital quantizantion. Something I don't understand here - so much music is made with samplers and other digital devices, so presumably the sound coming out is quantised to 16-bit/44.1KHz by definition anyway - how can writing that quantised sound onto vinyl suddenly give it a better dynamic range / quality ? I suspect there's a bit of retro-fetishism going on here (not that there's anything wrong with that - just that vinyl rules for reasons other than sound quality). Debates r.e. the quality of mp3 files are mainly irrelevant at present since the primary point of mp3 files is swapping, i.e. you take what you can get in terms of bitrate. Sure, higher bitrates sound better, but most extant files are lower bitrate. Since it's a lossy compression system there will always be a difference, and the louder the P.A. the more audible that difference will be. Personally I'm not ready to make the switch yet, though I do play with WAVs off a puter. :-) (-: Ash --autopilot-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.autopilot.co.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. your answers
don't argue? --- Joel Reitzloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually, the machines producing your favorite sounds are producing AT LEAST, and DONT ARGUE 24bit sound, sometimes even at 48000 or higher khz. First, CD Quality is 16 bit, 44.1khz. 48khz is NOT enough of a difference that you would be able to hear it (I'd give you the math proof, but it's a bit geeky and only the people that already know it would understand it anyway.. has to do with the relationship of the sampling frequncy to the frequencies percieved, and the shrinking perceptable detail range of higher frequencies)... As a matter of fact, 44.1khz is about twice what the average person is able to percieve, which is good enough to eliminate all perceptable aliasing anamolies... in other words, it's already well out of audible range, and the only reason it goes that high is to provide good detail and low noise in high frequencies that vinyl cannot even produce. If you tried to cut a vinyl with the amount of high frequency energy that a CD can reproduce, nobody could track it anyway.. you'd just have the record burn sound on a brand-new record. As far as perceptable audio quality goes, the dynamic range (the amount of audio content that can be percieved as far as amplitude is concerned) has far more to do with perceptable quality in the small differences we're talking about here. Every time you add a bit do the bit-depth, you DOUBLE the dynamic range available, which leaves much more room for detail across all frequencies. Going from 16 bit to 24 bit may not sound like a big deal, but it's a lot more than you think.. to put it in perspective, if you had a detail scale that was linear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit would be more like the difference between 16 and 4096 on the scale as far as the raw amount of information that can be reproduced. On the other hand, like the sampling frequencies, you probably COULD NOT hear the difference very well unless the detail level was doubled, so it makes more sense to relate it in smaller numbers. I know that I personally can tell a huge difference between 16 and 20 bit sounds (at high volumes and low signal levels), but I cannot hear much difference between 20 and 24 bit - until I've done mix-downs... it's important to mix and run any effects convolutions at higher bit-depth because every time you mix two signals, you lose HALF of the detail range. That adds up quickly. As for your don't argue comment - a LOT of producers are still using samplers from several years ago that sampled and played back at 16 bit.. and MANY of us are still using gear from the early 80's (even digital gear like my yamaha DX7 that's nowhere near 24 bit). The old analog gear never hits the digital domain until it goes through our A/D converters and into our digital mixing environments - at this point, it's usually at least 20 bit, and likely 24-32 bit conversion, and it doesn't drop down to 16 bit again until the CD master is burned... at which point, it's DITHERED to 16 bits, which is a process that preserves more of the sound's detail than would be preserved if we just smashed it into 16 bits and cut off the rest of the detail. This detail loss I'm talking about is mostly perceptable in high-frequency clarity (the types of frequencies that vinyl has never been able to produce), and dynamic range.. I am fairly certain that the dynamic range is more important to the fuller, warmer sound of analog gear than anything else.. there's no question that I can tell a huge difference between hearing an orchestra live and hearing an orchestra on CD. It sounds very flat on CD.. the sounds trail and fizzle and die prematurely.. it looses a smootheness and cohesion that you would have live. I think that vinyl does a better job of preserving this effect, but I can't tell you specifically how or why except maybe that digital is more discreete - no matter what those bits are, they never effect each other, whereas, on a vinyl cutting, the amplitude level of the audio a few miliseconds ago is still having an effect on the current level.. it causes a softening, or blurring effect, much like the effect you would see if a photographer intentionally blurred a photograph a little to make it softer and smoother. You can hear this effect yourself by listening to the difference between analog and digital clipping... Digital clipping sounds very harsh, similar to static on a television, only much more intense and solid.. there's NO smoothing going on. When you overdrive an analog input, clipping still occurs, but the signal levels from one moment to the next (we're talking miliseconds here) have more effect on each other, causing a warmer, smoother, and softer sound that's actually desireable in many circumstances. It sounds more organic and natural. when this is mixed down professionally and PRESSED (NOT BURNED, DIGITALLY) to vinyl, that sound is kept, because of it's format. Not exactly. Vinyl cannot reproduce high
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
this would most likely, in effect, damp the resonances. in other words, making sure the table is very heavy would most likely damp a lot of the vibrations (although the bricks most likely would transmit a lot of it). i say isolate the table as well as possible. while a trick like that might be cool nothing is worse than having a needle jump. Mike From: DJ DMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313 detroit 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:12:46 +0200 I can make a nice drawing of this but it's actually true I've tried certain setups where it came clear to me that resonace injected from the speakers react different to the needle through wood, metal or bricks. just make shure that the table you place you're 1200's on is heavy with lot's and lots of bricks But maybe you can tell me something about th'm different frequenties the quartz resonates to ? dmt - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. needle resonance can add dynamics if mastered properly. 154 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. your answers
uhh, no. no, no, and no. the 24-bit sound is NOT kept when pressed to vinyl, because the quality of sound is only as good as the weakest link, and that would be the quality of the vinyl press itself. the speakers don't do any conversions. the D/A converter in your electronics will do that (most D/A converters are in the cd player's circuits itself; if it has an analog output (RCA, XLR, 1/4, whatever) then you know the conversion already happened. digital reproduction is 'nearly' perfect. the level of distortion produced by quantization and filtering is so small it's not even funny. worry more about speaker distortions. what this has to do with 313 i don't know, but it had to be said. :) Mike From: Joel Reitzloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: --autopilot-- [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. your answers Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:23:38 -0400 actually, the machines producing your favorite sounds are producing AT LEAST, and DONT ARGUE 24bit sound, sometimes even at 48000 or higher khz. when this is mixed down professionally and PRESSED (NOT BURNED, DIGITALLY) to vinyl, that sound is kept, because of it's format. speakers are analog, and they must put out analog sound. therefor, when your CD plays, the data is converted by the speaker so it can play. when you burn higher quality music to a cd, the quality is automatically dithered to 16bit, sometimes with adverse effects. the vinyl produces a sound for the speakers, that digital can only emulate, and can for the most part only reach 16bit quality. say you like the quality of the cleanest CD you've ever heard, now imagine TWICE that quality! kinda hard.. huh maybe that's why people tend to go crazy to the vinyl - Original Message - From: --autopilot-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. I think alot of the quality of the audio goes out the window after digital quantizantion. Something I don't understand here - so much music is made with samplers and other digital devices, so presumably the sound coming out is quantised to 16-bit/44.1KHz by definition anyway - how can writing that quantised sound onto vinyl suddenly give it a better dynamic range / quality ? I suspect there's a bit of retro-fetishism going on here (not that there's anything wrong with that - just that vinyl rules for reasons other than sound quality). Debates r.e. the quality of mp3 files are mainly irrelevant at present since the primary point of mp3 files is swapping, i.e. you take what you can get in terms of bitrate. Sure, higher bitrates sound better, but most extant files are lower bitrate. Since it's a lossy compression system there will always be a difference, and the louder the P.A. the more audible that difference will be. Personally I'm not ready to make the switch yet, though I do play with WAVs off a puter. :-) (-: Ash --autopilot-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.autopilot.co.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
I can make a nice drawing of this but it's actually true I've tried certain setups where it came clear to me that resonace injected from the speakers react different to the needle through wood, metal or bricks. just make shure that the table you place you're 1200's on is heavy with lot's and lots of bricks But maybe you can tell me something about th'm different frequenties the quartz resonates to ? dmt - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. needle resonance can add dynamics if mastered properly. 154 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
I think alot of the quality of the audio goes out the window after digital quantizantion. Something I don't understand here - so much music is made with samplers and other digital devices, so presumably the sound coming out is quantised to 16-bit/44.1KHz by definition anyway - how can writing that quantised sound onto vinyl suddenly give it a better dynamic range / quality ? I suspect there's a bit of retro-fetishism going on here (not that there's anything wrong with that - just that vinyl rules for reasons other than sound quality). Debates r.e. the quality of mp3 files are mainly irrelevant at present since the primary point of mp3 files is swapping, i.e. you take what you can get in terms of bitrate. Sure, higher bitrates sound better, but most extant files are lower bitrate. Since it's a lossy compression system there will always be a difference, and the louder the P.A. the more audible that difference will be. Personally I'm not ready to make the switch yet, though I do play with WAVs off a puter. :-) (-: Ash --autopilot-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.autopilot.co.uk
RE: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
Debates r.e. the quality of mp3 files are mainly irrelevant at present since the primary point of mp3 files is swapping, i.e. you take what you can get in terms of bitrate. Sure, higher bitrates sound better, but most extant files are lower bitrate. Since it's a lossy compression system there will always be a difference, and the louder the P.A. the more audible that difference will be. Personally I'm not ready to make the switch yet, though I do play with WAVs off a puter. And the point of that finalscratch software is that it uses decks to manipulate ANY digital sound source i.e. 24bit 96khz Wavs if you wanted. But yeah I love analog and digital sound so more choice is better for me. Steve
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
needle resonance can add dynamics if mastered properly. 154
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
Ash wrote: Something I don't understand here - so much music is made with samplers and other digital devices, so presumably the sound coming out is quantised to 16-bit/44.1KHz by definition anyway - how can writing that quantised sound onto vinyl suddenly give it a better dynamic range / quality ? I always thought the same as well, but last year when we had the first Ground Zero and TechnoTourist releases cut, I became a convert (and I think Hans and KJ too). We had the tracks on DAT, listened to them in the cutting studio to determine the final EQ adjustments and they sounded good. Then they were cut and we briefly listened back to the lacquer and our collective jaws dropped in disbelief at how much better, deeper, warmer and groovier the tracks sounded. NSC's magic worked. Not much of an explanation, I admit, but still. Otto
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
I think alot of the quality of the audio goes out the window after digital quantizantion. Something I don't understand here - so much music is made with samplers and other digital devices, so presumably the sound coming out is quantised to 16-bit/44.1KHz by definition anyway - how can writing that quantised sound onto vinyl suddenly give it a better dynamic range / quality ? exactly - even the tracks made with all analgue synths and drum machines are generally mastered to DAT, which is if i remember right 16 bit 44khz, same as CD. then again, maybe those people who make vinyl masters know some sort of magic that un-quantizes your digital recording? yeah, that must be it. cause, y'know, vinyl is better. i hate technology, that's why i play techno!
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] needle resonance can add dynamics if mastered properly. Which raises the question, can needle resonance be simulated in a purely digital domain ? Or does it occur at frequencies above the audible / 22.05 KHz range ? After all, pickups are mechanical devices, so they should have quite low resonant frequencies. :-) (-: Ash --autopilot-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.autopilot.co.uk
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
.. which reminds me, *sort of* on topic, and *sort of* a plug, kinda... for those interested in new [digital] DJing technology and in the London UK area. As I've mentioned before, I'm currently working [privately] on an experimental DJ software project called hummingbird. Runs on a Wintel PC, controlled through a fostex midi controller, gives you 8 channels of wav audio, beatmatched offline, with much enhanced control over the music. Having 8 decks at your disposal (and being able to switch tracks in seconds) lets you play much more musically - the process is like live remixing as much as DJing. I'll playing an IDM/electro/eclectic set with the pre-alpha version in London on Friday April 20th, at a club called the Rhythm Factory. I'd very much like to meet and talk to others involved with or interested in new/digital DJ/performance tech, so if you're in the area, pop me a mail and I'll try and get you on the guest list - I think it's a fiver to get in otherwise cheers :-) (-: Ash --autopilot-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.autopilot.co.uk
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
At 08:21 AM 4/11/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: exactly - even the tracks made with all analgue synths and drum machines are generally mastered to DAT, which is if i remember right 16 bit 44khz, same as CD. dat can go up to 48khz sampling (same as most newer soundcards these days) (still 16 bit), but it's hard to hear the difference between 44.1 and 48k for me with anything less than headphones. (cd is still 44.1/16) then again, maybe those people who make vinyl masters know some sort of magic that un-quantizes your digital recording? yeah, that must be it. well, i'd think the actual cutting of the groove based on all the digital samples 'fills in' the spaces... this is not to say that a dsp that takes, say, a 44.1/16 input and interpolates it up to 96/24 and then dumps it out a high-quality d/a converter couldn't approximate the feeling. Also, there's all kinds of physics about the needle tracking the groove (the way stereo information is encoded in the groove, for example) that might have to be dsp-ified to get a noticeable effect Not that it'll ever be the identical due to the storage differences, but vinyl does have it's practical resolution limits... hopefully one day consumer-level digital audio stuff will be able to hold a candle to it. cause, y'know, vinyl is better. duh. :) i hate technology, that's why i play techno! rock on -j -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0x514DB5CB he who lives these words shall not taste death becoming nothing yeah yeah forever liquid cool
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
there´s more to vinyl than just the soundquality, keep listening to our stuff and find out..i don´t release much stuff on cd, otherwise u could hear the difference...there can b so much more sub and spatial highs because of needle resonance and stuffbig up to mike from SSR for showin us the way 154
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: there´s more to vinyl than just the soundquality, keep listening to our stuff and find out..i don´t release much stuff on cd, otherwise u could hear the difference...there can b so much more sub and spatial highs because of needle resonance and stuff... True, vinyl -- or at least new vinyl -- has higher audio dynamics than CD, but then these enhancements can only be realized with a proper (and more importantly, properly _tuned_) PA. Any other differences between vinyl and CD are due to mastering; processes which in turn can be encoded to a higher bit and frequency digitization and saved as files. So basically what I'm sayin' is that any quality that in the past was only achievable on vinyl can be done with digital; it just costs more to reproduce and play. This is the limiting factor of the moment but we all understand how these are only temporary obstacles. - Craig ps - systems like FinalScratch aren't limited to MP3, but can play WAV or AIFFs at any fidelity you choose
RE: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
Is anyone as excited about this stuff as I am? Just wondering.. / resume your activities. Same goes for me - bought a DVD player that reads MP3 CDs + have been owning a Lyra (1 hour of music) for more than one year now... Doesn't prevent me from still buying CDs to get a really good sound... To me, it's not bound to replace vinyl, CD or whatever - just one more format, one more way of listening to music, perfectly adpated to certain situations, not others... Gwendal
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
True, vinyl -- or at least new vinyl -- has higher audio dynamics than CD, but then these enhancements can only be realized with a proper (and more importantly, properly _tuned_) PA. Any other differences between vinyl and CD are due to mastering; processes which in turn can be encoded to a higher bit and frequency digitization and saved as files. I think alot of the quality of the audio goes out the window after digital quantizantion. they say it's an exacte replicas but I don't see how it can be. particular in the lower bit rates. the high end jest become swishy or staccato like. I think it's due to the fact the digital picture is very thin in the 16k and up. (but most people can not hear above 18k as an adult anyways) as with analog vinyl the signal never stops. but I don't want to start a dig/analog debate I sure that it has been play out on this list in the past. now I do know that older vinyl the highest frequency is 16.kHz 17 if the engineer is good. but in the 80's they had some more break through in riaa's curve for mastering vinyl to get a better bass response and I think they also boosted the high end up to around 18khz or 19khz? but I don't remember the audio class I had were we talked about this we pretty boring and I sometime drifted off to the innerzone. and as for mp3's the sound quality is not very good at all. unless you encode at a high bit rate and then whats the point there huge but I really don't want to go into my dislike of the audio qualities of mp3's. that debate has been played out here. Scott Laakso --- --- imajin/ imagine http://www.mp3.com/i_majin http://www.ampcast.com/imagine
Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are.
And most funny part is the quality I love claps the in realaudio format I don't know why but even the 'to polished' tracks tend to sound a bit gritty and compressed. I've also heard a lot of mp3 's recordings of 12 inches and they may differ a lot ! I also love the visuel feedback in the eq in winamp a real nice welcome tool on mastering and dynamic control can also make a track nice and gritty Dj DMT - Original Message - From: Scotto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [313] vinyl: not for me; but mp3 cds are. True, vinyl -- or at least new vinyl -- has higher audio dynamics than CD, but then these enhancements can only be realized with a proper (and more importantly, properly _tuned_) PA. Any other differences between vinyl and CD are due to mastering; processes which in turn can be encoded to a higher bit and frequency digitization and saved as files. I think alot of the quality of the audio goes out the window after digital quantizantion. they say it's an exacte replicas but I don't see how it can be. particular in the lower bit rates. the high end jest become swishy or staccato like. I think it's due to the fact the digital picture is very thin in the 16k and up. (but most people can not hear above 18k as an adult anyways) as with analog vinyl the signal never stops. but I don't want to start a dig/analog debate I sure that it has been play out on this list in the past. now I do know that older vinyl the highest frequency is 16.kHz 17 if the engineer is good. but in the 80's they had some more break through in riaa's curve for mastering vinyl to get a better bass response and I think they also boosted the high end up to around 18khz or 19khz? but I don't remember the audio class I had were we talked about this we pretty boring and I sometime drifted off to the innerzone. and as for mp3's the sound quality is not very good at all. unless you encode at a high bit rate and then whats the point there huge but I really don't want to go into my dislike of the audio qualities of mp3's. that debate has been played out here. Scott Laakso --- --- imajin/ imagine http://www.mp3.com/i_majin http://www.ampcast.com/imagine - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
