Robin Bowes;380831 Wrote:
They can?
It all just goes to show how much tastes for music can vary. I can
whole heartedly agree with you that that Jordin Sparks/Chris Brown clip
doesn't demonstrate what I would identify as singing talent...
Robin Bowes;380831 Wrote:
This is singing
andynormancx wrote:
Robin Bowes;380831 Wrote:
They can?
It all just goes to show how much tastes for music can vary. I can
whole heartedly agree with you that that Jordin Sparks/Chris Brown clip
doesn't demonstrate what I would identify as singing talent...
Agreed.
Robin Bowes;380831
andynormancx;380952 Wrote:
Robin Bowes;380831 Wrote:
They can?
It all just goes to show how much tastes for music can vary. I can
whole heartedly agree with you that that Jordin Sparks/Chris Brown
clip doesn't demonstrate what I would identify as singing talent...
You're all
darrenyeats wrote:
Otis can sing, no doubt. But then if he'd lived today I'd hate to hear
his modern studio version of Try a Little Tenderness stamped out by a
mainstream music company. That was exactly my point - look what happens
to Chris Brown et al when they're arranged and produced by
Robin Bowes;381056 Wrote:
It seems that, for most RB singers, soulfulness is measured as a
function of how much they can warble around one note/syllableCouldn't have
said it better and if there's one thing that makes me
reach for the off button on a radio it's that warbling.
--
egd
Question:
Why doesn't the Music section of the forum rarely seem to have a
discussion this animated? I know that this discussion is completely off
topic but it's really been quite enjoyable and I'm glad to find that
there are other people out there who feel the same as I do with respect
to
ralphpnj wrote:
Which is not to say that I don't like my share of bad singers (does
the name Bob Dylan ring a bell?) but I will usually go with what I
perceive to be real emotion rather than the over singing which is
supposed to pass for real emotion most of the time.
+1.
Dylan can convey
Hi,
two questions, the first of which I think has the potential of creating
some debate:)
1. Does anyone have experience with the SeeDeClip-software?
http://www.cutestudio.net/data/products/audio/seedeclip/index.php
They claim to be able to sometimes recover some of the information lost
by
Sounds cool, but using the Red Hot Chili Peppers -Californication- album
as an example - it's cited prominently on the software's home page as a
user comment - the clipped samples are -gone-.
Not pining for the fjords.
Ceased to be.
An ex-parrot, err, sample.
So how can they be recovered
Robin Bowes wrote:
Leona Lewis is a superb singer
After the performance, singer Gary Barlow told Cowell, you've got a
big responsibility because this girl is probably fifty times better than
any contestant you have ever had on this show, and it's your
responsibility to make her the best
Robin Bowes;381123 Wrote:
Dylan can convey more reality/emotion in his croaking than many
singers ever can.
Sinatra wasn't a particularly good singer either, but he is a legend.
There are many more examples.
Tons more: there are some incredible singers that are technically
snarlydwarf;381129 Wrote:
What other 70+ yr old man can hold his own with Henry Rollins?
Lou Reed (but he's only 66 years old)
--
ralphpnj
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)
I think we all admit, it's a step in the right direction.
But it really wont affect my buying preferences until they offer
lossless. Until then (if?) I'll remain with the myriad of sources
already available.
--
kphinney
*-Hopefully a new trend:*- I'm not endorsing or advertising any of
teros;380875 Wrote:
Oh, I think that I grasp sampling theory pretty well.
Did you read the cited article?
The link doesn't work ... is it this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
If so - yes I have read it.
teros;380875 Wrote:
Do you believe that a signal that is
Anne;380668 Wrote:
Bugger, looks like I will have to bite the bullet and persuade the mrs.
to trade the SB3 for a Transporter. Will probably take a year or
so...because I thought I was smart to get an amplifier with a very good
dac in it.
Not necessarily. Reach out to the forum members
I'm in the process of installing a ventilation and air-conditioning
system in my music room and was wondering whether anyone knows offhand
what the Transporter's power consumption is.
Thanks, egd.
--
egd
Internet forums: conclusive proof depth of gene pool is indeed variable,
monkeys can be
Phil Leigh wrote:
what intersample effects? Do you think there is information
(different sample values) missing. There isn't. If there were, the
Shannon et al are completely wrong.
Agreed, @teros is tilting at windmills. More precisely, there is nothing
intersample in proper sampling, that is
egd wrote:
I'm in the process of installing a ventilation and air-conditioning
system in my music room and was wondering whether anyone knows offhand
what the Transporter's power consumption is.
Isn't it on the power plate? Mine is hard to get to, but I know it uses
less power than my cable
I'm with you guys about technically good singing. I think Neil Young is
amazing - saw him in concert in Munich and the first half was pure
heaven - although when he sings in tune that's just the law of
averages. :)
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz - Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) - PMC AB-1
ralphpnj;381116 Wrote:
Case in point: compare Holly Cole's singing to that of many of the more
popular female jazz singers (Diana Krall) for an example of what I'm
trying to say.
Holly Cole, eh? I'll have to have a listen. I could never get excited
about Diana Krall. I have a few old Peggy
pfarrell;381175 Wrote:
Isn't it on the power plate? Mine is hard to get to, but I know it uses
less power than my cable company's settopbox Thanks Pat, you are correct,
it's a paltry 10W.
--
egd
Internet forums: conclusive proof depth of gene pool is indeed variable,
monkeys can be
darrenyeats;381184 Wrote:
Holly Cole, eh? I'll have to have a listen. I could never get excited
about Diana Krall. I have a live recording of Peggy Lee singing I've
Got You Under My Skin - her voice is good but her timing is the
greatest. And just listen to this
Phil Leigh;381160 Wrote:
The link doesn't work ... is it this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
If so - yes I have read it.
Sorry. Nope, I mean the Practical Implications section of this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(information_theory)
In short, I agree
darrenyeats wrote:
Holly Cole, eh? I'll have to have a listen. I could never get excited
about Diana Krall. I have a few old Peggy Lee tracks - her voice is
good but her timing is the greatest.
Dianna Krall is great looking. But as a singer, well, she is great looking.
My stereo happens to
teros;381196 Wrote:
Sorry. Nope, I mean the Practical Implications section of this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(information_theory)
In short, I agree with you wholeheartedly that 44.1 captures all the
salient information of a band-limited (20-20khz) signal. No doubt
The first 45 I can remember listening to was Fever by Peggy Lee...
Carol Kidd's version of ...Under My Skin is magical.
as for challenging singers:
Tom Waits
Roger Chapman
Geddy Lee
hmmm
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd
Mark Lanctot;381127 Wrote:
The samples would have to be created somehow. I saw something about
FFT, and that's very nice, but they are still
guessed/interpolated/created from no real data. That data is just not
there anymore - it may hopefully exist on the masters but it sure
doesn't on
Definitely sounds cool, please keep us informed of your results!
--
Mark Lanctot
Current: SB2, Transporter, Boom (PQP3 - late beta)
Stored: Boom (PQP1 - early beta), SBC (beta - no battery)
Sold: SB3, Duet
Mark Lanctot's
ralphpnj;381194 Wrote:
one and only Billie Holiday - pure swing jazz heaven despite the rather
lo-fi recordings.
Without taking an atom away from Peggy Lee's World on a String, which I
do love, the live recording I mentioned of I've Got You Under My Skin
was actually Billie Holiday (curse my
Compression is NOT the same as clipping! In fact, the whole point of
compression is to maximize loudness without clipping.
You can't undo clipping, but you could mitigate the harsh sound of
digital clipping after the fact using DSP.
But this isn't going to fix a Red Hot Chili Peppers album.
I have been using DeClip Pro since last summer. I use it on Linux to
batch process clipped recordings, which means pretty much everything
released last ten+ years.
Even though the restored waveforms look impressive, I have tried to ABX
the result and I can't tell the difference on short tests.
pfarrell;381211 Wrote:
darrenyeats wrote:
Holly Cole, eh? I'll have to have a listen. I could never get
excited
about Diana Krall. I have a few old Peggy Lee tracks - her voice is
good but her timing is the greatest.
Dianna Krall is great looking. But as a singer, well, she is great
tot;381284 Wrote:
I have been using DeClip Pro since last summer. I use it on Linux to
batch process clipped recordings, which means pretty much everything
released last ten+ years.
Cool, I then have a first sanity-check type question. Does the DeClip
software leave non-clipping parts of
bhaagensen;381294 Wrote:
Cool, I then have a first sanity-check type question. Does the DeClip
software leave non-clipping parts of the music 100% unchanged? Or does
it do its thing with parts that are e.g. just heavily compressed?
(Yes I will try as soon as time allows)
Bjørn
I'm
Phil Leigh;381299 Wrote:
By the way, heuristic algorithm is code for a guess, based on some
rules we invented
Yes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. Lots of algorithms utilise
heuristics with great results. It all depends on how well one can
structure the domain specific information
bhaagensen;381303 Wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. Lots of algorithms utilise
heuristics with great results. It all depends on how well one can
structure the domain specific information needed to define one. As I
have no clue as to how one might guess what went on in the
I imagine uncompressing things (not many things are actually clipped)
would be very difficult so I'm not holding my breath.
Some processes aren't reversible. An example, I used to work at IBM
Hursley and they have massive, labyrinthine offices. On every corner
there are signs to direct you to
Alfafa;380394 Wrote:
I just don't understand why build a transporter with a 192kHz D/A and
then only clock it at 96kHz max. I don't understand that
This thread is getting long so I might have missed any replies to this.
192/24 requires a doubling of the data-rate compared to 96/24, not to
bhaagensen;381294 Wrote:
Cool, I then have a first sanity-check type question. Does the DeClip
software leave non-clipping parts of the music 100% unchanged? Or does
it do its thing with parts that are e.g. just heavily compressed?
It just drops the level of to have the room for restored
Phil Leigh;381299 Wrote:
I'm going to try it at the weekend but almost certainly it will have to
lower the overall level of the track in order to buy some headroom to
try and recover the clipped peaks.
By default it lowers the overall level to have room for the maximum
peak, but there are
pfarrell;381211 Wrote:
darrenyeats wrote:
Holly Cole, eh? I'll have to have a listen. I could never get
excited
about Diana Krall. I have a few old Peggy Lee tracks - her voice is
good but her timing is the greatest.
Apologies but I got my female singers confused, I meant Billie
darrenyeats;381338 Wrote:
Must...hold...myself...back. :)
Darren
DBT, Pro-audio, DBT, pro-audio, DBT, pro-audio, DBT, pro-audio.
--
ralphpnj
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)
darrenyeats;381338 Wrote:
Apologies but I got my female singers confused, I meant Billie Holiday
when I wrote Peggy Lee (although the Lee link is still fab). Maybe I'm
the one getting old (and crabby)?
Must...hold...myself...back. :)
Darren
Can you distinguish between Peggie and Billie
pfarrell;381211 Wrote:
Dianna Krall is great looking. But as a singer, well, she is great
looking.
On behalf of Canada, I would like to apologize
I'm surprised the US isn't invading us right now! First we send Celine
Dion, and now
--
DCtoDaylight
Audiophile wish list: Zero
pfarrell;381174 Wrote:
This is not to argue that 44.1kHz is the perfect sample rate. But if
you
think it needs to be higher, then you have to argue that there is
useful
information above 22kHz. I believe, without justification, that there
may be something between 20kHz and 40kHz, not much,
DCtoDaylight wrote:
The only caveat that I would throw into this, is to return the fact
that the Nyquist/Shannon limit is only mathematically correct for an
infinite number of samples. Without an infinite, or at least very long
series of samples, you cannot precisely define the amplitude of a
pfarrell;381446 Wrote:
What we fail to remember these days is that the RedBook spec was
publicly released in 1980. At that time, a 1 megahertz computer was 20
feet long and cost a million bucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II ?
But seriously, I wonder what the first pieces of
DCtoDaylight;381430 Wrote:
On behalf of Canada, I would like to apologize
I'm surprised the US isn't invading us right now! First we send Celine
Dion, and now
Celine! I'll never forgive you for Corey Hart, Brian Adams, and The
Tragically Hip. Good thing you have (had) Gordon
seanadams wrote:
...Apple_II ?
Nope, I was think of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-10 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tops-20
that we, compuserv and others used. It was later that Compuserv figured
that home computer hobbyists might pay to use the systems at night, when
they were unused
pfarrell;381211 Wrote:
Dianna Krall is great looking. But as a singer, well, she is great
looking.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
Tell us how you really feel Pat! I'm kind of partial to Emma Shapplin
and a little Anna Netrebko for opera-esque music, but Alison Krauss
really
pfarrell;381446 Wrote:
What we fail to remember these days is that the RedBook spec was
publicly released in 1980. At that time, a 1 megahertz computer was 20
feet long and cost a million bucks. Such a mainframe would have maybe
2
megabytes of ram. Moore's law has taken us a long way since
seanadams;381454 Wrote:
But seriously, I wonder what the first pieces of 44.1/16 equipment
looked like?
Do a search for the Altair 8080, if you want to see the real start of
home computing!
I actually had a chance to hear this beast tho:
DCtoDaylight;381461 Wrote:
remember Bill Gates saying that no one could possibly need more than
640k of ram?
Cheers! Dave
He claims he never said it.
I read it on the internet:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15180#fn*
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484
To topic..
Scott
Moving way OT...
DCtoDaylight wrote:
Life is full of such examples, remember Bill Gates saying that no one
could possibly need more than 640k of ram?
I'm pretty sure he never said that. And there were versions of MS-DOS
that had higher limits, it was nearly 800k on the DEC Rainbow, another
54 matches
Mail list logo
