Jump to content


Nowarezman

Member
  • Posts

    478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nowarezman

  • Birthday 08/19/1953

Converted

  • occupation
    various & sundry
  • Location
    Tejas

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In the world of financial transactions, blockchain has the potential to wipe out fraud and other financial crimes and misdeeds. Fraudsters such as Madoff simply could not hide what they were doing. Think of a particular market as if all the players were represented as individually identifiable, unique icons on a huge screen that anyone in the world with an internet connection could watch. And all the goods that come in to the market are also represented as individually identifiable and unique icons. So this market opens and the buying and selling kick off. Every transaction gets recorded as an individually identifiable and unique icon as business commences. So all the players are identified. Each transaction is recorded in an irrevocable, unchanging, traceable format. Each asset that changes hands is recorded as to where it came from, where it went to, and the prices involved and the actors involved. Nothing happens that is not irrevocably recorded and transparent. So you can see that a sort of database of icons/information starts to grow and put out branches as the transactions pile up. All that happens is recorded as an encrypted, unchanging icon and all the details known to all - and the chain of events can be traced back at all times to the very first transaction. An accountant would say the system is self-balancing. Any change to the records after-the-fact would cause the system to crash instantly. If I've done a decent job explaining this - it should be apparent that you can't cheat in this environment. You can't steal anything. You can't claim something is yours when it's not. You can't alter the records of what actually happened. You can't move assets out of sight of, say the State Property Tax auditors, or your wife or your business partner. You can't claim to have bought 10 of something but you only paid for 5 of something and cooked the books to back your fraudulent claim. You can't magically show up with more assets (dirty money you've smuggled in) to trade with. You can't do anything at all under the table, you can't skim, you can't double-deal, you can't cook the books - there is nothing done in the dark. There is no separate bookkeeping kept by each actor involved in the transactions - it's all instantly in the public realm, transparent and can't be altered. In theory, sure. But it's an amazing theory and it's clear that such a system could certainly work, and such systems do work right now. The problem lies in the interactions between the closed off blockchain and the "outside world". Inside the blockchain itself everything is kept honest. So say a government was able to corral (by decree and whatever amount of coercion needed) all transactions in a nation within one humongous blockchain (impossible, but let's play with the idea.) No one could then cheat on taxes - no politician could be bribed - no black market could slip around darting into and out of one big system - no hush money could be paid in secret - no contraband or illegal goods could change hands without it all being instantly apparent. So you can see this is something with exciting potential - but anything involving humans....we'll just have to see how blockchain plays out in the jungle of human society. nat
  2. I was thinking mainly about instruments that have no tuning mechanism - like the oboe. Or instruments that are a lot of trouble to re-pitch - say the harp and piano. And my (old fashioned) piano tuner has a tuning fork that he uses as ground zero - gotta be some basic pitch to tune to! But I take your point about instruments not being built for a specific and exact tuning frequency. Or, on the other hand, what would the instrument makers say about this? I confess that I just assumed that instrument builders would "build around" some fundamental, central pitch, trying to tweak the purest, fullest resonances from some particular pitch center. Maybe not - I should read up on this. Maybe they build to a range of tuning possibilities. I suspect each type of instrument has its own behavior and building issues to sort out when it comes to achieving a fully resonant, well-balanced tone. In my experience with acoustic guitars, it's clear to me that I can't tune up or down and not change the resonance profile - the guitars just play and sound a bit differently when tuned differently - they are not the same "just a bit higher or lower". If I tune up or down significantly, there's like some small amount of comb filtering or a new resonant note pokes out. It's those guitars that resonate "just so" with a particular tuning that are the real, rare beauties. nat
  3. So I guess the teeny-bit added sharpness is enough to create some perceptible level of additional brightness, but not enough to create intonation issues for instruments that either can't be tuned or not without a lotta lotta fuss and trouble. But surely there's a limit to this - at some point of pitching things up, it would all go sour as it were. I'll defer to the conductors (or whoever calls the shots on this) - they of course all have better ears than mine. I still would like to ask "who are you kidding?" as to whether these tiny tweaks create any demonstrable improvement in actual performance and listening. nat
  4. Orchestras nudge up from A440? I'll take your word for it, but instruments are built to perform at their best at a specific pitch. I would think there could be perhaps trade-offs with tone, moving off of the standard. And what about the piano??? Do they tweak the Steinways to 444 or 448??? What a pain that would be! And to have to tune it back down afterwards. Uh-uh, buddy, you ain't tuning up my Steinway (if I owned one The harps? And the oboe is basically un-tunable. And the percussion instruments - marimba, celesta, glockenspiel, hand bells, vibes, xylophones - they all have to be tediously tweaked? How about just play brighter from A440? Or slap an EQ on the mix. Sounds like a sane solution. Who is making such decisions? I guarantee the audience does NOT CARE - nor do the streaming services or consumers of streamed sound, CDs, etc. I can think of one exception - perhaps medieval music or other period music performed on instruments from those days perhaps. I don't care much about that form of authenticity - but I respect the attempt to recreate some semblance to hear what things actually sound like back in the way, way back. Or are they just speeding up the recording after the fact, similar to what Craig mentioned? nat
  5. When streaming started to really take off, there was a lot of buzz about how streaming was going to further the great cause of getting rid of the gatekeepers in music distribution/proliferation. No doubt a lot of suits did much to restrict access to talent they thought was not going to get them as rich as quickly as they preferred. On the other hand, there has traditionally been a good number of what I would call good curators of talent, and I would hate to see these babies all thrown out with the washer water from the dirty suits. Tiny Desk is one such. Here is another - if you are at all into guitar, songwriters, both performances and interviews, surely you will find some new sources of talent to appreciate from the wide range of top tier artists appearing on Fretboard Journal. Here's one I like as a for instance: nat
  6. Late to the party here...just to say that I've been a huge fan of the G-Force Mellotron instruments since they put out version one whenever that was in the foggy heretofores. I love the classic 'Tron fare like the Strawberry Fields flutes and prog Orchestral Strings and such, like everyone else. But the big fun for me is just poking around for weirdness and oddness to lend an indescribable vibe to some track I'm composing. The M-Tron, especially this new Pro IV, is both immediately familiar in many ways, and also a doorway into an infinite twilight zone ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime and all points between. nat
  7. This guy is a real pro at what he does which is gear reviews (mostly synths, controllers, some eurorack, and this and that.) Actually, here is his own definition of his site-vibe, which is a lot more accurate than mine above - Loopop is all about in-depth electronic music & synth ideas tips, tricks and reviews! He moves fast! So if you want to soak up a lot of details, I suggest slowing your viewing speed to 75%. https://www.youtube.com/c/loopop nat
  8. I seem to be constitutionally incapable of settling on a fixed melody line when tracking my vocals. Every take is to some extent an improv. The recording is in a way simply the last stage of composition. So what I do is record many takes of some section of the song or other. Maybe just one verse - maybe one verse and one chorus. It depends on what seems to be working. Most of the time I don't even keep the prior takes - if a take is not what I want, it's CTRL-Z undo and the take is gone and I hit record again. I just keep at it 'till I have a take I think I honestly can't improve on. Or I get tired and just stop for the day, start over later. But if I do that, I typically start from scratch all over again because I'm not the same person I was yesterday - meaning that I can't "revibe" the prior day's mood usually, so I just start over. And it seems like my voice sounds just different enough one day to the next to discourage picking up where I left off. So I don't do much combing through prior takes and making a frankenstein vocal out of selected bits sewn together. That is soooooo tedious and a vibe killer for me. My goal is to just get to be a better and better singer and cut all this multiple-take tedium down as far as possible. One or two and done. But I'm not there yet...if I ever will be. nat
  9. I like that idea of a Musicplayer YT recommendations thread a lot! I'd have lots to say! I don't watch all the episodes, not by a long shot. And I don't even try to keep up with new uploads, either. I just like these particular YT channels. I surf by quickly scanning my home page, and add particular videos to "Watch later". I also, according to mood, just visit a channel 'cause I want to hang with so and so - say, Nahre Sol. I'll see that she's doing an artist-in-residence at the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg - wow! that's cool! So I'll watch a few vids she's produced from there. Or I'll go to Oscillator Sink's channel and watch his series on the Korg Modwave for the umpteenth time because I've forgotten half of the content and I'm itching to make patches on the Modwave. I jump around, bail on videos frequently, and when, late in the evening when I'm too tired to do anything but still can't sleep, I'll watch maybe 5-10 videos until my eyelids slam down...and so on. nat
  10. Now the ads are a pain - right in the middle of Mahler's 9th (for example) you get a dog food ad, etc. I might go paid since I use YT so much - but jeez, another cut to add to the thousand each month... nat
  11. I guess I'm a lone voice saying this, but I still find tons of great content on YouTube. Yeah, there's lots of junk - the bots do throw up a zillion trash videos into my home page, but I methodically weed them out with the "don't show me content from this site" feature. This list is about half of my subscriptions on YT: Amy Nolte Beato's interviews Music Matters Reaper Mania ( the DAW, not some serial killer:) Look Mum No Computer SonicState Loopop Rhett Shull Jeremy Siskind Pianist Magazine JHS Pedals That Pedal Show Oscillator Sink Dr Z Amplification Starsky Carr Mylarmelodies and Why We Bleep Nahre Sol Matt Johnson Jamiroquai Pete Thorn Official Blake Mills Jazz at Lincoln Center Sound on Sound Uncle Doug DivKid and there is a lot of good content on individual artist channels, too - lately I've been watching Julian Lage videos over and over...such great stuff. I get my news, sports, recipes, book reviews, movie reviews from the NYT. I don't listen to or watch political commentators, interviewers, etc. I get my history from books, carefully chosen. YT is part of my daily routine....doesn't anyone else find it useful??? nat
  12. How does the discussion go, when a streaming service decides to drop a zillion worthy titles?? It is any of these? "We can't afford the cloud storage." "We're hoping we can get the number of available titles down to one, to best serve our customer base." "Old people just watch TV reruns and Yellowstone. Young people just watch new stuff. That just leaves the academics and snobs and other societal deadwood." "The problem with the world today is too many choices. We're working toward a subscription model where the more you pay, the fewer choices you get." One movie from each decade is plenty! Have you ever counted just how many decades there are??? Cutting the available titles by 50% will make each new title more desirable by 50% Any I'm leaving out? nat
  13. Hmmm...I had three UAD-1 cards in my old PC ages ago, kept them humming until they finally turned obsolete, unsupported, kaput. If I was in your shoes, I'd at least look at used UA interfaces that come with plugin processing power. Especially if the UA interface would be an upgrade in pre-amps and conversion quality. Maybe you've already done this - just an idea. And maybe UA won't be too terribly slow with their rollout of native plugins? nat
×
×
  • Create New...