bit of a slowdown the last 24 hours....
i really have a lot invested in that growth curve, psychologically. i understand i had a huge spike in july from trolling weird al, and numbers are up month-to-month when that's controlled for, but i really wanted to get a good spike in for the end of august to try and keep the curve growing (it seemed like i was going to miss it by about 100 views). so, i've got some real high-quality trolls up that i've had to tend to, but i'm going to close it down after supper to try and get most of this done by the morning.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Jessica;
I would like to clear up a few points in your email.
While your landlord may be correct in that the house may be serviced
by separate storm and sanitary connections (I can't confirm that),
both these connections would outlet to the same combined sewer in the
road. There is only one sewer Cataraqui and one on Marion, and they
are both combined sewers meaning that they accept both rain water and
sewage.
With respect to the Wyandotte project, there is no sewer work being
undertaken as part of that project. Windsor Utilities is replacing
the watermain and services and the City will reconstruct the pavement
following that work. This project would have no impact on the sewers
servicing your property.
You are most likely correct in that there is a correlation between
rainfall and the slow running plumbing in your house. This is due to
the combined nature of the sewer that services your property. During
rain events, combined sewers fill with rainwater and therefore have
limited capacity to accept flows from buildings.
With respect to the apartment building across the street from you, all
rainfall runoff from this property would have entered the sewer system
via foundation drains prior to the fire, so the fact that the basement
may have flooded and the water is now entering the floor drain would
change the drainage pattern very little. In fact, rainwater entering
the sewers from this property would be very small in proportion to
that coming from the catchbasins draining the roads in the area.
With respect to abandonment of the connections servicing the apartment
building, that would be addressed when the building is demolished by
the Building Department. If you have concerns regarding the state of
the building, please contact the Building Department via 311.
Hopefully, this answers some of your questions. Please contact me if
you want to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely;
Name Withheld, P.Eng.
A/Contracts Co-ordinator
the plug was like 50 feet deep in the drain, almost certainly in the city pipes. if i understand correctly, that means the city should have paid to remove it...
i've seen people throw everything you can think of down the drains. it was probably garbage from the street that washed through after the storm.
i want to be clear: i can't complain about my landlord in terms of responsiveness, interest, etc. i mean, he just paid to clear a city drain. on the other hand, it's because he wouldn't listen to what i was saying....
I would like to clear up a few points in your email.
While your landlord may be correct in that the house may be serviced
by separate storm and sanitary connections (I can't confirm that),
both these connections would outlet to the same combined sewer in the
road. There is only one sewer Cataraqui and one on Marion, and they
are both combined sewers meaning that they accept both rain water and
sewage.
With respect to the Wyandotte project, there is no sewer work being
undertaken as part of that project. Windsor Utilities is replacing
the watermain and services and the City will reconstruct the pavement
following that work. This project would have no impact on the sewers
servicing your property.
You are most likely correct in that there is a correlation between
rainfall and the slow running plumbing in your house. This is due to
the combined nature of the sewer that services your property. During
rain events, combined sewers fill with rainwater and therefore have
limited capacity to accept flows from buildings.
With respect to the apartment building across the street from you, all
rainfall runoff from this property would have entered the sewer system
via foundation drains prior to the fire, so the fact that the basement
may have flooded and the water is now entering the floor drain would
change the drainage pattern very little. In fact, rainwater entering
the sewers from this property would be very small in proportion to
that coming from the catchbasins draining the roads in the area.
With respect to abandonment of the connections servicing the apartment
building, that would be addressed when the building is demolished by
the Building Department. If you have concerns regarding the state of
the building, please contact the Building Department via 311.
Hopefully, this answers some of your questions. Please contact me if
you want to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely;
Name Withheld, P.Eng.
A/Contracts Co-ordinator
the plug was like 50 feet deep in the drain, almost certainly in the city pipes. if i understand correctly, that means the city should have paid to remove it...
i've seen people throw everything you can think of down the drains. it was probably garbage from the street that washed through after the storm.
i want to be clear: i can't complain about my landlord in terms of responsiveness, interest, etc. i mean, he just paid to clear a city drain. on the other hand, it's because he wouldn't listen to what i was saying....
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
ircam
hrmmn. might try this. by far the best demos i've heard.
actually sounds like real music, not a film score.
http://www.uvi.net/en/composer-tools/ircam-solo-instruments.html
a lot of the reviews don't seem to get it, though.
actually sounds like real music, not a film score.
http://www.uvi.net/en/composer-tools/ircam-solo-instruments.html
a lot of the reviews don't seem to get it, though.
i'm paranooooooooooiid, and curioussssssssss
posting on the forums almost every day....
so paranooooooooooid, and curiousssssssssss
never seen a coincidence i can't explain...
always paranoooooooooooooid, and curioussssssssss
gotta figure out why a thing is a thing that way.
gotta understand, understand this shit,
follow them dots, it's all connected
gotta understand, understand this shit,
follow them dots, it's all connected
YEAH
posting on the forums almost every day....
so paranooooooooooid, and curiousssssssssss
never seen a coincidence i can't explain...
always paranoooooooooooooid, and curioussssssssss
gotta figure out why a thing is a thing that way.
gotta understand, understand this shit,
follow them dots, it's all connected
gotta understand, understand this shit,
follow them dots, it's all connected
YEAH
uploading to spin inside dull aberrations to the scratchpad
i rendered this morning to check for glitches on playback, and they're thankfully not there. might as well replace the temp file...
the strings are updated and there's a little bluesy guitar solo in the build. i'm chewing on a piano part, which, if added, will probably be the last midi track.
the piano is in, and that's the end of the midi part. well, except for the end section.
a synth part, a vocal part, a few more guitars, bass, final guitar overdubs and then final mixing.....
the strings are updated and there's a little bluesy guitar solo in the build. i'm chewing on a piano part, which, if added, will probably be the last midi track.
the piano is in, and that's the end of the midi part. well, except for the end section.
a synth part, a vocal part, a few more guitars, bass, final guitar overdubs and then final mixing.....
so, i set up some thousand dollar string plugins beside some free ones...
i'll admit the thousand dollar plugins would be more applicable if i was writing film scores, but i'm not. i'm trying to construct a small chamber orchestra. given the price of these things, it's actually remarkable how inflexible they are.
the thing is that i understand i'm working against the purpose of the software. the idea is that if you buy the fancy sample set then you won't have to sit around and multitrack individual instruments anymore.
but, then how do you route each instrument through separate effects processes? generally, how do you be neurotic about over-producing everything?
i'm being a little self-deprecating, but i'm making a valid point. these are the details that composers and arrangers live their lives for. that hint of distortion on the trumpet, that reverb on the flute....oh!...
the free plugins are simply better able to give me what i want, and at a quarter of the ram usage, too.
there's probably some sample libraries for solo instruments, jazz bands, chamber music, etc. but i don't need them right now.
i stumbled upon this library of prepared instruments, though - inspired by john cage. it's not useful for anything i have lined up right now (maybe one thing) but it sounds like fun...
see, the thing is that it's a good idea...
but if they want to make this useful for musicians, they should separate the libraries into individual vst instruments, one for each real instrument. that's how people write and arrange and mix.
that way, if my mix has 2 violins, a viola and a cello (a standard chamber orchestra - and this is not my current mix, fwiw) then i can set each up to it's own channel and mix it individually with it's own character.
but, sure - give me every possible cello sound imaginable. let me fuck with the mic. let me determine how big the room is. and etc. these are good ideas.
it's the way the thing is formatted that isn't so hot.
i'll admit the thousand dollar plugins would be more applicable if i was writing film scores, but i'm not. i'm trying to construct a small chamber orchestra. given the price of these things, it's actually remarkable how inflexible they are.
the thing is that i understand i'm working against the purpose of the software. the idea is that if you buy the fancy sample set then you won't have to sit around and multitrack individual instruments anymore.
but, then how do you route each instrument through separate effects processes? generally, how do you be neurotic about over-producing everything?
i'm being a little self-deprecating, but i'm making a valid point. these are the details that composers and arrangers live their lives for. that hint of distortion on the trumpet, that reverb on the flute....oh!...
the free plugins are simply better able to give me what i want, and at a quarter of the ram usage, too.
there's probably some sample libraries for solo instruments, jazz bands, chamber music, etc. but i don't need them right now.
i stumbled upon this library of prepared instruments, though - inspired by john cage. it's not useful for anything i have lined up right now (maybe one thing) but it sounds like fun...
see, the thing is that it's a good idea...
but if they want to make this useful for musicians, they should separate the libraries into individual vst instruments, one for each real instrument. that's how people write and arrange and mix.
that way, if my mix has 2 violins, a viola and a cello (a standard chamber orchestra - and this is not my current mix, fwiw) then i can set each up to it's own channel and mix it individually with it's own character.
but, sure - give me every possible cello sound imaginable. let me fuck with the mic. let me determine how big the room is. and etc. these are good ideas.
it's the way the thing is formatted that isn't so hot.
deathtokoalas
i really wish plugin developers would focus more on modularity. this goes for soft synths, samplers, effects and everything else. i know, use something like reaktor, right? but, when every developer decides they're going to make the "ultimate synth" or "ultimate sampler", what you actually end up with is a huge array of synths and samplers that can do one or two things really well and are lacklustre at everything else. if there was an easily accessible interface within cubase where i could string filters and generators and specific libraries from different manufacturers together, i could take what i like out of synth x and connect it to what i like out of synth y - allowing me to create my own ultimate synth. and, ultimately that's what all us composers actually want, even if some of us don't have the clarity of thought to realize it. it makes it more like building your own modular system, or even like stringing guitar effects together.
it works with samplers, too. there's been this tendency recently to create these 50 gb libraries full of these ready-made samples. but, composers and arrangers and mixers and producers just don't think like that. the way we think is in terms of separating each track as much as possible. i've been sequencing some string sections recently and realizing that the best samplers are in kontakt, but you can't really separate them well without using 50 gb of ram. see, the flaw is that it's not designed to separate them, you're supposed to pick the ensemble you want out of the box. no real composer is going to want that, as it makes it impossible to isolate the tracks. i could, for example, want some bassy fuzz on the cello, a heavier distortion on the viola and a harmonic exciter on the violin. to do that in the kontakt sample libraries, you need to load the instance as many times as you have instruments - and it defeats the aim of the software. i'd rather see the sample libraries split into instruments. sell me 5 gb of cellos, 5 gb of violins, etc and let me load them as separate instruments with smaller footprints and mix it myself.
i know this is going to require a rethink and a new interface, but i think the developers have to come to the realization that they're using the wrong approach and go back to thinking in terms of modularity. ultimately, they're programmers - they get modularity, they're just ignoring it. perceived market demand for total solutions, or something. it's not actually what we want. what we want is control. these sample libraries - whether they're strings, horns or whatever else - are really largely useless to actually compose with.
OK
I wish everything worked more like Nexus tbh, yes it's simple and yes it's basic but damn that's how they should all work with added features instead of a new UI for everything and also having to have 49234932 different instances taking up 10x more ram that exists in your pc
deathtokoalas
the benefit of modularity is that it allows user control over the level of complexity. the way i would use a modular sampling system would be quite elaborate.
it's not like options don't exist, but they tend to be outdated and not really designed for modern daws - or they require a level of programming to build. when it comes to synthesis, that pre-requisite for programming is necessary. but, if i'm orchestrating something, i want to just do it, not write a program to do it. what they're selling is really the samples.
again, i think it's just a disconnect between what a composer is going to want and what the designers think they want. and i think it's sort of obvious that this standard approach is backwards for almost everybody, upon a moment's reflection. it's useful if you want to write film scores, i guess, but not very useful, otherwise.
i really wish plugin developers would focus more on modularity. this goes for soft synths, samplers, effects and everything else. i know, use something like reaktor, right? but, when every developer decides they're going to make the "ultimate synth" or "ultimate sampler", what you actually end up with is a huge array of synths and samplers that can do one or two things really well and are lacklustre at everything else. if there was an easily accessible interface within cubase where i could string filters and generators and specific libraries from different manufacturers together, i could take what i like out of synth x and connect it to what i like out of synth y - allowing me to create my own ultimate synth. and, ultimately that's what all us composers actually want, even if some of us don't have the clarity of thought to realize it. it makes it more like building your own modular system, or even like stringing guitar effects together.
it works with samplers, too. there's been this tendency recently to create these 50 gb libraries full of these ready-made samples. but, composers and arrangers and mixers and producers just don't think like that. the way we think is in terms of separating each track as much as possible. i've been sequencing some string sections recently and realizing that the best samplers are in kontakt, but you can't really separate them well without using 50 gb of ram. see, the flaw is that it's not designed to separate them, you're supposed to pick the ensemble you want out of the box. no real composer is going to want that, as it makes it impossible to isolate the tracks. i could, for example, want some bassy fuzz on the cello, a heavier distortion on the viola and a harmonic exciter on the violin. to do that in the kontakt sample libraries, you need to load the instance as many times as you have instruments - and it defeats the aim of the software. i'd rather see the sample libraries split into instruments. sell me 5 gb of cellos, 5 gb of violins, etc and let me load them as separate instruments with smaller footprints and mix it myself.
i know this is going to require a rethink and a new interface, but i think the developers have to come to the realization that they're using the wrong approach and go back to thinking in terms of modularity. ultimately, they're programmers - they get modularity, they're just ignoring it. perceived market demand for total solutions, or something. it's not actually what we want. what we want is control. these sample libraries - whether they're strings, horns or whatever else - are really largely useless to actually compose with.
OK
I wish everything worked more like Nexus tbh, yes it's simple and yes it's basic but damn that's how they should all work with added features instead of a new UI for everything and also having to have 49234932 different instances taking up 10x more ram that exists in your pc
deathtokoalas
the benefit of modularity is that it allows user control over the level of complexity. the way i would use a modular sampling system would be quite elaborate.
it's not like options don't exist, but they tend to be outdated and not really designed for modern daws - or they require a level of programming to build. when it comes to synthesis, that pre-requisite for programming is necessary. but, if i'm orchestrating something, i want to just do it, not write a program to do it. what they're selling is really the samples.
again, i think it's just a disconnect between what a composer is going to want and what the designers think they want. and i think it's sort of obvious that this standard approach is backwards for almost everybody, upon a moment's reflection. it's useful if you want to write film scores, i guess, but not very useful, otherwise.
Monday, August 25, 2014
i had to leave my browser window open last night, and it's generally a bad idea to try and record with it open due to ram issues. it's done now, mostly. i'll have to wait until after 2 am to get back to downloading the rest of the libraries i'm looking into - i'm looking at about a 50 gb download, and...
there was a court ruling last year that put usage based billing in place, meaning the isps can charge you based on your bandwidth. there's a really bad oligopoly in canada with internet, stemming from the way the infrastructure was built. somebody might correct me (i'm not old enough to remember, first hand) but i believe the telephone and cable companies in canada were previously state operated. honestly? that makes far more sense to me, and the reason is that it doesn't make sense to have multiple lines. you want one cable infrastructure and one phone infrastructure - anything else is just wasteful. but, the result of it moving from public to private ownership was that, in any given area, there's a monopoly on the cable and a monopoly on the phone based around who owns the lines. splitting the lines up to different companies in different areas didn't really have the effect of breaking up monopolistic practices, and why would it? if you live here in windsor, cogeco owns all the cable lines (and bell owns all the phone lines) so you're ultimately forced to go through one of them if you want to use the infrastructure.
so, reacting further to the monopoly, the court ruled that the companies that own the lines have to sell service to smaller isps. so, the way it works is that teksavvy buys bandwidth from cogeco, and i buy bandwidth from teksavvy. the capitalist relation should mean that's more expensive, because there's more managers.
but it isn't. it's less than half the price. but what i like about teksavvy is that they offer very basic rates. i'm on youtube all the time, and i download a bit of music, but i don't game or watch netflix or anything like that - and there's only one of me down here, rather than a family of 5 or 6. my average monthly usage is much less than 30 gb - and usually closer to 20. nor can i download faster than the internet will let me download. so, all i need is about a 5 mbps line with a 50 gb limit. what i have is a 6 mbps line with a 75 gb limit (for $25/month) - and 99 months out of 100, i'm not going to get close to it. even if i were to download 50 gb of libraries in peak hours, i'd still only be something like 73 gb for the month.
i don't want to push it, though.
teksavvy didn't like the ruling. so, what they've done is put the download limit down (and, like i say, 75 gb is usually way more than sufficient for me) and allow unlimited downloads over night, from 2-8 am. it's a good solution for gamers, i guess, who are usually up all night, anyways.
for me, waiting until after 2 to suck this down is an isolated thing to make sure i don't hit the limit...
but, i don't need a browser for that, so i should be able to work overnight. i've got a few things to play with, hopefully one of them gives me what i want right away....
i should point out that i have youtube defaulted to the lowest quality level, though. this isn't for bandwidth reasons, it's because my internet tv is a pIII that shipped with windows 98 on it, so i'm trying not to max it out. well, that and i just use it to watch lectures and news shows...
i don't need noam chomsky's wrinkles or paul jay's bald head beaming at me in crystal clear high definition or who-gives-a-fuck p.
there was a court ruling last year that put usage based billing in place, meaning the isps can charge you based on your bandwidth. there's a really bad oligopoly in canada with internet, stemming from the way the infrastructure was built. somebody might correct me (i'm not old enough to remember, first hand) but i believe the telephone and cable companies in canada were previously state operated. honestly? that makes far more sense to me, and the reason is that it doesn't make sense to have multiple lines. you want one cable infrastructure and one phone infrastructure - anything else is just wasteful. but, the result of it moving from public to private ownership was that, in any given area, there's a monopoly on the cable and a monopoly on the phone based around who owns the lines. splitting the lines up to different companies in different areas didn't really have the effect of breaking up monopolistic practices, and why would it? if you live here in windsor, cogeco owns all the cable lines (and bell owns all the phone lines) so you're ultimately forced to go through one of them if you want to use the infrastructure.
so, reacting further to the monopoly, the court ruled that the companies that own the lines have to sell service to smaller isps. so, the way it works is that teksavvy buys bandwidth from cogeco, and i buy bandwidth from teksavvy. the capitalist relation should mean that's more expensive, because there's more managers.
but it isn't. it's less than half the price. but what i like about teksavvy is that they offer very basic rates. i'm on youtube all the time, and i download a bit of music, but i don't game or watch netflix or anything like that - and there's only one of me down here, rather than a family of 5 or 6. my average monthly usage is much less than 30 gb - and usually closer to 20. nor can i download faster than the internet will let me download. so, all i need is about a 5 mbps line with a 50 gb limit. what i have is a 6 mbps line with a 75 gb limit (for $25/month) - and 99 months out of 100, i'm not going to get close to it. even if i were to download 50 gb of libraries in peak hours, i'd still only be something like 73 gb for the month.
i don't want to push it, though.
teksavvy didn't like the ruling. so, what they've done is put the download limit down (and, like i say, 75 gb is usually way more than sufficient for me) and allow unlimited downloads over night, from 2-8 am. it's a good solution for gamers, i guess, who are usually up all night, anyways.
for me, waiting until after 2 to suck this down is an isolated thing to make sure i don't hit the limit...
but, i don't need a browser for that, so i should be able to work overnight. i've got a few things to play with, hopefully one of them gives me what i want right away....
i should point out that i have youtube defaulted to the lowest quality level, though. this isn't for bandwidth reasons, it's because my internet tv is a pIII that shipped with windows 98 on it, so i'm trying not to max it out. well, that and i just use it to watch lectures and news shows...
i don't need noam chomsky's wrinkles or paul jay's bald head beaming at me in crystal clear high definition or who-gives-a-fuck p.
good idea. i wish you'd rock those low tuba notes a bit more, though. now that i've got one paying attention, what's with tuba players being so polite? your instrument sounds best when you blow into it like you're trying to knock the house down. why is that you all play such a powerful instrument so timidly?
yeah, the person doing this review is really doing the plugin a disfavour. not only does this person not understand what the instrument's ranges are, they're playing the keyboard like it's a piano and just randomly running through the presets...
the plugin woks best with a little bit of distortion to fatten it up. but it's a more raw sound than you see in most sample libraries, which seem to want to focus on a polished film score sound.
the plugin woks best with a little bit of distortion to fatten it up. but it's a more raw sound than you see in most sample libraries, which seem to want to focus on a polished film score sound.
deathtokoalas
i wish you would have done staccato on the ewql. the truth is that even a roland juno can do decent sustain stuff. it's the staccato that requires a sampler...
i wish you would have done staccato on the ewql. the truth is that even a roland juno can do decent sustain stuff. it's the staccato that requires a sampler...
Andrew Chellman
I always thought it was the other way around, in my opinion. Staccato is short, there isn't much time to decide if it sounds realistic or not. EWQL has round robin which contributes to a nice staccato sound.
deathtokoalas
it's short, but it's pretty complex when you think about it - a bow scraping a string, producing a sort of a broken waveform with fundamentals collapsing differently from note to note. staccato on a real string instrument consequently always sounds a little out of tune, which is difficult to create synthetically. the longer the notes get, the more easily a synthesizer can use the tools it has to shape them just because it conforms better to what a synthesizer does...
reali reddoot
the fundamental frequencies collapsing? elaborate
deathtokoalas
you're scraping two tense objects together in short bursts. we usually think of modelling strings in terms of combining frequencies of sine waves because they're vibrating strings, but staccato is really more like scratching nails on a chalkboard in the sense that it's two rough objects rubbing against each other. so, there's a lot of friction in there (meaning the waveform is quite broken) and not much of the vibrating action we associate with string synthesis - meaning that the associated frequencies (fundamental and resonant, excuse my colloquialism) fall apart very quickly.
reali reddoot
very interesting, im very curious now and must conduct more research. Thanks for the insight!!
deathtokoalas
if you want to get something close to it, you're going to need to model the friction with a noise generator or random oscillator and do a lot of experimentation to "dial it in". you're also going to need a way to get the notes to spike out of tune a little as a result of the extra force on the string. i've played with a few abstract synthesis approaches that use physical modelling of things like springs to get around the limitations of traditional oscillation-based additive synthesis. with the tools we have available today, you're likely to be able to get something decent - but not with a traditional hardware synthesizer.
it might be fun as a project, but if you're serious about getting a good staccato for musical application, i'd really advise using a sampler.
commenting on an audiomulch video
your program looks a lot nicer nowadays than it did when i downloaded the demo back in 99, although it still seems to work in basically the same way. nice to see that doppler's still rocking it...
lyrics for to spin inside dull aberrations
so, while recognizing and upholding the necessity of empirical enquiry in physics,
let's think carefully about a few things for a few minutes.
acknowledging that all particles have an associated wave function,
if a phenomena demonstrates particle behaviour
then it must mean that the particle is massive. (and what is a massless particle, anyways?)
otherwise the wave function wouldn't even exist. right?
COLLAPSE!
now, uncertainty refers to measurement,
(not in the sense of the observer effect, but as the nature of what uncertainty is)
so, it provides no information about causality or a lack thereof.
(it is merely a model that is useful in predicting results)
and it seems to me that the nature of space is an important thing to determine empirically
(and we can't even answer questions related to the number of dimensions it might have)
so the proofs of uncertainty are consequently as valid as the assumptions about the nature of space that underLIE them
(this actually pulls the rug out from underneath bell's feet)
and
now
it
all
falls
apart
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE!
RIGHT?!
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE!
RIGHT?! RIGHT!?
it's not that i'm claiming anything is wrong, per se
(it's more like i'm arguing that it's not even wrong at all)
but the question of whether space is continuous or discrete needs to be resolved
(in order to unite relativity with quantum mechanics)
platonic idealism as applied to mathematics is an oversimplification
(this is what godel has truly taught us)
the math itself is merely a model to imperfectly describe physical space
(one look at the banach-tarski paradox is enough to give up)
so light one up.
no empirical concept
of the underlying geometry
so, no, you CANNOT see,
the overgeneralized orthogonality
(perpendicular delusions
give arise to false conclusions)
let's think carefully about a few things for a few minutes.
acknowledging that all particles have an associated wave function,
if a phenomena demonstrates particle behaviour
then it must mean that the particle is massive. (and what is a massless particle, anyways?)
otherwise the wave function wouldn't even exist. right?
COLLAPSE!
now, uncertainty refers to measurement,
(not in the sense of the observer effect, but as the nature of what uncertainty is)
so, it provides no information about causality or a lack thereof.
(it is merely a model that is useful in predicting results)
and it seems to me that the nature of space is an important thing to determine empirically
(and we can't even answer questions related to the number of dimensions it might have)
so the proofs of uncertainty are consequently as valid as the assumptions about the nature of space that underLIE them
(this actually pulls the rug out from underneath bell's feet)
and
now
it
all
falls
apart
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE!
RIGHT?!
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE!
COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE! COLLAPSE!
RIGHT?! RIGHT!?
it's not that i'm claiming anything is wrong, per se
(it's more like i'm arguing that it's not even wrong at all)
but the question of whether space is continuous or discrete needs to be resolved
(in order to unite relativity with quantum mechanics)
platonic idealism as applied to mathematics is an oversimplification
(this is what godel has truly taught us)
the math itself is merely a model to imperfectly describe physical space
(one look at the banach-tarski paradox is enough to give up)
so light one up.
no empirical concept
of the underlying geometry
so, no, you CANNOT see,
the overgeneralized orthogonality
(perpendicular delusions
give arise to false conclusions)
so, i finally got around to updating kontakt from v1.0 for this. yeah. v 1.0. you can see how often i've used it since i downloaded it in like 1998 or something.
i've just never really been the sampler type, i guess, and i've always found a scaled down solution. but i need good strings for this...
...and there's a few other things i've had on my to-check-out list that i'm going to find while i'm at it.
i've just never really been the sampler type, i guess, and i've always found a scaled down solution. but i need good strings for this...
...and there's a few other things i've had on my to-check-out list that i'm going to find while i'm at it.
it
turns out there's actually been a recent push to make better string
libraries. i stopped recording for a few years; this is just more
evidence that the technology has jumped dramatically since then.
i'm going to download all of them, and mess with them until i get it right.
i gotta say this, though: it's nice to have a problem, google it and find there's an answer.
that wasn't true five years ago. and it was a dream 13 years ago, when i was scorewriter-focused.
i'm going to download all of them, and mess with them until i get it right.
i gotta say this, though: it's nice to have a problem, google it and find there's an answer.
that wasn't true five years ago. and it was a dream 13 years ago, when i was scorewriter-focused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)