Respectfully, you are all missing the point. No matter how sound is produced, it is consumed acoustically, and this is best done in a room with a low noise floor, dynamically high ceiling, decor that is clean and clear yet has punch and sparkle, and of course the room must be oxygen-free -- which is the origin of the expression "no windows". On 9 March 2013 13:40, Folderol <folderol@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 01:00:51 +0100 > Hartmut Noack <zettberlin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Am 08.03.2013 11:02, schrieb Ben Bell: >> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 07:28:46PM +0100, Jeremy Jongepier wrote: >> >> On 03/07/2013 06:45 AM, david wrote: >> >>> Yah, but which one sounds better - Windows or Linux? ;-) >> >> Linux of course if you have to believe the audiophile forums. >> > >> > Well obviously. Anyone with ears can tell you that. >> > >> > More importantly, does a vintage kernel sound better than a more recent one? >> > I've been doing some testing and the results are pretty clear, not that >> > they should surprise anyone who knows anything about recording: >> > >> > 1) Older kernels sound much warmer than newer ones. >> > >> > 2) Kernels compiled by hand on the machine they run on sound less sterile >> > than upstream distro provided ones which also tend to have flabby low >> > end response and bad stereo imaging. >> > >> > 3) As if it needed saying, gcc4 is a disaster for sound quality. I mean, >> > seriously if you want decent audio and you use gcc4 you may as well be >> > recording with a tin can microphone. >> >> The compiler alone can improve any audio-software a lot. >> But remember, that the chain is only as strong as its weakest segment. >> Try to make sure, that the source code for your apps and drivers is >> written in vi, if possible with code-highlighting switched off. >> >> Highlighted code will inevitable cause artifacts in your audio >> (everybody knows pink noise OK?). Code written in Emacs may or may not >> make the driver sound sterile. To be sure you could print the code >> (vintage needle printers are your best choice) and retype it without >> highlighting in vi (vim and other compromised derivatives of vi cannot >> be trusted either). >> >> > 4) Kernels sound better after they've been worn in a bit. Don't expect your >> > newly built 2.4 kernel to have that warm sound until you've run with it >> > for a few weeks, but for a really classy sound here's a trick: compile the >> > kernel and then put it somewhere safe (ext2 partition, obviously) to mellow >> > for a month and then boot into it at the last minute before you start >> > recording an important session. Your clients will thank you. >> > >> > Ben > > Without wishing to be critical, you're all rather failing to see the elephant > in the room. The biggest corrupter of sonic purity is worn and dirty > electricity. Think of it. The electricity you're using today was quite likely > being squirted through a heavy industrial processing plant yesterday. It may > even have passed through a sewage works. Yes I know that's pretty disgusting > but we have to face the facts. > > Now, I know that you can apply mains filters and proper on-line UPS units and > that will clean the electricity up a lot, but don't you think all that scrubbing > only makes it even more worn and takes some of the 'sharpness' out of the sound > you make with it? > > No, the only answer is to use a rotary converter. By its mechanical action, this > will actually use the stale electricity to create brand new electricity. You > will be amazed at the improvement. The clarity will be so stunning you will > even be able to tell the point number of the kernel your OS is using, and it > has been said that under these conditions some people are able to detect the > nuances of the different formulations of the hard disk surface. > > -- > Will J Godfrey > http://www.musically.me.uk > Say you have a poem and I have a tune. > Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-user mailing list > Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
