After reading Johnny's comments about the Better Than What You Get At Home EP, I had a listen myself. The sound is muddy and doesn't portray any sense of intensity. It is also very narrow and just not "finished". This unfinished sound is something Johnny and I have encountered before and can occur even if the panning is perfect and there is no compression on the drums (and bass). So could this album be spiced up a bit? Well I attempted to find out.
The vocals are the one thing recorded well, but they lack the nice glossy finish that makes a CD stand out. Now Tristin can really sing, so its a shame that she is not brought forward with some sparkle. So I loaded Pardon Me up and tried to add some presence and width to the vocals. Sure enough, the vocals come out beautiful. The cymbals/hihat however couldn't take this extra pezzaz and started to distort. The drums aren't something fixable with what is on the album - they are fucked no matter what. Pristine vocals and a messed drum sound don't really fit together nicely.
After knocking the distortion back to a level that was tolerable, it was time to tackle the bass. The bass in the original was so heavy that I couldn't actually listen to the music at any volume without the bass "bottoming out". The constat "pop" that comes not only destroys the cool stuff going on, but the distortion afterwards on headphones was also problematic. The "bottoming out" comes from the bass drum, and the bass was just leveled too high. Some simple EQing pulled the two down to a fair level. The compression that Johnny spoke of still makes the bass drum "pop", but not nearly as badly.
That was all that was really "fixable", if it can be called that. The lack of panning really hurts the width and fullness of the recording, the compression affects the sound, and the poor EQing before the stereo mix means that it's tough to even get one aspect of the song to sound fantastic. The best that occurs is a moderate compromise between faults.
It's too bad because the band and their music kicks, but it's not something that I can fix. Well, it's fixable, but that would require re-recording and whatnot (which I think would be worth it).
Monday, April 24, 2006
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Here's some of the best posts on craigslist:
- This is my line in the sand - this is my kind of guy/girl! I want him/her to contribute to this blog occasionally.
- Baby, please just lift the damn restraining order!
- Used sex toys for sale - this is kind of sick, but hilarious
- Take my son to his prom - best mom ever, or most embarrassing mom ever?
- Stripper Rant - haha, I'll keep this in mind for next week... eh Reid?
- Why you want me - my dream girl/woman
- Half a box of condoms - hmm, my box is still full... he's 6 up on me
- RANT: A letter to the only working toilet - This is awesome. She hates that toilet as much as I hate the misappropriation of the word "then" (ie: used in place of "than")
- Ashlee, the medical assistant who took my stool samples - haha, what a player
- RAVE: My cheating husband - BAM. Wife 1, Husband 0
Friday, April 21, 2006
Ok, shitty re-acronymizing (is that a word?) aside, UPS sucks.
I ordered a MOTU audio interface off of eBay from the US and despite my requests to not send via UPS, the guy did. "Ok," I thought, "I'll have to pay another $40 once it gets here" because UPS charges all sorts of border and import fees in addition to the original shipping cost.
$120 later, I'm cursing the day that I didn't demand that the sender ship with Fedex or USPS air mail.
People shouldn't have to pay more for shipping at their doorstep than what they already paid. If you want to charge me $160 to ship to Canada, charge me $160 up front! Then we'll see how much business you actually get...
This could be the result.
Fucking hilarious.
It's time. After a massive battle for positions, the teams are ready to go. Calgary is lined up against Anaheim in the first round. The teams are both pretty fast, which means there should be some solid hitting to try to slow each other down. Flames in 5.
In other news, Kent Hovind is an idiot. Yes, we knew this before, but he has sealed the deal. If you have some time, you might want to watch a bit of this video. **WARNING** You are going to want to punch your computer screen when you hear his "science". His opening statement goes something along the lines of "A good scientific theory is able to predict things" (True), and then goes on to say "If I take the bible as being true, then I can make all of these predictions:"
- The universe will show evidence and design
- There will be many symbiotic relationships found in nature
- There will be limitations to the variation life can produce (Dogs produce dogs, but not fish)
- There will be a purpose in life
- There will be love and non-material things such as love and justice
- There will be a way to find the will of the creator and maybe even a book telling us how he created and why
- There will be an afterlife where we face the creator
- There will be a golden age and legends of a creation events
- There will be fossils found of people living to great age
- There will be problems with wisdom teeth since people aren't living to 900 and aren't growing as long or as big.
- There will be a universal longing to restore the world to the garden of Eden conditions.
With the assumption of God and the earth being 6,000 years old, this is actually the only prediction on this list that is reasonable. I would agree, that if there is a creator, there would be aspects of design...so where is the evidence of design? Where are the drafts and the blueprints? God just did it? That hurricane "designed" New Orleans like that...c'mon
There will be many symbiotic relationships found in nature:
Evolution does a better job explaining this than Hovind's "If everything were created within 6 days of each other, then everything must be able to interact" explanation. This is scratching at "prediction", but sounds more like making what we know now fit. Again, this didn't provide a bunch of time for design with all this creating going on. Evolution simply explains this by saying relationships between living things is what drives the evolutionary pathway. If you aren't interacting with your environment and other life, you are dead.
There will be limitations to the variation life can produce (Dogs produce dogs, but not fish)
The fossil record disagrees. What a fucking awful argument. It's like saying, well milk can come in different kinds: chocolate, white, skim, 1%, 2%, homogenized, powdered etc...but cheese never comes from milk. When I pour out my milk, it is always milk, not cheese. Therefore cheese must have been created. Fucking dumb ass. This is also a "make it fit" prediction made from the bible's reference to species giving birth to the same species. For the record, speciation has occurred numerous times in our life time (viruses, bacteria and some plants). Although this is just "our classification system", "kinds" that Hovind uses is based on the same classification system (dogs and dogs).
There will be a purpose in life
This isn't a prediction. This is what you are told. But if you ONLY look at the idea of creation, I guess this is a semi-prediction. There is a purpose in life from the perspective of evolution actually...to reproduce and pass on your genes. Hmm, hard choice...worship or pleasure.
There will be love and non-material things such as love and justice
HAHAHAHAHA. Wandering off the path here, Hovind. This is an ambitious prediction. Evolution can explain these non-material things very well actually. Having the bible tell you that God is love doesn't mean you can predict in from the creation story. If the bible told you that there existed a parallel universe, would you say that creation predicted this? "Well, obviously there are multiple universes since we were created in 6 days". That sounds RIDICULOUS....and so does the "prediction" of love and non-material things.
There will be a way to find the will of the creator and maybe even a book telling us how he created and why
Hahah, BOOKS. Ahhh, another crazy prediction. So, apparently 6 days of creation also implies that all writing utensils existed, they had writing, and they knew enough to write something down. If I went back 5000 years and told people the creation myth, I doubt they would be like "I predict that a book will be made telling us how He created and why...because obviously this God, who we have never heard of, is now working on his autobiography". The book is also what has told people about creation...back to your circular world Hovind!
There will be an afterlife where we face the creator
This is a waste of time to even argue as a prediction. The cheese that was made in the variation prediction will face it's eater as a piece of shit...did it predict that when it was created?
There will be fossils found of people living to great age
Ya, I skipped the golden age and legends of creation events. How come he calls it legend, I would have predicted massive worship where reference to legend would have had you stoned...oh wait, that's what happened. But to the fossils, I haven't heard of anyone saying "these fossils are from people who lived to 900 years old". Confucius made it to his 70s I think, and that was considered freaky for the day. According to Hovind's great age assumption, and our age now, I would predict that humans would live to the age of 4.
There will be problems with wisdom teeth since people aren't living to 900 and aren't growing as long or as big.
What? You had dental during creation to predict this? Damn...you predicted a lot from a little creation story.
There will be a universal longing to restore the world to the garden of Eden conditions.
Hmmm, personally, if it involves a god, count me out. I have no desire whatsoever.
Yes, Hovind is an idiot, but the really shocking thing about the video were the amount of people that cheered him on for his shitty ass arguments. Evolution is a fantastically applicable and has allowed us to make predictions that have saved lives? Don't believe me? Well, you can ask God why He made a new batch of drug resistant bacteria just for you....
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
I just received the Five Star Affair CD that I ordered after BSD and am in the process of listening to it. As indicated by the title, I'm giving it 3/5 stars, and here's why:
The music itself is quite good. Their style varies between straight pop/rock, reggae, funk, and even light punk. Most of their stuff is very creative and has a good feel.
Now here's the catch: their live performance is electrifying, vibrant, uber-creative, and, well, hot. But their studio work seems... flat. Not as in "below pitch," but it doesn't have that same crackle, spark, whatever you want to call it. It just doesn't live up to it.
Now here's why: the album's engineering and production work was sub-par. It failed to properly capture the fidelity and energy of these musicians, transforming their sound into something lackluster and narrow.
Being a drummer, I immediately notice the drum sound on any album and that usually indicates whether or not I will like it. For example, bust out any 80s pop album and I'll turn it off because the drums are electronic and fake-sounding. Or, put in an 80s metal album and I'll turn it off because the drums sound way too big, most likely due to reverb and gating. (Hmm, it's looking like I have a bias against the 80s...)
Ok, now take the drum sound on the FSA EP. The thing that I screamed when I heard it was, "OH GOD, the compression!" I understand the process of adding compression to drum tracks to give them punch, but what the engineer did to these drums took it waaayy too far. The drums end up sounding unnatural, like there's no fluid volume decay, especially on the toms and bass drum. You hear the initial impact, quickly followed by a super-compressed beat, then nothing. It's kind of unsettling if you listen hard enough.
The bass sound suffers from the same problem as the drums. Way too compressed. It just ends up sounding unnatural, kind of like there is a brief swell of distortion right after each note. Again, if the engineer was going for an unnatural sound, he found one; albeit one that doesn't sound good. It's a shame, because the bass player is rock solid.
The trumpet, unfortunately, sounds a little bit like a kazoo in some parts. Really thin and nazal are the words I would use to describe it. Unprofessional, really.
Next, the lead guitar sound. It sounds very amateurish, almost out of tune sometimes, even though it isn't. I think this can be attributed to the lack of bass, or too much treble in the equalization. The guitar ends up sounding thin and gets lost in the mix.
Speaking of the mix, it feels like everything is panned dead centre, which certainly doesn't help the narrowness of their sound. The mixing engineer either didn't have a mixer with pan knobs, or he just plain forgot that he had a virtual 180 degree soundscape to work with. What ends up happening is that none of the instruments have any definition when they all play together. Not only do different tracks need their own space carved out of the frequency domain, they need their own virtual space in the soundscape. The vocals, snare drum, bass, and bass drum are the only things that should be dead centre in a standard pop song. Everything else should be panned left or right in varying degrees.
On the plus side, the vocals sound pretty good. I think a better mic, preamp, or EQ job could have really boosted the presence and sparkle in Tristin's voice.
So what I'm trying to say is, I wish I could remix or re-record this EP. I'm not saying I could do a better job, but I'd like to try. If Five Star Affair comes across this post at any point in time, for some reason, please email me at johnny_AT_rnjstudios_DOT_com. I want to make you sound better.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Intelligent Design - the idea that life is so complex that it could not have come to be without the help of divine intervention. To put it more "scientifically", life appears to be irreversibly complex. According to ID lore, certain things cannot come to be as a whole through selection of their parts since their parts are not in themselves useful. Instead, these entire parts must be created before hand by an intelligent source, and then it's off to the evolutionary races. Hell, according to some, the eye could have never evolved...too bad these people haven't looked at flat worms.
Those are ancient eyes on it's head. Sure, it can't see everything we can, but it has an advantage over other creatures - it can see lights and dark. It a world without sight, this would be a huge advantage. Any moderate tweaks of sensitivity would provide another advantage, and the perpetual evolution machine takes off. Not that this eye is reduced in complexity and still yields a benefit to the species.The other common example given for irreducible complexity is the flagellum (pictured below). How could this possible work at all without all the pieces first being in place? Well, it wouldn't have to. If I could only swim with one arm that would be better than no arms, although it wouldn't be as good as it could be if I had flippers. Nonetheless, my chances for survival goes from zero to something.
Where did those parts come from though? Like the proteins and stuff?
Flagellum use dyenin arms and tubulin. These are essential to cellular function with lysosomes and organelles. So these were already kicking around...all that was needed was some externalization.
All arguments against evolution seem to fall short, and often the inadequate speak. Sadly, their voices are being heard and people are spreading "The Word (TM)". The only argument that the non-evolutionists have anymore is that we don't know how the chemicals came together in the first place...well, we don't know precisely, but we have an idea. Another rant possibly? If people push their stupid ideas, then yes.
Never forget, evolution does follow The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Haha, it seems like this is a touchy subject for me. Nothing like Intelligent Design to get the blood boiling.
Read this article if you have the time. If not, don't worry, because I'll be quoting it.
Jeopardy!
A: The US Congressional Record indicates that this person was quoted as saying that the Columbine school shootings happened "because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial mud."
Q: Who is Tom DeLay?
That is correct. Tom DeLay, who actually holds a degree in biology, attributed the Columbine shootings to the teaching of evolution. WHA?? It's a good thing this "biologist" has done such a good job as a congressman, otherwise people would question his intelligence (and the validity of his degree).
Now, the article makes an interesting point:
Meanwhile, public policy regarding Intelligent Design has been defined by people like President George W. Bush. Talking about evolution versus Intelligent Design, Bush recently declared that "Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about." The sentence represents a clear misunderstanding, because it assumes that there are two "sides" and that there is a debate.
This is something that I never actually thought about before. I was buying into the ID hype as much as any idiot, believing that ID was the other (wrong) side to the theory of evolution. I was forgetting something very important: science is not a system of beliefs.
Let me repeat: SCIENCE IS NOT A SYSTEM OF BELIEFS.
When you teach science, you teach the currently accepted theories, and in high school textbooks, these theories are typically about 40 years behind current research. This means that when you teach the origin of life in a science classroom, you teach the Theory of Evolution. This is the theory that is widely accepted by scientists across the world, and one that has been proved scientifically many times ([1], [2], [3], to cite but a few fairly credible sources).
Now, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It is basically a rejection of evolution on the basis that anything that doesn't include God is immoral, thus evolution is immoral and should not be taught. "But we can't teach nothing in science class, nor can we teach pure Creationism in science class because of that stupid First Amendment (burn the witch!), therefore, let's just pretend that evolution was meticulously pre-planned by God. There. Now that's science."
Most people don't know about the method for getting scientific theories accepted, but in short, it's long and arduous. Here's a nice summary:
Consider how real-world science gets done. Suppose you have a novel scientific claim. You do some research on it, either theoretical or experimental, which you then attempt to publish. You submit an article to journals, and the journals send it out to idiots called peer reviewers, and those idiots tell you why you’re wrong, and then you have to fight with them and tell them why they’re idiots, and it goes on and on. If you’re lucky, you get published. What happens next? If your work is interesting, other people will begin to look at it and do follow-up research. If it’s really interesting, you’ll build a scientific consensus, which may take ten, twenty, thirty, or forty years. Only then does your work get mentioned in high-school textbooks. In my own field of physics, the material in today’s textbooks is easily thirty to forty years out of date—as it should be, because that’s how science works.
Now, you would think that if the ID proponents wanted their "theory" to be published in high school textbooks, they would have been going through this process of journal articles, idiot peer reviewers, follow-up research (or any research), etc.... This is not so:
Demonstrating that the ID strategy is dishonest requires a somewhat longer argument. The dishonesty of ID lies in its proponents pointing to a controversy when there really is no controversy. A friend of mine did an informal survey of more than ten million articles in major science journals during the past twelve years. Searching for the key word evolution pulled up 115,000 articles, most pertaining to biological evolution. Searching for Intelligent Design yielded eighty-eight articles. All but eleven of those were in engineering journals, where, of course, we hope there is discussion of intelligent [engineering] design [practices]! Of the eleven articles, eight were critical of the scientific basis for Intelligent Design theory and the remaining three turned out to be articles in conference proceedings, not peer-reviewed research journals. So that’s the extent of the "controversy" in the scientific literature. There is none.
Well, there you have it. A big fucking goose-egg for the number of ID theories published in scientific journals, waiting for peer review (or having completed peer review).
I challenge the proponents to answer me this: If you want to challenge an accepted scientific theory, why aren't you using science?! Putting this lame "theory" on an unfair fast-track into high school textbooks is not going to help anyone, especially the students. Here are some shocking statistics about the United States:
In a 2001 National Science Foundation (NSF) survey of scientific literacy, 53 percent of American adults were unaware that the last dinosaur died before the first human arose.
Ok, this is somewhat believable. In fact, I was just having a conversation with someone (who shall remain nameless) the other day about her beliefs. I asked her if she was a Young-Earth Creationist. Not knowing what I meant, I asked her how old she believed the world to be. Still not getting it I gave her some options: 4.5 billion years, or less than ten thousand. "Oh! Haha, it's not billions of years old! Hahaha," was her reply.
"But what about the dinosaurs? They died out a couple hundred million years ago. You don't honestly think that humans crafted and planted dinosaur fossils to make everyone question the age of the earth, do you?"
"No.. I always thought humans and dinosaurs lived together."
Most of that was paraphrasing, but you get the idea. Here is the most disturbing statistic I've heard.... well, in a very long time:
Just 50 percent of American adults knew that the earth orbits the sun and takes a year to do it. When I first saw that finding, I thought there had been a trick question whose wording might have thrown respondents off track. So I went back to the original survey and looked at the question. It read: "The Earth orbits the sun and takes a year to do it. True or false?" That seems clear enough. And yet half of the American public got it wrong.
WHAT FUCKING CENTURY IS THIS? This reminds me of a Simpsons episode I saw today:
(On Television, Principal Skinner tied to a stake with a crowd of townsfolk surrounding him, some carrying torches)
Skinner: I'm telling you people, the earth revolves around the sun!
Abe Simpson: Burn him! [lights the pyre]
Photographer: What a story! [takes a photo]
Abe Simpson: [chasing photographer] You've stolen my soul!
I mean, FUCK. I thought we solved this problem in the 16th/17th century. But I digress...
As I near the end of this rant, I want to make sure my point is clear:
- There is only one scientific theory that can explain the origin of life on Earth, and that is Evolution. This is not a point of contention in the scientific community and there is no controversy.
- A scientific theory cannot be replaced by a non-scientific theory, nor can they be taught as alternate theories. The non-scientific theory is just that: Not Science.
If you want your children to be instilled with religious beliefs, make them go to Church!
End of discussion, end of "controversy."
Sunday, April 16, 2006
It's a pleasure to be posting on the blog that I have, at times, checked more than 5 times in a day to see if anything interesting has been posted. From the dablings in the pleasure of women, to his epic performances, I have been entertained day in and day out. I am excited for this blog, not only as a colossal time user during exams, but for the discussions and rants that will likely take place.
I figure that as an opening post I would give a brief run down on some similarities that Johnny and I have, and where we both come from.
We met in High School, grade 12 specifically. It was Chemistry 30 with Zoller. We sat next to each other and had a passion for loathing the incompetence of people in the class. I often hear people make comments such as "____ is so stupid", to which I often think "look who's taking". In high school, however, Johnny and I were the ones being like "Wow, so many people are so stupid". We figured that nobody knew how to use their brains - and were we ever right.
At university, with what are suppose to be the brightest of the bright, not much has seemed to change. Sure, the people get better marks and their comments aren't as bad as they used to be, but people still ask for profs to solve logs in lecture. They still don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" if Word doesn't catch it for them. I am not overly good at english, but I would deem such mistakes unacceptable, especially from a university student.
People also think they know how to think and that they should be doctors because they want to use their brains. Sure, you don't need logs or english to be a good doctor....right? And they know how to think, as shown by the answers given in class. Given the question:
I heard the answers:
and
"It's binding to calcium ions"
"The metabolism in the kidney breaks down the EDTA leaving the heavy metals to remain in the kidney cells. Heavy metals are known to be toxic to cells and will lead to cell death in the tissues where they are concentrated"
........fools.
So where does this lead us? Well, I said it was a brief history of prime (prime being "First in excellence, quality, or value"). Johnny and I expect excellence and quality thoughts, not just from ourselves but others. And when someone has something below par, we don't let it go ;). The most legitimate comment may be deemed as stupid here, but just because we claim to know doesn't mean we remember our chemistry...although we will likely look it up if we've forgotten.
Reid
Folks, one of my 2 readers has joined me in the fight against... something. What's the opposite of mediocrity? Whatever. The point is that Reid is now an active ranting machine. I can't wait to make witty comments on his posts, like he's done for so many of mine.
Now, to find more readers...
Friday, April 14, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Wooo!
Now that that's out of the way... WOOO!
Ok, for real this time. Yes, BSD was today, and yes it kicked serious ass. I got in at about 12:30 and was drunk by 1:00. I was glad I only had 2.5 hours of sleep the night before because it made me a really cheap drunk. 5 beers and a couple Smirnoff Ice later, I was rocking out sausage-fest style with Kevin and some other people.
There were lots of women there, and many of them were prodding and grabbing us in special places, but nothing else transpired (*sniff*). I was cheering Sara on, though, because it looked as if she was in the process of hooking up with someone. GO SARA!
My favourite band of the day was Five Star Affair. They FUCKING ROCKED, complete with trumpet and didgeridoo. Not to mention the lead singer and the bass player were two smoking hot chicks. By the time they made it into the crowd, I was too drunk to make any conversation so all I could say to the singer was, "You fucking ROCK! I LOVE YOU!" Just imagine me saying that with a heavy slur.
Man, I can't wait until BSD next year - technically, I'll be a student so I should be able to go (and maybe take a day off work). Yeah, that'll be sweet.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
And I've accomplished so little. Oh well, I'm almost done my final networking assignment and I've already submitted my last (and only) Prolog assignment. All that's left to do is 2 massive group projects, both due on Wednesday.
Now that you're up to speed on the boring part of my life, here's the less boring part: the girl situation.
Ok, to start, Kathryn completely snubbed me at this student leader appreciation thing last week, which is somewhat unlike her, but not impossible to believe. I won't get all bitter and start recalling previous snubs that occurred while we were dating, but I won't not mention them either.
Second of all, "soon-to-be-married" admitted to me that she was leading me on the last couple weeks and apologized for it. Apparently she doesn't get hit on too often and was flattered at my expressed interest. It wasn't a big deal to me at all - I thought she was just being nice.
So where does that leave me? Single and looking. Very single and looking. I don't know why I put "very" in front of that sentence, but whatever. Once I get my business cards printed out, it will give me a great excuse to give cute musicians my phone number: cheap studio time.
I don't have enough time to do a full post complete with mildly amusing comments on weird news items, but I will later this week.
