A note on programming (see menu – projects – programming):
This could need an updating – I know. Yet I am more interested in doing work, these days, than investing a lot of time programming how to avoid doing it. Even if my “work researcher urge” is always to look into the work reduction side of on-going tasks. I am not allowed to spend much time with this, in my current job, and doing programming is demanding in my free time. So I usually avoid it.
Yet I do use my free time to update the Bro system where needed. And worthy modules that do make a change like Mirror (Speil). Very useful for updating my laptop. In all, the system is so useful for me, that being able to transfer it to a new PC and operating system is a major strategical task. Therefore, I took time off from my Christmas holiday to get it working on a new PC upgrading from Windows xp to 7. This mainly worked fine – the troubles were not in my programming but in external changes. I did little or nothing, changing the Bro system code. All the problems were “known suspects” like the code not working due to new security issues. The Bro system runs low-key and has limited cost so I keep it running. The surface has been improved by prioritizing calendar events. Perhaps some further developments could be made, like a mix of calendar events and recent news. I find that one of the main ways I used the interface is to get quickly to “recent news”.
As noted in my earlier blog post, “the loudness war” is a case of mismanagement – and a conflict over what consumers hear. Some examples:
Destroyer: Kaputt – 2 x LP – sounds quite good and undistorted / non-compressed. The improved sound – compared to many other new LPs – allows the more subtle and symphonic ambitions to shine through, contributing a lot to my enjoyment of the music. The good sound helped the album to win critic awards and a strong score on 2011 best album lists (second, on Pitchfork).
The latest King Crimson and Yes incarnations, Jakszyk, Fripp and Collins: A scarcity of miracles (including improved ‘frippertronics’) and Yes: Fly from here, also pass in my sound testing, as do the recent Kate Bush albums, and others.
Yet many others, like the latest album by War against drugs: Slave ambient, sound so-so and only mediocre. I don’t know exactly, but this effect mainly seems to be caused by too low resolution combined with too much compression. Fleet Foxes’ first LP is another example.
When I get frustrated by this suboptimal rendering of new music, and turn back to well-recorded all-analog albums from the 1970s or early 80s, before digital came into the chain, I hear none of these problems, but then again, I hear other problems, like – usually – a more limited soundscape with less low bass and high treble. The mid-tone “ambience”, however, is usually better, and this often makes up for what is missing in the frequency extremes. There is more of a feeling that this music is actually created by musicans playing together. Instruments do not just make sounds “on their own”, but in combination with others. These combinations are more deeply and subtly reproduced, in the best analog recordings, before digital over-optimism took over.
However, this techno-optimist tendency did not start with the loudness and compression, or even with the CD and the soon-to-be-proven false idea of CD resolution as “perfect”. It started with transistors. We produced the Doors’ albums with gradually worse sound, the sound engineer has told in a recent interview (see http://musicangle.com/feat.php?id=144). At the time (1967-70), the Electra studio console was changed from a tube system to a solid state transistor system. Studios dropped their established tube gear in favour of new, and acclaimed better, transistor gear. Even if, in hindsight, and by today’s listening criteria, there is no doubt that the sound changed mainly for the worse!
The Doors were among my favourite groups, I have many versions of their LPs including Mobile fidelity pressings and the recent box set, and my listening experience is the same as sound engineer Bruce Botnick’s. The sound got increasingly “transistor-like” brittle and hard, even if the frequency spectrum perhaps became a bit larger and flatter.
The loudness war, like the sugar war, are examples of market mechanisms working suboptimally – at least from a textbook liberal economic point of view. Why are they suboptimal? They typically start with a good idea, but over time, the new patten or idea turns into a kind of arthritis pattern, blocking the market distribution system from functioning in the ways it should do, the ways that market ideologists from Adam Smith onwards envisioned, with the market as a tool for improving society through increased wealth. So for example, through the “dirty” means of profit, the music market would create better music than earlier distribution forms.
This “increased wealth” part is obviously part of the problem. It turns sour, changing into over-eager profit-making. Turn it up, to sell better. But it is not the only part. There is an idealist element too, perhaps a kind of “engineer’s idealism”. This was what translated better sound in some ways (the CD, measuring better than it actually sounded to human ears), into some high-flying “perfect” heavenly attribute. So it would seem that belief and religion, “religious” ways of making market arguments, have an influence too.
Whatever the cause, market solutions are found that may be good then and there (e g the introduction of the CD), but not so good over time, developing into almost “feudal” hindrances to free market initiatives. They involve some short-term market development, and yet turn into a blocking of development and real change for the better. Not only was there no “perfect sound”, this very ideology and business rationale actively helped monopolize the market and keep innovations down (like, only a half-life for the better formats like SACD).
Similar twisted paths can probably be found in much consumer (and producer) industry, even in our “enlightened” world. Why such things happen, is an interesting task for research.
The loudness war is now discussed in Norway also (“lydstyrkekrigen”). It is not a war. The use of the term says something of our time. But it is a fairly bad case of mismanagement. Like the idea – perhaps not when it first formulated, but when it was later repeated – of the CD as “perfect sound forever”. This case of mismanagement is similar to using too much sugar when producing food.
Sugar is sweet, and cheap, why not use it to raise food business profits? This time, it is music business profits, with sound compression the equivalent of sugar. Same shit, new wrapping. Loudness functions as “ear candy”. The music sounds more engaging, especially in the beginning. It has a greater chance to catch the ear, over a lot of other noise. Compression means that the sound level is turned up, so it all sounds louder -and initially more engaging.
The cost of this loudness turn-up and compression, is that it all sounds more tiresome after a while, like sugar not being so good for the body. Especially, the intense parts are limited or cut off. The sound is quite nasty especially during these parts, as a lot of internet users have complained. I just read a user complaining “it sounds like poo”. New terms are used to describe the problem, the music sounds “crushed”. The typical listener reaction, the first line of defense, is to turn the volume down. But then the music is no longer so engaging – which was the goal, in the first place.
The extra sugar, or loudness, is more easily heard, the better and more truthful the sound reproduction system. On a quality sound system, the same music sounds good on quiet to moderate or less dynamic passages, but turns hard and brittle on dynamic passages. Clearly something is not working very right. This now gets critique from vinyl record buyers especially, not just oldie audiofiles but the hip young crowd also, complaining that their new favourite today’s year group actually sounds worse than some post-punk LP from 1985 or so.
An example is the ambitious and often successful Danish band Mew. Their newest album No more stories is well pressed on two fairly thick vinyl LPs. The vinyl production is fine. The problem is the master used in the first place – it seems to be the same compressed master used for the CD, whatever the case, the sound is not right. It is fine when the group is quiet, ok when it is louder, but bad when it gets loud. How come? Such LPs should have a warning sticker “COMPRESSED SOUND”. Even better, the sticker should specify the digital or analog copy method used, and if digital, the resolution used, along with the amount of compression.
Buying new LPs, I tend to hear three typical detractors from enjoyment. The first, and worst by far, is the compression discussed above. The second is digital copying with too low resolution. The third is poor production, very common in the early 2000s when it looked like the LP was going to die, but improved and less common now. Some quality record labels – Speaker’s corner comes to mind – very often give good sound, avoiding compression and minimizing digital problems. Some bands and artists are very keen on getting the best sound, not just the best music, like Tom Petty and Steven Wilson. Whenever I see the name “Bernie Grundman” and other good producers I tend to look once more at the title, this usually means good sound. The Grundman-produced Shelby Lynne: Give me some loving LP is great. ECM’s new vinyl, at least Nik Bartsch: Llyria are very good, no compression here and not much digitalis either (this is not so strange, since it seems that most or all of the recording is done in the analog domain in such cases). However, these are niche products.
In Norway, recording studios like Kirkelig kulturverksted often produce good music, but the sound is not high class, but only mid-level resolution, slightly higher than CD. When this is put to vinyl, the results are often only mediocre, as on Kari Bremnes: Reise, a live LP. The sound is clearly inferior to the better resolution and production on Kari Bremnes: Norwegian mood (which got some special EU audiofile attention). This seems typical.
One of last year’s most-favoured and most-sold albums, Adele: 21, has upset the discerning buying public by its compressed sound. I can hear it even on my PC, and can very well understand why those investing in the LP get mad about it. The internet is full of complaints.
So we will see, who wins the sugar war or the loudness war, who brings home the bacon, and who will fry.
I have been thinking, why is “terror” judged so much by words? Why not look at the actions, their actual consequences? Who is killed or wounded? The victims are mainly civilians. In Norway, at Utøya, youth and children.Civilians, women, men and children – these are the typical targets. I have called terrorists “fascists” in a former blog post. Whatever we call them, the victim is clear; civilians and civil society.
This is what terrorists don’t respect – whatever their words. This is what they try to strangle. Everything that is soft, human, vulnerable, trying. This is dangerous and must be eradicated. Society must be “cleansed”. Terrorists use words, to further the deception – it is done for or against capitalism or imperialism, against the wrong religion, and so on. But the real message is in the action itself – the killing of civilians. According to the Norway July 22 2011 terrorist, this deed is even “knightly”.
Besides the actual victims, two key processes are blocked by the typical terrorist actions. The first, most visible, is democracy. A good target in terrorist logic is voters. Another good target is women in public, or schools for girls (e g Afghanistan). The attack on democracy trend is accompanied, more or less visibly, by attacks on women and gender equality. In the Norway case, the terrorist wanted to target two groups, “cultural marxists” and “feminists”, and the misogynistic aspect is fairly clear (e g women described as birth machines).
In a paper written in 2004, called “A theory of gendercide” (see Texts / Publications in English, on the menu above), I discussed the role of sex/gender in the build-up processes of social aggression and war. I compared Nazi Germany, the Balkan wars in the 1990s, and other cases. I found that a trend towards misogyny (hatred of women) and anti-feminism is common, sometimes combined with an idealized “upgraded” role of women in the new state (or reich) created by the aggressors. I also discuss evidence pointing to sexist terror becoming more common, as a component of terror in general.
The Norwegian 2011 terrorist saw himself as knightly, although he did not exactly protect women and children. Terrorists generally appear on the lower end of the power scale in a conflict. They are not up to a meeting man to man, so to speak, they do not have a military able to meet the enemy on a battle front. Instead they operate a bit like thieves, through sneak attacks. This “lower class position” of terror in the hierarchy of forms of warfare, contributes to the anti-civilian, anti-women and anti-children character of typical terrorist attacks, although it is not the only reason for these trends. Terrorism, as a method, as acutely anti-democratic. Democracy is what we do not have time for, faced with terrorism. We must fight or flee. The terrorist act is not an invitation to democratic settlement, but the very antidote to such settlements. It is no wonder, therefore, that terrorism tends to go together with reduction of democracy, and renewed authoritarianism, on all sides.
I learned in school that democracy was a formal thing. It meant elections every four year and so on. This year, I have learned that it is a very real and lively and vulnerable thing. It is not just there, by itself, it is something we must fight for. Today’s “contempt for politicians” resembles the contempt for democracy in the 1930s. “Politicians” are not crooks, but people elected – by us. The enemies of democracy should be brought into the open.
This is hard. It is really hard. It comes to attack me in my dreams.
I thought I was well prepared. But how could someone do this? Not just a bomb, but an hour-long systematic shooting of youth? I haunts me and gives me nightmares. It is worse than even the Nazi death camps.
Here are some pictures, telling more than many words. The first is of prime minister Jens Stoltenberg. present when a woman got a message of grief (copied from media reports July 24).
Tomorrow Norway stops
Norway stands still one minute, the headline says. It was to become more.
The next pictures are from the flower demonstration in Oslo, known as The Rose March, on July 25, where many people participated, perhaps a third of the nearer city centre population. In fact, the centre of Oslo was so full of people that no march type of demonstration could be arranged. Similar scenes had not been seen since the liberation of Norway from the Nazis in 1945.
All kinds of flowers were displayed.
As a participant, I felt that all the people were angry – and yet not about to show revenge!
On the next picture you can see how all kinds of people participated, and on the left, children at the shoulders of their parents. Is it symbolic that the sign in the middle asks for low speed.
Only a third or so of the marchers had the opportunity to actually hear the start speeches for the meeting. The rest walked towards the parliament and the main church of Oslo. I was among them.
This is how the “main strip of Oslo” between the parliament (Storting) and the King’s castle looked
The streets were full of people. We turned towards the main church of Oslo, to honour the dead.
Many had laid their flowers there already, it was hard to get approach, the square was packed with people.
For some months now, I have had stipend time, to write a book on gender equality theory. That is, not just gender equality in practice, but as a theory matter also. A matter to be researched, studied, identified – far better than today.
Why? I look at gender equality as a subject on its own, beyond gender. I look at the main traditions in research regarding gender inequality, compared to new material on increasing equality. What works, what not. Wheat and chaff.
I also discuss theory issues like, when is a gender power model appropriate, when not. Is gender equality something that happens after a lot of social development and democratization – or rather, a causal factor or predictor variable, acting on its own.
The book will hopefully be published first in Norwegian (2012 or 13) as Likestillingsteori, and then in a revised and translated version ca one year later, as Gender equality theory.
The Arab revolution 2011 is about democracy, dignity and development. This new voice of freedom is constantly silenced and twisted. One way to do it, is to bomb communication links.
The Cafe Argana in Marrakech is not a communication link by itself, but a symbol of communication. It was selected for symbolic terrorist attack Friday April 28. I was there ten days earlier, with my sons. I am very much aggrieved and saddened by this attack. My heart is with those who have lost their loved ones. I am just a Norwegian. I can’t say much for Moroccan culture. But I feel, this is an attack on everything that the new Morocco stands for.
When we were at Cafe Argana, my sons and I enjoyed the view of the great square and used the opportunity to discuss some larger matters, like, what could work, for Morocco, why does it have a fifty percent illiteracy rate, why not more prosperity, being so close to Europe. It could be said that we were at the Cafe with a bit of love for Morocco in our hearts, like many guests. In that view. the killers have killed a piece of Morocco, through us, the Argana clientele .
How dare these bomb-throwing cowards and fascists speak for the people of the Arab world? I am only a foreigner, but as a world citizen, I have to speak my mind. I think that the new fascists must be clearly named and opposed. If initiatives like “the new Morocco” keeps to a democratic agenda, there will be increased progress and increased freedom. The opportunities are there.
For some reason this song part often intrudes when I read recent news on the 2011 Arab revolution – and counter-revolution, e g in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. It is from the Doors’ first album (1967), the song The End. The snake is long, seven miles… he is old, his skin is cold, Jim Morrison sings, in one of the dream moments of this apocalyptic song. Perhaps it is no wonder that it creeps up on me, as I read about the counter-revolution, the way tyrants now move into fascist means of controlling their populations, firing with heavy armour, using the military, covert action, snipers and torture.
My heart is with the revolution, the proudness and courage displayed by the democracy protesters, who are forced to become militia, and take up weapons, and their families and friends. Whatever the tyrants do, the democracy activists will be remembered as martyrs for a more democratic, free, developing, prosperous, respectful and dignified Arab world.
Question: will a high quality 2 x 80 watt mono block tube amplifier, based on 211 tubes, perform better with big difficult speakers like Dynaudio Consequence (a 5-way system), than the Krell FPB600 transistor amp?
Short answer: no.
I tested, borrowing a friend’s tube mono blocks, each weighing 50 kg or so, due to big oversize transformers. These were hardcore 80 watts, the amps should be able to drive difficult loads, or be much like a higher number of official transistor watts, say 150 to 200.
I noticed some interesting things on the way.
First, the tube amps would not get a decent volume in my ca 45 m2 room until I put the preamp volume at four o’clock – with the Krell, it reaches this level already at one o’clock. I first thought, well, this goes to show how power-hungry the Consequences are, but I also tested with a small Royd Sorcerer speaker, and the story was much the same there (or, to three o’clock). The amps need a stronger than usual input signal, which by itself should not influence the sound quality much. Possibly, my IO preamp sounds best cranked up, as long as it goes beyond 11 or 12 (with the Krell), it sounds fine.
I measured the decibel level in the listening position, music came alive around 75-85 decibel, much the same as with the Krell, although this required a higher than usual preamp volume.
Second, the tube amps are the first I have tried that seriously makes an attempt to make the Consequence speakers work. My small Ming Da 38 watts stereo tube amp does not work very well, making the speakers sound strange and thin.
However, even if “the hand” (amp) was now large enough to try out the “glove” (speaker), it was not a very good fit. The 80 watt tube amps did not “hold” the speakers in the way achieved by the Krell, not surprising, since the latter has perhaps x 2 or 3 in objective power level (hard to say exactly, many variables involved).
This was most noticeable on dynamic large scale music, but also on attacks, transients etc. The speakers sounded somewhat hollow, and the music somewhat strained.
In fact, after some hours of testing, my wife sat down to listen, and after an hour, concluded, “no, this does not work out, the sound is bad”. She used words like “hard, straining”; I would also say, “flat”.
Third, the experiment cast the Krell in a good light. Ken Kessler, reviewing the FPB 600 amp in Stereophile in 1997, was right when he said that the Krell was almost indistinguishable from good tube equipment in some key areas. The 2 x 80 tube monoblocs sounded remarkably “Krell-like” in suprising ways, for me, – quite analytical, much more frequency-linear and less “tubey” than my small Ming Da tube amp (less of a bell curve). The were less sweet than the Krell!
I have read reviewers writing of the convergence of transistor and tube, but have not experienced it for myself. The tubes sounded a bit harder and more analytical than the Krell – but this may be due to the fact that they were not quite powerful enough to drive the speakers properly, and perhaps also that the 211 tubes were not optimal. A main symptom was the hard, strained sound at high music volumes, and another that voices were not pronounced by the tube amps, as they should have been, but were instead more hollow, as if lost in the mix. A likely cause is power limitation, too few watts to drive the speakers properly, fill the “glove”.
One of my conclusions is, that the next time I suspect the Krell amp for adding transistor-related types of pollution to the sound, I should pause, and look for other factors instead. The transistor hardness was not much notable in the test.
Why do I take the trouble of this kind of test? Heavy hifi is, well, heavy. Changing cables, carrying equipment, adjusting and listening takes time. This is by intention my hobby only. I have no work connection or commercial interests in the audio field.
One reason is that I often hear various kinds of noise and sound pollutions. I listen to music and play some, as a musician, and since my positioning in music is as participant, not just spectator, I can’t help looking for what to blame, or what could be set (more) right. This is “the audio bug”, but it has also helped me and my family to get much more out of music than we would otherwise have achieved.
If I suspect the Krell, should I be more careful, perhaps the source is somewhere else? A possible broader conclusion has to do with – in audiophile terms – component matching and system synergy. If you drive speakers right, they will sound less hard, more dimensional, improving the imaging, and so on, everything will fall into place. You should test a component in its optimal system setting.
The German record label Speaker’s Corner has remastered and rereleased Wizz Jones 1972 LP Right now.
Why is this a great event? One, because the LP is great. Two, because it sounds better than ever before.
The LP has been an almost unobtainable secret classic, but it is also quite variable. Listen to its best tracks, especially on side one, and ignore the fillers, especially on side two. The best tracks include “Which of them you love the best”, with outstanding ensemble playing, singing, and thoughtful lyrics from Alan Tunbridge; “One grain of sand”, a great song by Pete Seeger brought successfully into a humble, c0ntemplative form; and “City of the angels” (Tunbridge), with exceptionally excellent guitar work from John Renbourn and Wizz Jones, playing duo.
Overall, the guitar work on the album is outstanding, or at least very competent, on the throwaway filler tracks. And the mood on the best tracks is very worthwhile, even today – we are a bit after the “youth revolt”, the 1960s revolution, the music reflects on what happened, what could it be. It is tentative, limited, in the works – and sometimes works all the better because of it.
The album was mainly ignored when it was released in 1972. So much happened at the time, and not many people got to hear it. All the more honour to Speaker’s Corner, rereleasing it today.
I don’t know how they do it, but this label has served me very well. No sense of digitalis here. For example, their remaster of Santana’s Caravanserai sounds much better than the MoFi remasters of the two first Santana LPs, which appeared around the same time, a couple of years ago. The MoFis are harder and flatter, the SC softer, more dimensional, deeper. Some of my SC LPs (like Caravanserai, and another goodie, Supersession) are cut a bit below standard volume, but that is not the case with Right now. My friend Bjørn Moe has A-B tested the reissue and the original CBS LP, which he owns, and he confirms that the reissue in many ways sounds better. The sound is more “here”, it pops out, dynamics seems greater. This is the case also with Steely Dan: Cant buy a thrill, another excellent SC reissue.
