deceived on a continuing and constant basis

F: ENTER the SWITCH! (2nd section !)

From analog to digital radio, analog to digital television broadcasting, still photographs to digital camera images, film cameras to digital video for theaters, beta and vhs tapes to digital video discs, viynl disc jockeys to computer filter dorks and active analog networks to digital audio processing. Our ability to perceive and respond to real events are being degraded. Our senses are being deceived on a continuing and constant basis.

5. Video Tapes:

The problem here is that Digital Video Discs (DVD's) never lived up to their hype. They were supposed to be indestructible and like CD's, they're Not. One scratch and they are done for. Even fingerprints or dust on the discs can stifle them and ruin players.. Better than tape? Better than tape was about to become? No, just less dangerous, less user friendly and much, much cheaper.

The sound was supposed to be superior and was really only multi - channel(5.1-9.1) Pulse Code Modulation digital. A word here about low frequencies aka "Bass". The point one (#.1) of the multi-channel audio specification is for a monaural subwoofer. This is a mistake originating from the incorrect notion that low frequencies are uni-directional (radiating in all directions). They are not, they become less directional than higher frequencies as their frequency decreases, yet do not become uni-directional until they get well below human hearing range (think earthquake low).

The picture was supposed to superior, when in fact, resolution was less than older user friendly formats like Betamax, SuperVHS and Laserdisc. For example many of the better early DVD's were actually shot on Betamax cameras. They are not user friendly, you cannot copy them, cannot even make analog copies, except for the few released without Digital Rights Management. There are few recording decks and fewer DVD camcorders. The image suffers from digital motion artifacts, the players lock up and skip.

But wait! Now we have a winner in the post - DVD format wars and it is ... Bluray yeah, yay! Hip, hip, horaay! Now we can buy or rent whole catalogs of movies all over again in yet another shiny new format! It used to be that for any new product to make it in the marketplace, it had to be 10 times better than the product it was replacing to be even considered for placement into the market place.

Today it seems we only have be told that something new is somehow better and we fall for it, even unproven, even disproven. If the product has 'Just Noticeable Difference' and we're told it is vastly superior, then placebo affects kick in and we end up thinking it is the greatest advance of technology since sliced bread. That is actually how this "'new boxes for old" game now works.

So is Bluray that much better? We do not know, we have not seen enough of it to say. We do know that you need a new Bluray player and a new HDTV set to even see the difference. That these sets cost more and require three to four times the amount of electricity to operate. That these sets require rare earths from undeveloped regions of the planet and this exploitation of resources is causing exploitation of humans and degradation of the environment.

Some would say 'you can not have an omelet without breaking some eggs' by way of supporting the 'march of progress'. Which we would view the same as saying 'you can not have continual economic growth of the monetary system without ruining some peoples lives'. We do know that before market penetration reaches saturation, there will be a new and improved format and shiny new boxes to tempt us. Also designed with planned obsolescence and environmental waste inside.

6 . Viynl Records:

Disc Jockeys playing Viynl Records, particularly in the rave, party and festival scenes have reached mass audiences with a depth of passion and liberating effectiveness that borders on ecstatic religious experiences. Indeed it is common for participants to state that "this is their church". That these experiences hinge entirely on the DJ's ability to reach and read the participants involvement with each piece of music is supposed to be irrelevant. As is the participants freedom to immerse themselves in the music and their freedom to respond as they feel the music move them. The reality of these crucial factors gives lie to the propaganda that these events are 'simply dope parties with loud music'.

Still the transformative power of such events on the participants has attracted authoritarian notice and the twin forces of commodification and demonization have been unleashed upon them. To the point where such events are now both sponsored by corporations and against Federal law. This despite the supposed protections of freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and freedom of association.

However, much more subtle forces have also been at work to deprive the events and their participants of much of the power of music. We speak here of the various forms forms of digital DJ's. Or since real music discs are no longer used and laptop computers are - " digital Dorks ".

There is no disputing that this form of seeming to play music is easier, lighter, quicker, cheaper, sneakier, faster and more accessible. Viynl records are much heavier than even CD's (180g vs. 6grams - mp3's weigh nothing) they're expensive, hard to conceal, they wear out fast and they are hard to find. So it would seem that there is just no contest, that purveyors of digital should win every time.

However in the real world - what is observed is that Viynl DJ's who have switched and become digital dorks lose the interest of about 20 to 30% of their loyal fan base each time they play out. The response from the people gathered is decreased drastically (again to only 20 to 30%). It becomes harder for them to get everyone dancing and harder to keep them dancing through the mixes and breakdowns.

Now digital dorks will dispute this, since they do not notice it, having their noses, eyes, hands and attention buried in their laptop screen. Which may also contribute the the deceased response, since the amount or lack of attention given to the participants response to what they are hearing is a large factor. The clue to the answer is that these percentages are consistent with the rates of placebo response. A placebo response is what you experience when you think you are getting what you need, even if you are not. It is the response to the fake sugar pill, that you have because you think you are getting the real medicine in a double blind Pharmaceutical study.

With digital files what occurs is, you hear the sounds, they seems like sounds you heard and had a response to before, your memory brings up the recollection of your earlier response and you begin to have it again. Yet it is little more than dancing to the memory of a song and your response dwindles to a fraction over time. Are we saying you cannot have a good time listening and dancing to digital files? No, you can push yourself into having a good time no matter what the situation. Just keep going when you notice the sound is not supporting your efforts like music once did and you'll be fine . . . mostly.

The sad reality is that sounds made from digital files are only amplified digital representations of samples of music. They do not have the ability to create long term beneficial effects on your body, your nervous system, your brain or the electromagnetic and neuro-chemical transmitters that are the basis for your body's feelings, moods and emotional states. Which you need for your health and well being. Nor are digital files of any benefit to the non - material parts of your self, that are usually referred to as your "souls".

Since digital files cannot affect your subjective experience and they have no actual reality of their own (being essentially vapourware composed of binary bits) they have no effects on objective reality beyond vibration as a form of digital noise pollution. Nor are there effects from digital files on quantum states of reality, since there are no lower or higher order harmonics preserved with any sort of fidelity. So, we do not actually have music any more.
So . . . digital . . . what is it good for . . .

7. Analog Audio:

Here we come to the matter of Concerts, which , if they are not entirely performed on acoustic instruments (those capable of creating sound of themselves) or by singers, may involve a system of sound amplification. This can be for the purposes of ensuring that even quiet instrumentation is heard. Or simply to convey the sound to a larger audience. Or to raise the impact of the performance by increasing the sound pressure level experienced by the audience.

There have been large strides made in the accuracy and fidelity of such systems of sound amplification over the last half dozen decades. Great innovation and invention, development and testing has brought large improvements to all parts of such systems. From myriad new types of microphones, transducers and other input devices to the new clarity and versatility of ever larger signal mixing consoles. From more powerful and new designs for amplifiers to better and more precise tone controls (EQualization). There has even been improvements in new types of loudspeaker cabinets, driver elements and array configuration. These were most needed since loudspeakers have always been the weak link in the chain of sound reproduction (least accurate, most distortion).

There has also been a growing cadre of professionals who operate these systems and have accumulated a growing trove of knowledge of what works in each instance. But no longer, everything associated with concerts using large sound systems, over the last decade, has come under the sway of a new methodology with a new class of devices. Discarding decades of knowledge and experience, because it now serves a new master-"profit". Profit first, profit foremost and only profit.

Learned and caring professionals whose mission it was to ensure that the artists' performance reached the audience in ways desired by the artists' in a manner beneficial to the audience have been discarded. Replaced by inexperienced lower paid workers skilled in one area - Manipulation of digital files by digital devices and computer software programs for creating the illusion of performance.

That's right, some of the concerts using large sound systems are using stored digital files to recreate a previously sampled digital representation of the reality of a prior performance or studio recording, in short - it is faked. Recall that Milli & Vanilli had to surrender their Grammys back to the R.I.A.A. not because they were caught lip-syncing , but because Milli & Vanilli were in fact, Not the Artists who performed for the recording that was played behind their lip-synch act. The industry has been tacitly winking at this sort of fraudulent "performance" for some time now.

However, if you still doubt this, take a closer look at the back of your ticket, it no longer mentions that it is for admission to a venue for a performance by the artist(s). It can not legally because in some instances the artist is not giving a performance, just a charade of a pantomime act. It is quite clear why some artists have been convinced to go along with this.

No one is going to be perfectly "on" every night of a tour, and financially they can not afford the risk of losing fans and their attendant revenue. Pull a perfect show out of the digital hat every time though, and everyone gets paid and it fools most of the audience. So the pressure from their management, their record company, the event producers, ticket sellers, venue owners and media corporations is truly immense.

Really, it would only be a shocking story if the technology to stage perfect faked performances were Not Used. Given how much money and how many entities are involved. Now, as stated earlier in this discourse, there are artists skilled enough, confident enough and with enough success to have the clout to not go along with these schemes and to actually perform their works of music.

Sadly it often does not matter if they do, as the large sound systems often contain multiple digital devices and multiple analog to digital and digital to analog converters. These devices can render even the greatest performances of music incapable of having life affirming long term affects on the individuals in the audience.

The most common of these devices is the digital version of an analog active dividing network (crossover). It is used for dividing the sound spectrum into discrete groups for routing to specialized drivers in the loud speaker system. The reason for this is that no single type of loudspeaker driver is capable of accurately reproducing the entire sound spectrum by itself (which *should* cause you to wonder about those itybity things you are putting inside your skull via your ears) .

Most simply, these drivers are referred to by the portion of the sound spectrum that they can handle (i.e. woofer = low range /mids = midrange/tweeter = high range). This makes dividing networks (crossovers) essential to sound systems, however the digital versions of such devices (also called dynamic or speaker controllers) all contain analog to digital/digital to analog converters, since they do all their processes in the digital domain.

It is here that the signals lose their attributes of being music. The reasons for employing such devices (aside from being cheaper and more profitable) are given as the greater flexibility, as they have the ability to model multiple electrical dividing networks that would be too prohibitively expensive to actually construct. There are many other digital devices that can be in the signal chain (effects (echo, delay, reverb) compressor/expanders, gates, vocal tuners, harmonic generators, equalization, mixing console, et cetera). While many can be done by analog devices without loss or damage, it has gotten to the point that an artist would need an expert to ferret such things out of sound system. To have them physically removed to assure that their performance remained analogous to music.

So why isn't it done? Basically, a lack of knowledge of how far the technology has strayed, this information is not disclosed. Again why not? Well all the individuals involved are under contract not to divulge this information. Some are actually under contract to dispute the validity of any of this information about digital devices. All make some or all of their income from either the design, manufacture, distribution, advertising, sale, use, transport, lease, hire, rental, operation or employment of systems of digital devices. So, the controlling entities are assured and certain that the individuals involved have many incentives to maintain silence. So, why would anyone want to control the who, how, where, when and why of how music is conveyed? . . . oh wait . . . it is another rabbit . . . no . . . this one's a gopher hole!

PEACE ! ©02010 ©02011 Cee Are & CkaS

Note this is a section from an earlier post "Regaining Your Rights"