LOOK OUT OF ANY WINDOW

As a New Yorker, an American, and a human being, I can't tell you how deeply I was moved by Larry the O's inspired writing in “Final Mix: Box of Rain” in the December 2001 issue.

I have always loved EM. It always has a seriousness of purpose and an integrity that shows through in every article, and it manages to combine that with a small-town informality and friendliness.

But now I must add one more thing the magazine has brought to me through Larry the O's writing: pride.

“Box of Rain” made me feel proud to be a fellow music maker. It reminded me of what musicians bring to humankind in songs and symphonies; brought the loss that the nation sustained on September 11, 2001, back in rich warm harmonies and sweeping musical gestures; and, ultimately, made me bawl like a baby.

Thank you, Larry. Thank you, EM. Be well, all of you.
David Tcimpidis
via e-mail

DEFINE “SUCK”

After I catch my breath from running to the mailbox, “Front Page” is always the first thing I read when I eagerly open my fresh issue. I have always found Steve O's column to be an inspiration — until now. In his December 2001 column, “A Clear Message,” his message was anything but clear. I am still trying to decide if Steve O is lobbying against an autonomous business exercising artistic discrimination, the same entity extending political influence, or big business in general. Maybe he's suggesting that if there are no powerful media conglomerates, political agendas won't matter. Until Steve O is qualified to explain National Public Radio, I suggest he leave that to a more appropriate publication. I can't imagine anyone reading EM for its views about the regulation of the broadcast industry. Obviously that is a personal issue of the editor. I know Steve O would never use the magazine to further a personal agenda, so what exactly was his message?

The magazine does a magnificent job of covering the cutting-edge tools and technology of electronic music and its production. My skills have improved immensely from the application of information I regularly glean from it. The editorial space allocated to publicize personal political views deprives me of valuable information. Besides that, Steve O's views suck. How is that for clarity?
Donald Baker
via e-mail

Donald — First of all, “Front Page” is my personal editorial space, and it exists so that I can share my views with readers. If you don't like what I have to say but you enjoy the rest of the magazine, I'm content with that.

I thought I clearly expressed my views in the December 2001 column, but because you found it unclear, I'll summarize the main point: in my view, it is potentially damaging to democracy when a significant number of major news and cultural sources (such as radio stations) are controlled by a small group of companies or individuals. Everything else I said in the column stems from that premise. Developments in the broadcast industry can have a direct impact on recording musicians and producers; therefore, the ownership and regulation of that industry are a legitimate concern of EM's readers — and its editor. — Steve O

YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR

I've just finished Steve O's response to Jason Turetsky's question regarding digital converters (“Letters,” December 2001). The comment regarding the “digital clipping” between 16- and 24-bit converters was quite misleading. It's impossible to record hotter signals to a 24-bit converter versus a 16-bit converter. They both clip at the same point (provided the units are calibrated to the same reference point, which they should be). The advantage of a 24-bit converter occurs in the quieter bits, because they are more accurate in providing a better picture of the sound at lower levels. That is when the 24-bit converter on a 16-bit recorder would be an advantage, as well as the available dithering and superior design to the Roland unit.
Chris Potter
via e-mail

Chris — You're correct, sir. I blew this one, and I know better. — Steve O

ONE MUSICIAN'S TRASH…

I'm a longtime reader. Here's something gear related to think about.

It's nice when you find a new use for an old piece of equipment that was taking up closet space. For example, I have a tiny 2½ octave Reveal MusicStar keyboard, which I bought about five years ago. It was part of a music-teaching CD-ROM bundle. The keys are tiny, it's not touch sensitive, it has no pitch or mod wheels, and the only MIDI is a single MIDI Out port in the back, but it recently found a new home sitting on top of my main keyboard controller.

Many of the latest audio and MIDI programs have parameters that can be triggered from MIDI note messages (such as shortcuts on a computer keyboard). Having this tiny, seemingly obsolete MIDI keyboard at arm's length is a real convenience. It's useful for triggering loops, muting or soloing tracks, jumping to markers, and using MIDI notes as a controller for synth parameters (such as filter cutoff). The keys' size and lack of touch sensitivity are actually a plus, especially for glissando effects and fast monophonic synth lines. I'm finding all kinds of uses for it, and I probably couldn't get $10 for it at a flea market!

That's just something to consider before you get rid of gear because you think you'll never have a use for it.
Joe Fry
via e-mail

A LINE BLURRED?

I've been a subscriber since the first issue and always appreciate your hard work and high standards. However, I take exception to the advertising supplement (Studios to Go, November 2001). Although clearly marked as an advertisement, it's a mistake to blur the line between objective reviews and manufacturers' self-promotion. By letting the manufacturers present the ads in a similar format to reviews, you risk losing your hard-earned credibility.

Is Akai's DPS16 really “spearheading greater flexibility” in the area of desktop studios? I value EM's opinion; the magazine might point out aspects that lack flexibility. I won't, however, take Akai's word for it. Does Fostex's VF-16 really appeal to experienced musicians? Does the Korg D1600 have “ample” inputs? By allowing the ads to appear this way, you appear to endorse those statements.

I suggest dropping this format. If I'm interested in pursuing an item after reading a review, I'll get more product literature if I need it and then assess the unit before making a purchase.
Lonny Jarrett
via e-mail

Lonny — We have received several complaints about this, much to our chagrin. Studios to Go was a special advertising section, and it said “advertising” in red letters on every page. It was never our intent to have it appear to be regular editorial; that was the inadvertent result of the art department designing the section in its usual style. We deeply regret any confusion this caused; as I hope you are aware, we are strong advocates of clear separation between advertising and editorial. In the future, we will design such special advertising sections so that they cannot possibly be mistaken for editorial copy. — Steve O

NOT JUST PRETTY PICTURES

I had been considering the sound within my personal studio. I'd begun to think that I needed to replace the speakers, add acoustic baffles, give up on having decent monitoring, and use headphones at all times. Then the November 2001 issue arrived with the “Truth or Consequences” article.

After I looked at all of the pretty gear pictures, I read the article. Based on that, I measured every length and width within my studio. I recorded the room measurements into a spreadsheet program and added the calculations using the formula from the article; I then discovered the problematic frequencies. For some years, I have had an equalizer collecting dust in a corner. I placed the equalizer between the mixer and amp inputs and tweaked the problem frequencies. To my amazement, the sound is so much better that I can hardly believe the difference. A little additional testing and tweaking based on some familiar CD recordings, and I'm smiling from ear to ear. Thank you for such a great article. It has made my studio sound better, and I saved money at the same time. Keep up the good work!
Charles Shorter
Fort Washington, Maryland

WE WELCOME YOUR FEEDBACK.

Address correspondence and e-mail to “Letters,” Electronic Musician, 6400 Hollis Street, Suite 12, Emeryville, CA 94608 or emeditorial@primediabusiness.com. Published letters may be edited for space and clarity.