[PD] Feedback discussion

[Derek Holzer]

As I said already, I'm not interested in predictability. Analog 
nonlinearity is interesting to me, much more so than digital 
pseudo-randomness. But my main interest is in being able to maintain a 
live performance in the midst of all this unpredictability. When digital 
stuff fails, it tends to fail catastrophically--in other words NO SOUND. 
Game over. The "errors" that I get from analog instabilities are much 
more interesting than anything I've managed to predictively compute. And 
even when they aren't, they still make noise, unlike an overloaded 
digital filter or software crash, which just shuts everything down.

But now that you mention it, a huge Faraday cage to perform my live sets 
in wouldn't be such a bad idea. Might protect me from unsympathetic 
audience resonances!

D.

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> Ow, I don't know how you can rely on your analogue gear to work... I 
> suppose you keep room temperature very close to constant, and you put 
> the whole thing in a huge faraday cage, etc. One big reason for using 
> digital gear is that it's so much more predictable.


-- 
::: derek holzer ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ::: 
http://www.vimeo.com/macumbista :::
---Oblique Strategy # 80:
"Go to an extreme, come part way back"