# Other opinions



## Doug Rogers (Sep 9, 2005)

Frankly, I don't think any of you that sing in choirs would ever be satisfied with any sampled choir library given today's technological limitations, however to balance your opinions here are some others from reviewers around the globe ...

"The Symphonic Choirs package is a true breakthrough product that will forever change the way that producers work. This is not an ordinary sample library but a highly realistic and expressive vocal instrument that ushers in a new era of creative power." - FUTURE MUSIC (USA) REVIEW

"An epic step forward in the evolution of the sampled choir, Choirs delivers an Oscar-winning performance that could grace any soundtrack. - 10/10" - MUSIC TECH (UK) REVIEW

"EWQL Symphonic Choirs sets a new standard for choir sample libraries." - MUSIC4GAMES REVIEW

"The gigantic sound quality makes Symphonic Choirs an essential part of every top studio. Even though this much quality is not available for pocket money, you cannot avoid getting this product if you need perfect choir material. Quality 5/5, Creativity factor 5/5, Production 5/5, Booklet 5/5, Overall 5/5" - PC & MUSIC (GERMANY) REVIEW


----------



## José Herring (Sep 9, 2005)

Doug,

With all due respect. I really want to believe in your product. But truth be told I haven't heard one demo, except for Folmann's, that I thought was at all realistic. 

It's not that I don't want to use it. Or won't buy it. I just think that we need to be more frank about what the actual limitation and uses are. Folmann came up with something that sounds half good.

I say this not to start controversey over it or anything. It's that I just met with a really well know and high profile film composer today and he was asking me about your product cause he want's to mock up somethings in Aramaic(sp) for some new pieces. He asked me about it and I had to tell him the truth. Right now it's not fooling anybody.

I played some of the demos for my non musically trained mom and she was complain about the artificial sound of the library. If a non-trained person can tell then any sample library looses it's value imo.

So I'd like to know what can be done to improve the sonic reality of the library?

Jose


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 9, 2005)

Which high profile composer? 8)


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 9, 2005)

Danny Thrax.


Choco Elfman.... :shock:


----------



## synergy543 (Sep 9, 2005)

Ron Hubbard? He was a pretty high profile composer. I never knew that before.

http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/professional-dozens-fields/artist/composer/ (http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/l ... /composer/)


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 9, 2005)

..........


----------



## José Herring (Sep 9, 2005)

synergy543 said:


> Ron Hubbard? He was a pretty high profile composer. I never knew that before.
> 
> http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/professional-dozens-fields/artist/composer/ (http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/l ... /composer/)



Yeah, Heard some of his music. Pretty good melody writer but kick ass with rhythms. He wrote somethings about rhythm that I use in what I compose. Strong and week beat accents and all that stuff. Great for writing drum tracks.


@choco, your clue is Aramiac :wink:



Jose


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 9, 2005)

..........


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 9, 2005)

josejherring said:


> @choco, your clue is Aramiac :wink:



Dead give-away. 

Why is he still writing for Aramaic though? Is there going to be a POTC 2? :shock:


----------



## José Herring (Sep 9, 2005)

Scott Cairns said:


> josejherring said:
> 
> 
> > @choco, your clue is Aramiac :wink:
> ...



Hahahaha. Yeah, Ressurection Symphony! 

He's doing a bit of a tour. He's got a concert at the Crystal Cathederal on Sunday Night. Free. All are welcome. It's at 8pm. He wanted me to invite everybody since it was an impromtu concert.

Jose


----------



## sbkp (Sep 9, 2005)

Scott Cairns said:


> josejherring said:
> 
> 
> > @choco, your clue is Aramiac :wink:
> ...



I first saw POTC as "Pirates of the Carribean." Huh? Aramaic? Hmm...

Okay, I had to go look it up. Thankfully Crystal Cathedral has a website...

:oops: 

- Stefan


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 9, 2005)

sbkp said:


> I first saw POTC as "Pirates of the Carribean." Huh? Aramaic? Hmm...
> 
> Okay, I had to go look it up. Thankfully Crystal Cathedral has a website...
> 
> ...



Ah sorry, who'dve thought that POTC would spell two movies? :roll: 

In case anyone is still wondering... Passion Of The Christ......


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 9, 2005)

Ah today while I was lifting weights I was listening to Ressurection and also the main titles to End of Days. Have you ever been to Debney's place? If you're ever there sneak around for any Cutthroat Island sheet music.


----------



## synergy543 (Sep 9, 2005)

josejherring said:


> Yeah, Heard some of his music. Pretty good melody writer but kick ass with rhythms. He wrote somethings about rhythm that I use in what I compose. Strong and week beat accents and all that stuff. Great for writing drum tracks.


The guy was really into samplers! Check out what he has to say about the Fairlight. He'd be blown away by today's technology.

http://www.ronthemusicmaker.org/fair.htm


----------



## José Herring (Sep 9, 2005)

Fact is Fo that you're the only person that uses the choir well. Where does that leave me? How much time did you spend on the demo you did? 

Look it's obvious that the choir has the potential to be outstanding. And, I'm not a whiner about Sopranos vs. Altos. Please. Most choirs freely mix the two voices due to lack of woman power and there isn't a film score with choir that distinguishes the two. Tenor and Basses on the other hand I think they have a point. Tenor is a unique voice that has to be trained and is pretty different than the Baritone or bass voice.

But what is important is how much time is involved in getting a decent sounding choir out of EWQLSOC.


----------



## Nick Phoenix (Sep 10, 2005)

josejherring said:


> Doug,
> 
> With all due respect. I really want to believe in your product. But truth be told I haven't heard one demo, except for Folmann's, that I thought was at all realistic.
> 
> ...



?????? I use EWQLSC on trailers all the time. It fools everyone. Those demos were done with broken software.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 10, 2005)

True enough I'm sure Nick. 

But that only makes two of you. The creator and Folmann. What about the rest of the world. What's being done to make the software more user friendly and effective? 

Jose


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 10, 2005)

..........


----------



## José Herring (Sep 10, 2005)

:roll: 

Let's see Scott. Let's get specific then and dispense with the generalities. Okay.

John Debney in his first major film score for Disney "Hocus Pocus" used a womens choir that disguised it's voice to sound like a Children's choir. 

I was at the "I Robot" session and Beltrami used a 25 piece choir multitracked 4 times to sound like a 100 piece choir. Two takes men and female Soprano and Tenor. Two takes THE SAME MEN AND WOMEN Alto and bass.

John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith two scores that I know of that use Women disguising their voice to sound like children.

Okay granted maybe for the 10 or so "professional" concert choirs out there there may be strict guidlines. But my college eartraining teacher sung for the Choir at 5th Ave pres. church in New York. An 80 piece fully professional choir and she had vocal range enough to go where she was needed.

I just have a hard time believing that there's, oh, such a big difference between the female sop and the female altos singing the same notes. Are the Alto vocal chords fatter?

But I guess we can play the game of snobs and save our precious music for only the most prestiness and pureness of ensembles. God I hope the e-flat clarinet player in my next sessions doesn't also play bflat and a. :o 

Jose


----------



## lux (Sep 10, 2005)

I wasnt convinced from many of the demos too (not musically but just technically). I'm not a choir guy, but I felt transitions noises too evident in quite all demos and hard attacks. 

But it could really be a software issue. 

I got also another opionion about that: generaly speaking, I think its time for EWQL to abandon that "out of the box" philosophy that was strictly followed in the past, with demos and tech/hints support.

Lets say: almost all good sounding demos with ALL libraries (including EWQLSO) are tweaked. The rest is just marketing. Gold allows me to load fast sounds and those blend together nicely without messing with reverb busses, equalizers... But I tweaked all patches to suit my needs.

Lot of libraries developers allowed the birth and exchange of multiple techniques to improve performances of the libs. EWQL did oppose to this pratice from the beginning.

Maybe its time to allow people exchange stuff, tips, to tell people "hey, the attack time of this patch wasnt programmed good, you can fix it adding 40 miliseconds on envelope"...and so on.

I think this will improve quality of the demos impressively. Recordings are usually really nice, so imho its mainly a matter of usages....and tweaks.

Luca


----------



## gugliel (Sep 10, 2005)

josejherring said:


> I just have a hard time believing that there's, oh, such a big difference between the female sop and the female altos singing the same notes. Are the Alto vocal chords fatter?



Yes. Generally their bodies too. One big difference, seriously, especially in the men, is simply technique: basses use chest voice all the way to the top of their range, resulting in a "manly" strong sound for high baritone; tenors go to head voice just around where sc drops out the bass voice. It's true that a really good singer can cover the range for the other parts, but that's not the point, since we are trying to replace really good singers with electronic samples.

Luca's points are extremely good, too; fully agree.


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 10, 2005)

Scott Rogers said:


> Doug, why did you double-post this?



It was a mistake! I was posting a response to the other thread and somehow created a new one. 

Anyway, we are beta testing both a player update and WB update that resolve some technical issues with the software, so hang in there, we won't stop improving this until most users find it as easy to use as we do. 

We are also working on a version that includes a pop-down menu with pre-written popular phrases that you can add to. We feel this will really save some time for busy composers.

At the same time as the updates are released we will release a 7 segment tutorial which is all filmed in real-time so you can see there is no voodoo involved!

- Doug


----------



## Ed (Sep 10, 2005)

Doug Rogers said:


> At the same time as the updates are released we will release a 7 segment tutorial which is all filmed in real-time so you can see there is no voodoo involved!



YES!

Video tutorials thats whats missing!

Ed


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 10, 2005)

Folmann said:


> I don?t like being dragged into this discussion.
> 
> The fact remains that EWQLSC is the best choir library ever made. Its sound is unmatched and I personally think its an amazing accomplishment.
> 
> Reproducing human voices is the hardest thing you can do and the fact that we are getting this close is a remarkable step in terms of technology. Choir demos are very, very hard to do because the demand for realism is extremely high. We are surrounded by humans voices 24/7 - in our head and in relationship to the outside world. There is articulation, intonation, legato, fluent dynamic ranges, emotion, individuality, breaths and what have you involved.



I agree with this Troels. In many respects it is an amazing accomplishment. I admire Doug & Nick's effort on this as well as the EWQLSO project. The word building utility seems far more advanced than the VotA project although I submit that we still may see some newer advances, technical workarounds and updates that could greatly improve the WB in the days to come as well as WB/Mac/Logic implementation. Once these issues are dealt with I plan on purchasing EWQLSC.


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 10, 2005)

Frederick Russ said:


> Folmann said:
> 
> 
> > I don?t like being dragged into this discussion.
> ...



Thanks Frederick, the least complicated way to use WB with logic (until Apple resolves the current issues) is to use 2 computers (that's what we do). We actually use logic on a Mac G5 and use a PC as the second computer (2 Macs are fine also). You need a midi loopback driver. We recommend Maple tools. You assign a real midi port as Wordbuilder's input and one of the virtual midi ports from Maple Tools as the output. Then in Kompakt or Kontakt you make that same virtual midi port the input.

Other setup diagrams are here - 

http://www.soundsonline.com/EWQLSC_FAQ.pdf

Wordbuilder is a very powerful tool (the computer is singing your words to you!), but it has a learning curve, there's a lot going on under the hood. We think the video tutorials will shed a lot of light and enable users to get better results. There are a couple of bugs that we've fixed in the next updates (the Kompakt update will be released Monday) that really help achieve smoother results, and the pop-down 'phrase' menu will speed things up without losing any complexity for the 'tweakers'. We will probably be working on this for years to come, and certainly we intend adding other vocal libraries to WB.

- Doug


----------



## handz (Sep 10, 2005)

josejherring said:


> Fact is Fo that you're the only person that uses the choir well. Where does that leave me? How much time did you spend on the demo you did?
> .



I don?t agree wit that...I liked Bernards demos much more, they showed me choir in way like I want to use it.

IMHO it is great product, unless there will be something more realistic, this is the best choice.


----------



## Niah (Sep 10, 2005)

Listen to the VOTA demos and then listen to the EWQLSC demos, where's the quantum leap? It's this that I don't get it, to me the VOTA demos sound much better.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 10, 2005)

..........


----------



## José Herring (Sep 10, 2005)

Scott Rogers said:


> josejherring said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see Scott. Let's get specific then and dispense with the generalities. Okay.
> ...






zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## jc5 (Sep 10, 2005)

josejherring said:


> Okay granted maybe for the 10 or so "professional" concert choirs out there there may be strict guidlines. But my college eartraining teacher sung for the Choir at 5th Ave pres. church in New York. An 80 piece fully professional choir and she had vocal range enough to go where she was needed.
> 
> I just have a hard time believing that there's, oh, such a big difference between the female sop and the female altos singing the same notes. Are the Alto vocal chords fatter?
> 
> ...



I don't know Jose.. your being a little dismissive of the real differences in voice types. :wink: 
Are the vocal chords of an alto fatter? In a sense... yes!
Voice types are not randomly assigned, but are entirely dependent on the person's physical configuration. A basso profondo is not going to be a high tenor - not no way, not no how. With exceptions, of course. There are some fortunate individuals who have extensive natural ranges that qualify them to cover different parts - but these are not the norm (nor does this in any effect the need and desire for fully covered ranges in a choral library).

Comparing choral sections to string sections is quite apt - there is significant overlap between cello and violin (not to mention viola squeezed in between them), but I hope no one would want to argue that there is no difference in sound between a middle C played by the three different instruments. It is the same with voices.

I don't know why you attribute any of this to snobbery - surely there is nothing wrong in getting things done well?


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 10, 2005)

..........


----------



## José Herring (Sep 11, 2005)

Oh c'mon guys this is ridiculous. Bach, Beethoven. Back in those days unless it was a really well funded concert they grabbed whoever they could to sing. Bach used only amature church choirs and had to teach most of them how to read music. Beethoven was notorious for writing in extremely poor ranges for all types of voice. Listen to Beethoven 9 or Fidelio. Especially the vocal quartet parts in 9 are written quite too high for the voices being used. Not so much the solos as they are written in a decent range but when he combined all the solo voice as well as the choirs it was well out. I don't think that he payed too much attention to whether singers could comfortably sing their parts much less any exploitation of vocal ranges. Being deaf I doubt if he even cared who was singing what. Those where the notes he wanted and so what if they could hit them or not.

We're way too spoiled these days. Back in the good old days concerts where rare and you did the best you could. 

Mozart I'll give you. He was famous. And a decent concert producer to boot. 

Stravinsky on the other hand. His choral works imo are great but have some badly disjointed choral lines. To me it sounds like he was always struggling to find the ranges. IMO he was just an okay choral writer compared to Orf or Holst. 

Jose


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

..........


----------



## lux (Sep 11, 2005)

nevermind


----------



## José Herring (Sep 11, 2005)

It's about the music. The communication. The thoughts and feelings and not necessarily the minutia of whether or not the lower notes of the soprano are the same timbre as the upper notes of the Altos. In the end. Too few people care to be that worried about it.

So with that I second Lux's comment.

Jose


----------



## gugliel (Sep 11, 2005)

Jose, you normally have pretty good opinions about things, but in this, perhaps you haven't had enough contact with singers. If someone said similar things in the clarinet/woodwind world, you'd be up in arms.


----------



## lux (Sep 11, 2005)

My nevermind wasnt about anyone's post, but about what I wrote before cancelling my post. I personally find a bit annoying this penis measurement tho.

werent we talking about ewql choirs?


----------



## gugliel (Sep 11, 2005)

lux, don't know exactly what you mean here ... but anyway, 

here is a comparison of vota men with symphonic choirs men:

http://www.guglielmomusic.com/vota_sc_compare.mp3 

[edit] =the above recording used the p layer of tenors from sc, so it is not fair == to get to the mf and forte, you apparently must use the mw, so here is an update for the sound of symphonic choirs: 

http://www.guglielmomusic.com/sc_tenor_update.mp3 

[/edit]

vota B3 vota C4 vota D4 SC B3 SC C4 SC D4 

I think you can hear the basses on the first note, a B3, in vota -- they are holding themselves back well, trying to blend with the tenors. On the C4, the tenors are alone except possibly for some light baritones. On the D4, it's clearly tenor head voice. The tenors have a lovely sound, even as the notes go up and up, until finally there's what sounds like a single guy with a great voice on the high notes. 

In symphonic choirs, however, even on the B3 it sounds sung by a group of wimpy tenors, with all the basses out having a beer. As the notes go up, the timbre doesn't change much, still a lite tenor section, almost sounding like there are some female tenors mixed in.


----------



## lux (Sep 11, 2005)

gugliel said:


> lux, don't know exactly what you mean here ... but anyway,



Guglielmo, I was referring to that "youre not entitled to talk because I know more than you" thing.But thats just me. Afterall they dont read educational books in concert halls tho.

I wasnt referring to you tho, I mainly was referring to Scott, that I personally find a bit too agreessive, remember also some old fuss with Craig and others. Sorry Scott, maybe I'm just too sensitive.

Your comparison is very good, I can clearly hear what you mean.

Luca


----------



## José Herring (Sep 11, 2005)

gugliel said:


> ... almost sounding like there are some female tenors mixed in.



No way! Say it ain't so. If so, that's really appalling.

@Gug.

I was mostly refering to Scott's "holier than thou" attitude towards having to shun everything except for his own opinion. 

Scott you're a wealth of information but so are a lot of others. You're not the only one with good or right ideas.

If I was writing for an ensemble and I needed to beef up the sop. I would just write the same notes for the altos. Very few people are going to care. And, most altos can cover the bulk of the sop range and most sop can cover the bulk of the alto range. Just a fact. In extemes I would agree with you, but who's going to write a piece that sits mostly in the extreme of any vocal classification.

Like I said. It's about the music.

Jose


----------



## Nick Phoenix (Sep 11, 2005)

gugliel said:


> lux, don't know exactly what you mean here ... but anyway,
> 
> here is a comparison of vota men with symphonic choirs men:
> 
> ...




What kind of game are you playing?????

THAT IS NOT THE FORTE LAYER OF THE TENORS!!!!!!!!

Have you read the manual?? 

Sounds like you are using the non-vibrato mixed with the medium vibrato.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

..........


----------



## gugliel (Sep 11, 2005)

Nick Phoenix said:


> What kind of game are you playing?????
> 
> THAT IS NOT THE FORTE LAYER OF THE TENORS!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...



not playing a game, have read the manual, did not mix anything -- but it's possible the dynamic level I played the samples with triggered a piano sample, so I'm willing to re-check. will post later as appropriate ... glad to hear you don't think these sound good!


----------



## José Herring (Sep 11, 2005)

90% of Bach's pieces where written for any ensemble that he could assemble. 

Look. The truth of the matter is that music that is great and that holds together on it's own should be playable for more than one ensemble or type of instrument.

I heard a guy once give a really great performance of the Mozart Bassoon concerto on the baritone horn. It was really, really good and he spent a lot of time perfecting his performance. I don't think Mozart would have minded.

In my Juilliard education days I've run across a lot of people like you Scott. Holding music up on a pedalstool. Holding it above everybody's head. At the same time holding themselves up as the only true artist. It's just plain snobbery pure and simple. And with your every post you head down that same route of trying to prove yourself better and more knowlegable than others.

I sense that you're the type of guy that would scoff at a performance of the Mozart flute quartet played on the clarinet. Is it ideal. No. Is it still worth listening too. Yes.

The more music heads down this path of being more and more "pure" the less effective it has become and the more the audiences turn away from it. Music isn't, never has been or ever could be a pure artfrom. The instruments themselves are built on imperfection. It's always been a compromise.

And now with EWQLSC another compromise has been made. The thing can only be run on the latest computers. Computers don't look like they're getting much faster these days. We've hit kind of a limit. So Doug and Nick I'm sure had to make some sacrifices. Okay, that's the way it's always been. That's the way it always will be.

Instead of picking one shortcoming. Let's talk about how we can make this amazing instrument work better. It's not a choir. It's choir samples. And a program that speaks.

You're missing the point. 

Yes it is possible to be so concerned about technical perfection that you never do any real work. It's about communication. Then you perfect the technique as far as you can without damaging the communication. It's about using the tools you have available to creat and effect. If you have access to a fully professional choir and want to exploit it. Then go for it. Most composers don't and if they want their music heard and played then they may just have to get a few of the alto voices to sing the soprano line.

I've even had an alto fill in some of the tenor voices due to lack of guys in a piece I wrote for my wife's church choir. It's the only piece that they performed that actually gets aplause in the middle of the sermons. Shocking. I witnessed it. Nobody in the audience even knew that I wrote it or was a new piece or even really knows me. If I had taken your position the piece would have never been performed and the 150 or so people that heard it on Sundays for a while would have never enjoyed it or been moved by it.

It's about the communication. And, I spit at those musicians that are so purist that they can't even write one pieces of music that anybody enjoys. I've held myself back in this conversation but truth be told if I could round up every serious musical purist and send them off on to their own island to debate stupid little points I'd do it. I think music would be way better off.

But, since I can't do that. I just write. I find whatever players I can hire or use whatever gear I have and write good music that people want to hear and pay money for.


Jose


----------



## gugliel (Sep 11, 2005)

mea kinda culpa -- the individual instruments require the mw, so my typical template of mw=0, volume =100, cc11=100, and key velocity = 100 for a general not-too-strident forte didn't work. with a MW (CC#1) set to 100, the tenors sound significantly stronger. I'll make a new recording, to be fair!


----------



## Nick Phoenix (Sep 11, 2005)

Cool thanks.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

..........


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

gugliel said:


> ... glad to hear you don't think these sound good!



He didn't say that, he said your example was flawed because you were comparing different dynamics in an attempt to prove some point. 

So, you don't like the library, I think you have made that clear by bashing us for 3 days straight now. Dozens of people put a years work into this library and we (and ALL the reviewers so far) think it's a far superior, better quality, and more diverse library than VOTA (which we also made), so we will have to disagree with you about that. There are still some improvements to be made to the software, but we're working on that, and even tomorrow with the Kompakt update, this will provide a real improvement to the cross-fades. 

We are also going to post a new demo tomorrow that we think sounds absolutely beautiful (and is the best example yet of what this library is capable of) and it could not have been done with VOTA (or any other choir library). 

In the words of Lee Iacocca - if you can find a better choir library - buy it!

- Doug


----------



## gugliel (Sep 11, 2005)

sorry it seems like bashing -- and it probably does -- but I was and am really disappointed about losing the individual choral sections. And the library is not cheap, and you never even gave us vota owners any special upgrade price (gave us the same as anyone who pre-ordered, as I recall, and it still was on the expensive side for a special-purpose library). 

I'll be working on work-arounds, you can be sure, and will post some examples of music done as well as i can do it, and will credit sc then. 

But if YOU can help, by offering an update that extends the sopranos down a fifth and the basses up a fourth or fifth, in a way that gives smooth timbre transitions, THAT would be really much better.


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

gugliel said:


> But if YOU can help, by offering an update that extends the sopranos down a fifth and the basses up a fourth or fifth, in a way that gives smooth timbre transitions, THAT would be really much better.



That's not possible, we have a 2 gig ram limitation that is imposed by the operating system, and we're using it. It's also not an issue for 99% of what SC is used for in everyday use.

You've never made a sample library, so you're not aware of the technical challenges. There are always compromises involved due to the current technology and we try to compromise in areas that are of least importance to majority of our users. Try figuring out how to make choirs sing words you enter - that's a real challenge!

Also, you got 30% off, SC is not an upgrade for VOTA, everything was newly recorded by Prof. Keith O. Johnson who also recorded EWQLSO. Nothing from VOTA is in SC.

- Doug


----------



## gugliel (Sep 11, 2005)

Doug Rogers said:


> That's not possible, we have a 2 gig ram limitation that is imposed by the operating system, and we're using it. It's also not an issue for 99% of what SC is used for in everyday use.



I'm not talking about changing your major multis, nor the whole library, just asking you to improve the individual instruments: soprano vowels and bass vowels. Plenty of memory space to do that. Don't even need the pitched consonants, for that the alto/tenor substitution will be fine.


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

josejherring said:


> And now with EWQLSC another compromise has been made. The thing can only be run on the latest computers. Computers don't look like they're getting much faster these days. We've hit kind of a limit. So Doug and Nick I'm sure had to make some sacrifices. Okay, that's the way it's always been. That's the way it always will be.
> 
> Instead of picking one shortcoming. Let's talk about how we can make this amazing instrument work better. It's not a choir. It's choir samples. And a program that speaks..



Thank you! 



josejherring said:


> Yes it is possible to be so concerned about technical perfection that you never do any real work.



We call it analysis paralysis - by insisting on 100% perfection you achieve nothing.

- Doug


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

..........


----------



## Evan Gamble (Sep 11, 2005)

this is a side note, by if EWQLSC was in 16 bit would it be able to have the full range? I really think 24 bit is excessive in most cases :?


----------



## José Herring (Sep 11, 2005)

Scott Rogers said:


> Despite Jose's clairvoyant insight into whether or not I can get any work done because my standards deviate from his own...



Well, can you? Got any public concerts of your music coming up? Any recordings of your works booked? Any, scores of yours playing on TV or in Film? Is there a game with your name on it? Have you anything since orchestrating Wes Craven's "New Nightmare" back in '94.

I know I'm being to cruel. Probably unjust. I don't take that kindly to being called a "hack".

In truth, I actually do hope you get over the necessity for prestine perfection and produce some good work that we all can enjoy. I know you're capable of it.

Jose


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

..........


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

Scott Rogers said:


> I understand all about RAM limitations, but you could always provide the option of loading fewer voices at one time for people such as myself that would like the authentic voices in their entire ranges.



You clearly don't understand how Wordbuilder works.

- Doug


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

..........


----------



## Alex W (Sep 11, 2005)

:idea: 

Doug, Nick, others.

I'm not about to start kissing anyone's arse here, but I reckon that this choir thingamy's awesome and I'm gonna get it as soon as I have some spare dosh.

To tell the truth, I know bugger all about choirs really. I can see what you guys (Scott R and Gugliel) are saying, and I acknowledge that these irks you have with the library are based on a lack of traditional accuracy. But overall, the issues you guys have raised really seem minor in the greater scheme of things.

We're talking about a choir with language programming here! Ok, single it out and in many instances it wont sound 100% realistic, but in a thicker mix it sounds amazing. So that's the way you have to write for this library, fine with me. You'll never have 1 tool that covers every job, and clearly this isn't the library to satisfy all the choir boys, but it's definitely a worthy addition to ANYONE'S arsenal (hehe arsenal), and to pass it up because it's missing out on a few notes here n there is like writing off EWQLSO because the solo oboe's completely out of tune (gee that really still pisses me off).


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

Scott Rogers said:


> I don't like the way your's sounds anyway.



You don't even own it, you said so yourself, and it's a cheap shot also. 

- Doug


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 11, 2005)

Rogers vs. Rogers this could get confusing.


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

choc0thrax said:


> Rogers vs. Rogers this could get confusing.



You've got to admit choco we got the old NS vibe back!

- Doug


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 11, 2005)

Doug Rogers said:


> choc0thrax said:
> 
> 
> > Rogers vs. Rogers this could get confusing.
> ...



:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Evan Gamble (Sep 11, 2005)

Doug Rogers said:


> choc0thrax said:
> 
> 
> > Rogers vs. Rogers this could get confusing.
> ...



as long as it doesnt end up like NS now :shock:


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

Evan Gamble said:


> Doug Rogers said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax said:
> ...



Frederick's too smart for that to happen. There's nothing wrong with a spirited debate.

- Doug


----------



## Evan Gamble (Sep 11, 2005)

Doug Rogers said:


> Evan Gamble said:
> 
> 
> > Doug Rogers said:
> ...



true frederick is the man 8)

somebody quote me so a tunnel can be created with the quotes :wink:


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

..........


----------



## gugliel (Sep 11, 2005)

Evan Gamble said:


> Doug Rogers said:
> 
> 
> > Evan Gamble said:
> ...



you are quoted!


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

Scott Rogers said:


> Doug Rogers said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Rogers said:
> ...



Of course it was, you know that, you have never even heard SC have you?

- Doug


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 11, 2005)

gugliel said:


> Evan Gamble said:
> 
> 
> > Doug Rogers said:
> ...



And I shall quote you, forever trapping you in the quote matrix.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Sep 11, 2005)

choc0thrax said:


> gugliel said:
> 
> 
> > Evan Gamble said:
> ...



thanks! :D


----------



## gugliel (Sep 11, 2005)

choc0thrax said:


> gugliel said:
> 
> 
> > Evan Gamble said:
> ...



will not!


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 11, 2005)

gugliel said:


> choc0thrax said:
> 
> 
> > gugliel said:
> ...



Sorry but it's too late for you. As you can see at the center is me and I control this world. You play by my rules now.


----------



## gugliel (Sep 11, 2005)

edit -- reduced my levity level


----------



## Hans Adamson (Sep 11, 2005)

gugliel said:


> choc0thrax said:
> 
> 
> > gugliel said:
> ...



You're trapped now too Gugliel!!!  That's your punishment.


----------



## gugliel (Sep 11, 2005)

edit -- reduced my levity level again


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 11, 2005)

Scott Cairns said:


> Will you guys stop quoting each other! It makes for too much scrollnig.


 :twisted: :lol:


----------



## Hans Adamson (Sep 11, 2005)

No!!!!

Hehehehe.

8)


----------



## Jon Paouli Trapek (Sep 11, 2005)

choc0thrax = Khufu

I haven't looked into the choir at all, but I'm amazed its been out this long and nobody has done a demo riddled with obscenities. Mozart will be turning in his grave. He'd have binned the words "Dies Irae" and be typing in "MotherF*****" as fast as you can say Salieri. 

But maybe I'm the only one who wasted a few childhood hours trying to get their speak and spell to say things other than alligator.


----------



## Alex W (Sep 11, 2005)

Jon Paouli Trapek said:


> choc0thrax = Khufu
> 
> I haven't looked into the choir at all, but I'm amazed its been out this long and nobody has done a demo riddled with obscenities. Mozart will be turning in his grave. He'd have binned the words "Dies Irae" and be typing in "MotherF*****" as fast as you can say Salieri.
> 
> But maybe I'm the only one who wasted a few childhood hours trying to get their speak and spell to say things other than alligator.



Holy Shit that's a good point!


----------



## Hans Adamson (Sep 11, 2005)

I think Nick and Doug has blocked those words. They are filtered of course. :wink:


----------



## Evan Gamble (Sep 11, 2005)

are they seriously blocked? :shock:


----------



## Hans Adamson (Sep 11, 2005)

Yes,

Every time you say something bad, it says somethimng "good" instead - Try!!


----------



## Jon Paouli Trapek (Sep 11, 2005)

That's a serious bummer. There's no way I could persuade the ladies at the Old Brompton church to sing my stellar choral arrangement of "You sexy motherf*****".

I'm presuming not everything has been thought of?. Words like "watersports" and "squirting" haven't been crunched I hope because that still leaves music for the fetish gothic-porn market open to the players. Which reminds me to check out some other forums now I'm back home.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

..........


----------



## Jon Paouli Trapek (Sep 11, 2005)

Hans Adamson said:


> Yes,
> 
> Every time you say something bad, it says somethimng "good" instead



sounds like the Garritan forum.

Only joking


----------



## Tod (Sep 11, 2005)

Huumm, does this mean "THE DAAYYS of our LIIVVES" are over for the season. :(

Ooops I guess not!


----------



## Liam (Sep 11, 2005)

To Scott Rogers,

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but this is getting out of hand. As I'm reading this thread I'm getting the feeling that I've heard this all before. Did you happen to notice that most of the threads that you "debate" in turn out this way? As you may remember, you and I (among others) have gotten into heated debates about various subjects, and that is fine, if it is a constructive, friendly debate. 

But the reason they ALWAYS turn bad, is as Jose said, your "Holier than Thou" attitude towards anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours. Most of all, it is VERY obvious that you cannot take critisism at all. As soon as someone disagrees, Scott brings out the pedastool and starts preaching and talking down to that person. There is a reason people do this. Insecurities. It is very easy to feel above others when you are virtually anonymous and can put yourself up on a public forum as supposedly the only who knows anything about everthing. It is getting very old and tired and it is obvious that you are beginning to leave a bad taste in the mouths of many. 

I have to ask, and maybe I have just missed it, but have we ever heard any work from you? You talk about musical perfection constantly, but never show your own examples as far a I've seen. 

So now is the time when you quote each of my sentences and reply to them seperately, saying how I am stating things I know nothing about, reading into things that aren't there, and so on....

Now for the record, I have NEVER posted something like this directed towards ANYONE on ANY forum before, except for you. So no, it's not something I regularly do. But in this case, I had to make an exception. 

- End of rant


----------



## Liam (Sep 11, 2005)

Thanks Folmann! It is kind of like that isn't it? I needed that laugh! :lol: (I'll be back, gotta go wash off the mud)


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

..........


----------



## Liam (Sep 11, 2005)

Scott,

That makes sense about different threshholds for different people. I should also mention that the comments I made were not about you as a person, because I don't know you personally. It was just about your method of posting on the forums.

Thanks for the reply,


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 11, 2005)

Well said both of you I think. The whole problem with this method of communication is not always knowing the posters true meaning or intent.

Chances are, if we were discussing this over drinks, we'd have a smile on our face and pick up on body language as to how things are received etc. The whole conversation would go differently, and more amicably, Im sure.


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

Scott Rogers said:


> Yes Doug. I actually _have_ heard it. Plenty. I was one of the first in line that morning those first demos were posted



So you have heard a few demos, we've already said we're not satisfied with the demos. If you get a chance to check out the actual library, let me know what you think then, you might actually be surprised!

- Doug


----------



## Liam (Sep 11, 2005)

Scott Cairns said:


> Well said both of you I think. The whole problem with this method of communication is not always knowing the posters true meaning or intent.
> 
> Chances are, if we were discussing this over drinks, we'd have a smile on our face and pick up on body language as to how things are received etc. The whole conversation would go differently, and more amicably, Im sure.



That's a good point. Especially when you have alot of people who are very passionate about what they do, postings can turn into rants (as mine did) instead of conversations.

I wonder what would happen if everyone from the forums did get together for drinks and conversation? That could quite possibly be the most interesting get together ever! I'll book the Orlando convention center. Anyone up for a FL vacation?


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 11, 2005)

Liam said:


> That's a good point. Especially when you have alot of people who are very passionate about what they do, postings can turn into rants (as mine did) instead of conversations.



I like passionate debates, provided they don't get personal, we used to have them all the time at NS until the Kremlin took over and banned all of us exiles.

- Doug


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Sep 11, 2005)

Hey Frederick,

can i ban someone now. I never get to ban anyone...:(


----------



## Marsdy (Sep 11, 2005)

Craig Sharmat said:


> Hey Frederick,
> 
> can i ban someone now. I never get to ban anyone...:(



Houston Haynes should really cut down on the pie.

There you go you can ban me now.


----------



## Jon Paouli Trapek (Sep 12, 2005)

Nice picture Folmann. It looks like sports day at the Wonka factory.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Sep 12, 2005)

Liam said:


> Scott Cairns said:
> 
> 
> > I'll book the Orlando convention center. Anyone up for a FL vacation?



Orlando would be great for me, only 6 hours away by car! :D


----------



## SamplesSlave (Sep 12, 2005)

Doug Rogers said:


> choc0thrax said:
> 
> 
> > Rogers vs. Rogers this could get confusing.
> ...



CLASSIC!


----------



## SamplesSlave (Sep 12, 2005)

This debate is very reminiscent of when QLSO came out, and everyone was complaining about everything, and then lo and behold, months later, pretty much every demo posted to any composer-related-website used QLSO as its core and other libs for particular embellishments 


/me goes and gets some more popcorn to watch the show


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 12, 2005)

Evan Gamble said:


> Liam said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Cairns said:
> ...



Hey, I never said that! Are you putting words in my mouth Evan? :shock:


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 12, 2005)

Craig Sharmat said:


> Hey Frederick,
> 
> can i ban someone now. I never get to ban anyone...:(



Banning can become addictive ... ask NS (the Kremlin) they are experts at reducing passionate debate to drivel - just look at the quality of debate there now (and the amount of posts) compared to a few years ago!

- Doug


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Sep 12, 2005)

Well the bottom line is there is no other option. At least Doug and Nick came out with something, while maybe not perfect, offers solutions to many (not all)) possible choral problems one might face. We can bitch or moan all we want, but at least an effort was made here to fill a void and in some ways it succeeds. It looks like both Doug and Nick are committed to get this product working better as they did with QLSO. My bottom linne is always, if it helps me fufill a job without too much hassle I buy it. I hope to buy this down the road, but at this time I do not need choral stuff beyond what I have.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Sep 12, 2005)

I dont have EWQLSC, but I use VOTA, and used it as "background" for some choir passages where I later added real choir on top. I planned to replace the whole VOTA with the real thing, but since I could only afford a small group of singers, and even when I doubled and trippled that, it didn't sound big enough, so I kept the VOTA layer in there and it works fine I imagine you can do the same with EWQLSC, enhance it greatly by adding a small group on top if you need to.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Sep 12, 2005)

Scott Cairns said:


> Evan Gamble said:
> 
> 
> > Liam said:
> ...



whoops messed up with the quotes....or did I? :wink:


----------



## Niah (Sep 12, 2005)

I was browsing through soundsonline.com and in the SD section I found out a demo called Ulysses. I don't think I have ever listened to this one, but man it sounds really sweet.
The boys choir is still a little lame, but that's mainly because it's more exposed, however the men and women choir really got me. Very powerful stuff, so congrats BT and Nick Phoenix.
Doug, put this on the EWQLSC section, I think people will be impressed.


Now I have said this a million times and will say it again, I find it bizare and a little naif that people even thought that this tool could capture all the nuances and detail of a classical choir performance and sound 100% realistic.
Just write for the damn library like you have always done and you'll be fine.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 12, 2005)

> this is a side note, by if EWQLSC was in 16 bit would it be able to have the full range? I really think 24 bit is excessive in most cases



Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the sample buffer is the sample buffer, and it fills up regardless of whether the samples are 16- or 24-bits. You can't load more EWQLSO Gold than Platinum, in other words.

Ja?

While we're on the subject of Kontakt - and this affects all libraries, including Hans' (as he well knows) and the choir - there's a problem of cc64 (sus pedal) -offs not triggering release samples. So you only hear the piano strings damping when you release the key, not the sus pedal; likewise, if you're playing the mixed choir programs (I admit it, I love that sound even though it's not the official thing to do), you get reverb cutoff egg in face.

Even though God created the Sus Pedal-to-Note-off sequencer function, that's something they might want to take a look at, methinks.


----------



## Marsdy (Sep 12, 2005)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> > this is a side note, by if EWQLSC was in 16 bit would it be able to have the full range? I really think 24 bit is excessive in most cases
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ja. Disks clog up much faster playing back 24 bit though.


----------



## Chaim (Sep 13, 2005)

VIDEO TUTORIALS (for EWQLSC-WB)



New video tutorials are now online!

These are Quicktime 7 movies.

WordBuilder Interface (28 MB)
http://www.soundsonline.com/video/ewqls ... erface.mov

Votox Language (25 MB)
http://www.soundsonline.com/video/ewqls ... nguage.mov

Articulations (19 MB)
http://www.soundsonline.com/video/ewqls ... ations.mov

Votox Editing (18 MB)
http://www.soundsonline.com/video/ewqls ... diting.mov

The Learn Function (22 MB)
http://www.soundsonline.com/video/ewqls ... nction.mov

Melismas (8 MB)
http://www.soundsonline.com/video/ewqls ... lismas.mov

Adjusting the Speed (10 MB)
http://www.soundsonline.com/video/ewqls ... _Speed.mov

Languages (5 MB)
http://www.soundsonline.com/video/ewqls ... guages.mov

------------------
Nice work place Nick!


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 13, 2005)

So wheres that Thomas J EWQLSC demo? 8)


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 13, 2005)

Its cool, but on my G5 none of the video works. When clicking the message the response is that part of the video compression isn't working and unfortunately its not available on the quicktime server. When using save as, the message is: "You may experience problems play a video track in "01_WordBuilder_Interface.mov" because the required compressor could not be found. Would you like to close the movie or continue?" 

You may want to let them know...


----------



## Chaim (Sep 13, 2005)

Frederick Russ said:


> Its cool, but on my G5 none of the video works. When clicking the message the response is that part of the video compression isn't working and unfortunately its not available on the quicktime server. When using save as, the message is: "You may experience problems play a video track in "01_WordBuilder_Interface.mov" because the required compressor could not be found. Would you like to close the movie or continue?"
> 
> You may want to let them know...



Is QT 7 installed?


----------



## jamriding (Sep 13, 2005)

Similarly on my G4.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 13, 2005)

I have QTPro but not QTPro7. From what I can tell, I would have to pay $29.95 for the privilege as well as upgrade to OS10.3.9 which is over $100. So my recourse is to pay $129.95 to watch these movs?


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 13, 2005)

I have a PC and I got to watch for free.


----------



## Chaim (Sep 13, 2005)

Frederick Russ said:


> I have QTPro but not QTPro7. From what I can tell, I would have to pay $29.95 for the privilege as well as upgrade to OS10.3.9 which is over $100. So my recourse is to pay $129.95 to watch these movs?



Which OS version are you on now? 10.3? or 10.2?

Any thing from 10.3 to 10.3.9 is free.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 13, 2005)

10.2. 8 - cool show me the link.


----------



## Chaim (Sep 13, 2005)

OK you're on 10.2. It's gonna cost ya. Since Tiger is out I have no idea if they sell Panther. But I have Panther and all updates from 10.3 till .3.9 where free.

www.apple.com

(hey, QT 7 is cool the best update yet in my opinion)


----------



## Marsdy (Sep 13, 2005)

It really sucks. You have Quicktime Pro. Then you install Tiger and suddenly you have no choice but to buy the Quicktime Pro update. As far as I can tell QT7 has been of absolutely no tangible benefit.l

Macs are really starting to suck.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 13, 2005)

Marsdy said:


> Macs are really starting to suck.



Just wait until they ditch the motorola chip for the intels - then all current macs and the software that drives them will become obsolete. It stinks because I really like working with Logic and will have no choice but to upgrade.


----------



## Marsdy (Sep 13, 2005)

Frederick Russ said:


> Marsdy said:
> 
> 
> > Macs are really starting to suck.
> ...



Exactly. The transition to OSX has been a horrible, slow, crash ridden mess and now the whole bloody nightmare is about to start again :roll:


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 13, 2005)

Frederick Russ said:


> I have QTPro but not QTPro7. From what I can tell, I would have to pay $29.95 for the privilege as well as upgrade to OS10.3.9 which is over $100. So my recourse is to pay $129.95 to watch these movs?



I never paid for any upgrades (except 10.4) plus QT7 is free. I think the problem you have is you're running an old 'non QT7 supported' version of the OS.

The codec in QT7 is really good, that's why we chose it.

- Doug


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 13, 2005)

Frederick, I think you can just download QT 7 from the Apple site without wiping out your earlier QT Pro, but I could be wrong.

And do you have a reason to be using Jaguar? Jaguar was for playing around while you used OS 9 for real work. Panther and now Tiger are the real OS X.


----------



## Commander (Sep 13, 2005)

I have to jump in here and say that Panther 10.3.9 is rock solid in my studio, probably the most solid it has ever beeen.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 13, 2005)

Let's wait and see what happens with apple and intel chips. It may be a horrible upgrade path but something tells me that secrety they've been planning this for 2 years.

This combination of OSX and intel may be just what music needs. Apple has the better operating system(imo) for music. At least DP under apple OS was for me the easiest and most powerful program around. Now with the new intel chips-- which I believe are more reliable, faster and have more of a future than Motorola chips--we should get the next wave in computing.

I personally don't like the way that windows is headed in the future. It's turning too much into an internet based OS with Vista on the horizon. Their plan of locking the consumer out of certain functions for "copy protection" reasons stinks. It will just mean we'll have to pay for a lot of services in the future. And I personally see in the future software providers having to pay for access to the Vista OS. Which will just about kill those great lower budget tiny third party plugin' developers. Vista seems to me like MS is about to close off their operating system.

Apple needs a chip that will run it's overly sluggish OSx with a little snap and pop. I'm hoping Intel can provide that.

Jose


----------



## Marsdy (Sep 13, 2005)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Frederick, I think you can just download QT 7 from the Apple site without wiping out your earlier QT Pro, but I could be wrong.
> 
> And do you have a reason to be using Jaguar? Jaguar was for playing around while you used OS 9 for real work. Panther and now Tiger are the real OS X.



Nick
As far as I can tell, older than version 7 QuickTime Pro keys won't work with QT7 so you have to buy a new one if you want the Pro features. The old key wouldn't work on my Macs :(


----------



## jc5 (Sep 13, 2005)

josejherring said:


> Let's wait and see what happens with apple and intel chips. It may be a horrible upgrade path but something tells me that secrety they've been planning this for 2 years.
> 
> This combination of OSX and intel may be just what music needs. Apple has the better operating system(imo) for music. At least DP under apple OS was for me the easiest and most powerful program around. Now with the new intel chips-- which I believe are more reliable, faster and have more of a future than Motorola chips--we should get the next wave in computing.
> 
> ...



Those are frightening yet valid concerns.
I wish more of the applications I use supported Linux - they are starting to look better and better... either that, or another pc based OS needs to emerge.

Microsoft is just starting to expect a little to much from life... if some of the more sinister speculations turn out to be true, we'll no doubt start seeing shadowy versions of windows which have been completely gutted, just to render it functional again... :roll: what a world...


----------



## José Herring (Sep 13, 2005)

Yeah JC5. I'm a little concerned too. It really does seem like they want to turn the windows into a "pay for view" OS.

Can you see the future of this:

Vista owner calls MS support:

caller: Ah, I just bought Vista but can't log on.
support: Oh, what you just paid for was the license to own the software but if you want to log on. Well that's an extra $100.
caller: I just paid for the software
Support: well if $100 is too much you can use it for $9.95/month.
caller: What? I can't afford that. I'm just graduated and I'm looking for music work.
support: Well, we have a special musicians artist rate. You can use MS approved music apps only for $4.95 a month. That includes one Giga studio, one sequencer program of your choice and MS office for your resume but doesn't include email services. That will be an extra $4.95. I think it would be cheaper to get our small business user package with unlimite app support. That's $50 for the first month...ect.
caller: :x you f**@$% son of b***.

Caller buys a boot leg warez os for $10 from russia.

I exagerate of course but something tells me that this has just been on Bill Gate's mind. Along with rule the world and that kind of stuff. Now that my livelihood depends on this stuff. I've become quite conscious of how the direction of things are going in. 

Apple has always had a more liberal way about it. Hopefully they fix whatever they're going through and once again become that "we want everybody to have access to an easy to use computer" company that they originally intended to be back in the days when Jobs and Wozniac(sp) where eating fruits and tinkering with their Atari in their garage.

Jose


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 13, 2005)

Damn why did you change your avatar? I liked the other one.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 13, 2005)

Marsdy said:


> Macs are really starting to suck.



:shock: Im glad I was sitting down.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 13, 2005)

choc0thrax said:


> Damn why did you change your avatar? I liked the other one.



I didn't want people to know what I really looked like. Plus, I'm in love with the art of Magritte.

Jose


----------



## José Herring (Sep 13, 2005)

Watch it Folmann. Don't roll your eyes at my Magritte.


----------



## IvanP (Sep 13, 2005)

I think you are overusing your subliminal images... something is wrong... I want to post a photos of fallus and I can't understand why!! please stop doing this to my mind!


----------



## PaulR (Sep 14, 2005)

Folmann said:


> So tell me what this is...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not a pipe - it's a picture of a pipe. :wink:


----------



## IvanP (Sep 14, 2005)

and Now it's a post of a picture of a pipe.

EDIT: Damn... I need a real job....


----------



## PaulR (Sep 14, 2005)

IvanP said:


> and Now it's a post of a picture of a pipe.
> 
> EDIT: Damn... I need a real job....



Heheh - I've just read the whole of this thread - and now I want my life back. :D


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 14, 2005)

Sue for damages Paul, sue. 8)


----------



## Ed (Sep 14, 2005)

josejherring said:


> I didn't want people to know what I really looked like. Plus, I'm in



Garys black helicopters. Yea, I understand.  

Ed


----------



## José Herring (Sep 14, 2005)

This is the thread that never dies.


----------



## Ed (Sep 14, 2005)

Because Gary is pure evill and always lies


----------



## Liam (Sep 14, 2005)

IvanP said:


> and Now it's a post of a picture of a pipe.
> 
> EDIT: Damn... I need a real job....



Ahh..but alas, you hath been fooled again!

It's a post of a digital image of an original _painting_ of a pipe! :wink:


----------

