From: Tony Iannotti Area: ENOCHIAN To: Joseph Max 21 Nov 94 10:06:12 Subject: Re: WAV. calls? UpdReq JM> This does raise an interesting question - is the recorded playback of the JM> Calls an acceptable substitute for speaking them directly during the JM> course of a ritual? I think that the vibrations in the head matter a great deal, as well as the breathing. One can get the vibration part from hooking up a guitar amp to your PC for enough volume, but I would want to breathe with it anyway. Deserves an experiment or two.... JM> If so, is there a difference between a recording of the operator JM> hirself speaking them or some other persons voice? Here I don't think it would matter, but these are opinions only of course. JM> Mostly it has to do with the rather intrusive nature of a big enough PC JM> to have sound cards in it inside an active ritual space, and the You can have the PC in another room if you don't mind a little reconstruction. I have more holes in the walls, floors and ceilings than my girlfriend likes to contemplate. JM> Paying to much attention to fancy tools and getting ever syllable correct JM> is a very neophyte kind of mistake, when it is at the Good point. You could have touch sensitive tablets, though, so that the appropriate calls are triggered by touching particular squares with the wand. JM> Secondly, the sheer size of the .WAV file and the amount of memory needed JM> to play it back would be prodigious and awkward, I would think. Especially JM> since the same thing could be accomplished with a $20 cassette deck. Using JM> a PC with soundcards is threading a needle with a sledgehammer, IMHO. You are right about the space. I am not sure about the memory. Do .wav playback programs try to load the whole file into memory at once before playing them? If not, it's probably better to play them off of a CD in the PC if you have a fast enough CD player or it's well cached. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718