Ethan Winer wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:22 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Now all that stuff is pretty well figured-out, so it's not exciting and
people don't feel enthused about learning it.
Agreed mostly, but there's still plenty that *readers* have not yet
figured out. Such as the fact that digital does not leave "holes" in
the waveform, and other 101 other common audio myths. And acoustics is
mostly ignored, except by Sound On Sound which is my current fave.
Note well: SOS is the best science-based audio magazine out there, and
it continues to grow every month. Coincidence? I don't think so!
Well, the question then becomes: is it the purpose of a magazine to
teach basic technology fundamentals? The thing is, fundamental stuff
doesn't change.... so presumably there is a better way to present it
than with a monthly magazine. Magazines are for news.
Again, the great thing about Tape Op is that they go out of their way to
interview informed people who actually understand the technology. They do
interview a lot of clueless people who spout nonsense as well, too, but
in an industry where most people are spouting nonsense it's hard to avoid
that.
I wish they'd be more selective in what they print. The core problem
is that most audio magazine editors are themselves clueless about the
science of audio. I remember very well when I proposed my Audio Myths
article (www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html) to Electronic Musician
magazine. After seeing my proposal the editor told me on the phone
they had a meeting and all the editors disputed every one of my ten
points. Sheesh! Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and
very knowledgeable, so the article did get published.
Yes, and I think most of that cluelessness is _encouraged_ by the vendors.
If not actively promoted.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."