Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On 8/21/2011 12:56 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
Web fora are inherently bad. Nobody ever owns a newsgroup. Somebody always owns a web forum. I see that as a good thing, provided it's managed smartly. Some are, some aren't. Sometimes the forum owner will install a new version of the software for some usually unnecessary reason and then everything looks different. Sometimes I'll do an update to Thunderbird (for some usually unnecessary reason) and everything looks different. Same train, different engineer. There is a comprehensive list of all available newsgroups published through my newsreader. Nothing even remotely like that exists for web fora. Afraid you might miss one? g -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
wrote:
On Aug 21, 12:45 pm, "Steve King" wrote: wrote in message ... On Aug 21, 7:52 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: Unfortunately, discussion too often devolves into bickering and worse. I've been know to start arguments, simply to make other people look foolish in their ignorance. It never works, though, because 99.9999% of humans never, ever question what they know to be true. This isn't politics or religion, this is engineering. Would that it were. Human beings are not interested in the truth, or the search for it. Once people decide they "understand" something, they hardly ever change their minds. If you'd like to have a conversation about this off-line, I'd be happy to give you some examples. I have one. How about thinking that web based audio engineering forums are inherently bad? I don't find them inherently bad. I just find them clunky to maneuver, slow compared to the elegance of the newsgroup model. I only have so much time to indulge in the pleasures of on-line conversations about my interests. So, I choose the spots that feel most comfortable. This is maybe the very best. Steve King ...and you will never question it cause you know it to be true. Not what Steve said, at all. Are you trying to encourage qualified participants? -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
wrote in message ... There are a large number of young wanna be audio guys subscribed to my group that I know will never be using usenet, which is a shame. So there's your first task, teach them how, and why :-) Trevor. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
wrote in message ... I've been know to start arguments, simply to make other people look foolish in their ignorance. Seems rather pointless. It never works, though, because 99.9999% of humans never, ever question what they know to be true. Or even when they don't. Trevor. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... That, of course, is not a truth, it is a "by definition" statement. In practice the ground carries the signal just as much as the nominated signal line. I was talking about balanced. He's still right, the two inversely related signals both require their respective signal leads and ground. Let's let this drop, lest it become Yet Another Argument. Isn't that the point to clear up such misconceptions as a balanced signal that requires no signal ground return? Trevor. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
Ty Ford wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:42:31 -0400, William Sommerwerck wrote (in article ): wrote in message ... There are a large number of young wanna be audio guys subscribed to my group that I know will never be using usenet, which is a shame. And I'm learning there are a large number of experienced audio guys that could help them out that will never join this forum cause it is web based, and that is a shame. The internet is a great way to share information but you need to get everybody talking to one another first. Unfortunately, discussion too often devolves into bickering and worse. I've been know to start arguments, simply to make other people look foolish in their ignorance. It never works, though, because 99.9999% of humans never, ever question what they know to be true. Damn it, Jim! I'm an engineer and that figure is 99.9998% Seeking resolution, to four decimal places. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
Les Cargill wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: I agree that correctly explaining balanced and unbalanced signals is not easy. I'm not altogether sure where I would start. I'd start that with "ground is neither + nor -." Or how about "The ground reference does not carry the signal"? Even better. I was going for minimal symbol use. "In the absence of signal, ground is netiher here nor there." -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
wrote in message
... On Aug 21, 12:45 pm, "Steve King" wrote: wrote in message ... On Aug 21, 7:52 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: Unfortunately, discussion too often devolves into bickering and worse. I've been know to start arguments, simply to make other people look foolish in their ignorance. It never works, though, because 99.9999% of humans never, ever question what they know to be true. This isn't politics or religion, this is engineering. Would that it were. Human beings are not interested in the truth, or the search for it. Once people decide they "understand" something, they hardly ever change their minds. If you'd like to have a conversation about this off-line, I'd be happy to give you some examples. I have one. How about thinking that web based audio engineering forums are inherently bad? I don't find them inherently bad. I just find them clunky to maneuver, slow compared to the elegance of the newsgroup model. I only have so much time to indulge in the pleasures of on-line conversations about my interests. So, I choose the spots that feel most comfortable. This is maybe the very best. Steve King ...and you will never question it cause you know it to be true. I don't like your tone. Perhaps I should have added, "...for me within my current experience." It isn't that I know it to be true. It isn't that there may or may not be better groups/fora out there. It is a time management issue. For me, this group is mostly recreational, although I do learn something with most every visit, and I do make my living with audio and video. And, nothing you have said about 'your' web forum compells me to take a look. You appear to like confrontation. I like to discuss. That's another reason I will find other ways to spend my time. Steve King |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:27:35 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: There are a large number of young wanna be audio guys subscribed to my group that I know will never be using usenet, which is a shame. And I'm learning there are a large number of experienced audio guys that could help them out that will never join this forum cause it is web based, and that is a shame. The internet is a great way to share information but you need to get everybody talking to one another first. You might suggest that "audiobanter" site that echoes RAP and presumably other audio newsgroups to a web forum. What makes me think of it is a spam posting I just saw through it (so don't blame me if people complain that others are blocking all their posts). For some strange reason this podunk rural telephone company I use for an ISP actually has Usenet, but it often takes 30 seconds to get a week's worth of RAP post headers. Dunno why that is, but once I get headers I still get post bodies faster than a web forum will display. Web forums are fast enough on modern hardware to be only mildly irritating nowadays. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On Aug 20, 5:08*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: I'd be willing to get involved in such a group... If the majority of members could prove that they actually understand the difference between analog and digital. But they don't and won't, so I'm not interested. Yeah, it would be a shame if the group were filled with clueless numpties, such as any twit who could make this ridiculous assertion: "Is the audio output of a CD player analog or digital?" It's digital. Once you've converted analog to digital, the damage is done and can't be undone. You can't go home again. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
"timewarp2008" wrote in message
... On Aug 20, 5:08 pm, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I'd be willing to get involved in such a group... If the majority of members could prove that they actually understand the difference between analog and digital. But they don't and won't, so I'm not interested. Yeah, it would be a shame if the group were filled with clueless numpties, such as any twit who could make this ridiculous assertion: "Is the audio output of a CD player analog or digital?" It's digital. Once you've converted analog to digital, the damage is done and can't be undone. You can't go home again. We had a long, vigorous discussion about this issue. I learned something from it. No one else did. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:34:48 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "timewarp2008" wrote in message ... On Aug 20, 5:08 pm, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I'd be willing to get involved in such a group... If the majority of members could prove that they actually understand the difference between analog and digital. But they don't and won't, so I'm not interested. Yeah, it would be a shame if the group were filled with clueless numpties, such as any twit who could make this ridiculous assertion: "Is the audio output of a CD player analog or digital?" It's digital. Once you've converted analog to digital, the damage is done and can't be undone. You can't go home again. We had a long, vigorous discussion about this issue. I learned something from it. No one else did. Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. d |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:34:48 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "timewarp2008" wrote in message ... On Aug 20, 5:08 pm, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I'd be willing to get involved in such a group... If the majority of members could prove that they actually understand the difference between analog and digital. But they don't and won't, so I'm not interested. Yeah, it would be a shame if the group were filled with clueless numpties, such as any twit who could make this ridiculous assertion: "Is the audio output of a CD player analog or digital?" It's digital. Once you've converted analog to digital, the damage is done and can't be undone. You can't go home again. We had a long, vigorous discussion about this issue. I learned something from it. No one else did. Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On 8/28/2011 6:57 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Don wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:34:48 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: wrote in message ... On Aug 20, 5:08 pm, "William wrote: I'd be willing to get involved in such a group... If the majority of members could prove that they actually understand the difference between analog and digital. But they don't and won't, so I'm not interested. Yeah, it would be a shame if the group were filled with clueless numpties, such as any twit who could make this ridiculous assertion: "Is the audio output of a CD player analog or digital?" It's digital. Once you've converted analog to digital, the damage is done and can't be undone. You can't go home again. We had a long, vigorous discussion about this issue. I learned something from it. No one else did. Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. Ah, truly; None so blind as those who will not see..... Later... Ron C -- |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded.
Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. Ah, truly; None so blind as those who will not see... No. None so blind as those who don't know how to ask good questions. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 15:57:33 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:34:48 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "timewarp2008" wrote in message ... On Aug 20, 5:08 pm, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I'd be willing to get involved in such a group... If the majority of members could prove that they actually understand the difference between analog and digital. But they don't and won't, so I'm not interested. Yeah, it would be a shame if the group were filled with clueless numpties, such as any twit who could make this ridiculous assertion: "Is the audio output of a CD player analog or digital?" It's digital. Once you've converted analog to digital, the damage is done and can't be undone. You can't go home again. We had a long, vigorous discussion about this issue. I learned something from it. No one else did. Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. I did. I learned that there is no such thing as unutterable rubbish. d |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded.
Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. I did. I learned that there is no such thing as unutterable rubbish. Then you haven't learned to question "received truth". There is a huge difference between knowing something, and understanding it. Most people never get past the "knowing" part. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:20:53 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. I did. I learned that there is no such thing as unutterable rubbish. Then you haven't learned to question "received truth". There is a huge difference between knowing something, and understanding it. Most people never get past the "knowing" part. I agree entirely. This illustrates perfectly your position in re digital/analogue signals. A lack of real questioning and understanding prevents you from seeing what the two really mean. d |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:20:53 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. I did. I learned that there is no such thing as unutterable rubbish. Then you haven't learned to question "received truth". There is a huge difference between knowing something, and understanding it. Most people never get past the "knowing" part. I agree entirely. This illustrates perfectly your position in re digital/analogue signals. A lack of real questioning and understanding prevents you from seeing what the two really mean. My original remark (in this thread) referred to the fundamental difference between analog and digital -- NOT, as you chose to frame it, whether the output of a DAC is analog or digital. If you feel you understand this, then state the difference between analog and digital in a simple manner. I'll be away from my computer until Saturday morning, so you needn't rush. With regard to this matter, I feel rather like Wanda Landowska, who said "You play Bach your way, and I'll play him his way." You may not understand this, Mr Pearce, but it is quite possible for "received truth" about something to be dead wrong. Truth is not something to be voted on, with the majority of votes establishing it. I remain disappointed that, when I spoke the truth, not one person in this group responded "Ah! I see! Now I get it." Not one. It's bad that you accept what other people say, without thinking through things yourself. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 03:36:25 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: If you feel you understand this, then state the difference between analog and digital in a simple manner. OK. Here goes. Analogue is a situation where the pressure levels in a sound signal are represented by analogous levels in a voltage. The voltage is a continuous function, without steps. Digital means exactly what it says. The original analogue signal has ben sampled and measured, and the measured levels expressed as numbers (that is the "digital" bit - digits are numbers, ok?). Those numbers are not subject to the distortions of the analogue domain - they are only changed by mathematical operations. What do I mean? If I put an analogue signal through an amplifier with 10% distortion, I have a 10% distorted analogue signal. If I put a digital signal through an amplifier with 10% distortion, I still have a perfect undistorted digital signal, right up to the point where I can no longer decode it. If I want to impose 10% distortion on the digital audio, I must multiply the numbers by a non-linear mathematical function. That is the difference between analogue and digital signals. d |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:34:48 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "timewarp2008" wrote in message ... On Aug 20, 5:08 pm, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I'd be willing to get involved in such a group... If the majority of members could prove that they actually understand the difference between analog and digital. But they don't and won't, so I'm not interested. Yeah, it would be a shame if the group were filled with clueless numpties, such as any twit who could make this ridiculous assertion: "Is the audio output of a CD player analog or digital?" It's digital. Once you've converted analog to digital, the damage is done and can't be undone. You can't go home again. We had a long, vigorous discussion about this issue. I learned something from it. No one else did. Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. Nicely said. I learn *something* from every discussion. Somtimes what I learn is audio/technical, and sometimes it is more related to the social sciences. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:34:48 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "timewarp2008" wrote in message ... On Aug 20, 5:08 pm, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I'd be willing to get involved in such a group... If the majority of members could prove that they actually understand the difference between analog and digital. But they don't and won't, so I'm not interested. Yeah, it would be a shame if the group were filled with clueless numpties, such as any twit who could make this ridiculous assertion: "Is the audio output of a CD player analog or digital?" It's digital. Once you've converted analog to digital, the damage is done and can't be undone. You can't go home again. We had a long, vigorous discussion about this issue. I learned something from it. No one else did. Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. William, your belief in your ablity to read minds is very curious given your claims to be a skeptic. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. Ah, truly; None so blind as those who will not see... No. None so blind as those who don't know how to ask good questions. IME, the ability to answer poorly formed questions is by far the more valuable art. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. I did. I learned that there is no such thing as unutterable rubbish. Then you haven't learned to question "received truth". If irony killed! |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 03:36:25 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: If you feel you understand this, then state the difference between analog and digital in a simple manner. OK. Here goes. Analogue is a situation where the pressure levels in a sound signal are represented by analogous levels in a voltage. The voltage is a continuous function, without steps. Digital means exactly what it says. The original analogue signal has ben sampled and measured, and the measured levels expressed as numbers (that is the "digital" bit - digits are numbers, ok?). Those numbers are not subject to the distortions of the analogue domain - they are only changed by mathematical operations. What do I mean? If I put an analogue signal through an amplifier with 10% distortion, I have a 10% distorted analogue signal. If I put a digital signal through an amplifier with 10% distortion, I still have a perfect undistorted digital signal, right up to the point where I can no longer decode it. If I want to impose 10% distortion on the digital audio, I must multiply the numbers by a non-linear mathematical function. That is the difference between analogue and digital signals. That is all fine and good as far as it goes. Getting back to the claim that: " It's digital. Once you've converted analog to digital, the damage is done and can't be undone. You can't go home again." Is true as far as it goes. As usually stated it shows great ignorance because it implies that analog is somehow different or better than digital. What it ignores that exactly the same thing is true of real world pure analog systems, even the shortest straight wire. Once you do anything to a signal in the analog domain, a certain amount of damage is done which is not practical to undo, and can't ever be undone perfectly. In the analog domain, unitentional and unavoidable changes are the rule. In contrast, once digitalized, a digital signal usually must be intentionally changed to be changed at all. Changes are easily avoided and no change is the default. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
Arny Krueger wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Which is, of course, exactly what the situation demanded. Not at all. Everyone needed to learn something from it. No one else did. Ah, truly; None so blind as those who will not see... No. None so blind as those who don't know how to ask good questions. IME, the ability to answer poorly formed questions is by far the more valuable art. Bingo! If the desire is to help someone understand a problem of which they do not know enough to be able to make a precise inquiry, you've nailed it, Arny. Get at the meat of the issue as best one can and don't worry about the sauce. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On Mon 2011-Aug-29 08:03, Arny Krueger writes:
Ah, truly; None so blind as those who will not see... No. None so blind as those who don't know how to ask good questions. IME, the ability to answer poorly formed questions is by far the more valuable art. WOuld agree, but anymore if you want me to take the time to help you get the asnwer you seek to a poorly formed question then I want paid for my trouble. I find that answering poorly formed questions necessitates posing addition questions to the person asking the poorly formed query. Then we get to what he/she really wants to know. A shining example of this is the thread Paul started on the advisability of using a laptop for field recording multitrack audio. From Paul's knowledge base apparent to many of us it seemed he was asking questions regarding what all he'd need to handle the whole process, but the discussion soon spun into hard drive technology, longeterm archival and backup strategies, etc. Whether he got enough useful input at first to put together a rig to do what he wishes or not I couldn't tell you. But then again, this is exactly why the op in this thread probably didn't get many regulars here to pay a visit to his web forum. Many of us use usenet to keep up with a wide variety of topics, and aren't going to jump through the web forum hoops just to answer some more poorly formed newbie questions. WE can find enough newbie questions here, and even learn something from old hands who deign to answer them. Regards, Richard .... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On Mon 2011-Aug-29 13:24, Don Pearce writes
WOuld agree, but anymore if you want me to take the time to help you get the asnwer you seek to a poorly formed question then I want paid for my DP trouble. Was someone talking about poorly formed? arrrgh PRe coffee. Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On 8/29/2011 10:48 AM, hank alrich wrote:
Bingo! If the desire is to help someone understand a problem of which they do not know enough to be able to make a precise inquiry, you've nailed it, That works about half the time for me. The other half of the time, the poster left out a detail that sent me way off into an accurate and detailed explanation of something that he wasn't trying to do at all. But maybe some day someone trying to do what I tried to explain will stumble on that post and get some good out of it, -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
r/audioengineering could really use you guys
On Sunday, August 21, 2011 11:07:11 AM UTC-4, Ty Ford wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:56:49 -0400, John Williamson wrote (in article ): phoephusatthehotmail.com wrote: Hi there I moderate a discussion group on reddit for audio engineers. I used to frequent this group and found it to be a great resource. I would like to bring r/audioengineering up to that level. We have some knowledgeable people but could use some more big boys (Mike Rivers, Scott Dorsey,George Massenburg and the rest... I'm talking to you!). lemme' know when George signs up. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA George just signed up http://www.reddit.com/user/georgemassenburg |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Thanks guys | Car Audio | |||
thanks guys... | Vacuum Tubes | |||
hey 845 guys, try this | Vacuum Tubes | |||
You guys | Pro Audio | |||
This is it, guys! | Audio Opinions |