Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Steve King Steve King is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 558
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ben Bradley[_2_] Ben Bradley[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
timewarp2008 timewarp2008 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ron Capik[_3_] Ron Capik[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default r/audioengineering could really use you guys

On 29 Aug 2011 17:37:13 GMT,
(Richard Webb) wrote:

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.


Was someone talking about poorly formed?

d
  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_3_] Richard Webb[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_3_] Richard Webb[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] phoephus@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thanks guys Robert via CarKB.com Car Audio 0 January 30th 06 04:09 AM
thanks guys... Tubetwang Vacuum Tubes 4 January 1st 05 04:51 AM
hey 845 guys, try this Adam Stouffer Vacuum Tubes 0 August 8th 04 02:02 AM
You guys SSadler Pro Audio 4 July 14th 04 04:36 AM
This is it, guys! Sander deWaal Audio Opinions 1 May 20th 04 11:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"