an obsession with truth (or the facts, at least)

[William Sommerwerck]

As friendly professor Peter Schickele once said... "Truth is truth. You can't
have opinions about truth."

I'm accused of having obsessions no one else cares about. (I'm willing to
confess to an excessive fondness for gerbils.) But I do care about the truth,
and make no apologies for it.

Part of the reason for this obsession is that, as an under-employed technical
writer and editor, I see technically incompetent people with little or no
ability to write or edit /being paid/ to do so. * Is it any wonder I blow my
stack over errors that a competent editor would have caught?

Anyhow...

Here are the excerpts from Frenzel's "Electronics Explained" that disturbed
me. I believe in encouraging people to think for themselves, so instead of
explaining what's wrong, I invite people to say what /they/ think is wrong
(including "important stuff" that's been left out). I might prompt a little,
but I prefer that people figure out these things on their own.

The purpose of this exercise is not to start arguments, but to get people
thinking about what they understand or don't understand.

(Frenzel is a master of tautological writing. He says the same thing over and
over in a slightly different way each time, rather than expressing it once,
simply. He would have had a great career as a paid-by-the-word pulp-fiction
writer.)

----------------------------------------------
p89

Recall that there are two basic types of electronic signals -- analog and
digital. A digital signal is one that varies in discrete steps. Unlike an
analog signal, which varies continuously, a digital signal has two levels or
states. The signal switches or changes abruptly from one state to the other.

Figure 5.1 shows a DC digital signal that switches between two known levels
such as zero volts or close to it (<0.1 volts) or 0V and +3.3V. The positive
voltage can be anything between about 1 volt and 12 volts with 3.3 and 5 being
the most common.

[Those who can get p89 to appear might ask themselves whether the figure
actually shows a digital signal. How do you know it's digital and not analog?
Can a pulsed signal be analog? Can a sine wave be digital?]

Digital signals with two discrete levels are also referred to as binary
signals. Binary means two -- two states or two discrete levels of voltage.

Humans use the decimal number system that represents quantities with digits 0
through 9. However, digital equipment and computers do not. Internally,
digital equipment processes binary data.
----------------------------------------------
p118ff

Analog-to-Digital Conversion

The process of converting an analog signal into a digital one is called
analog-to-digital conversion, and is performed by an analog-to-digital
converter (ADC). The process, also referred to as sampling, is illustrated in
Figure 5-26. The ADC looks at the analog input and periodically takes a sample
of the voltage at that instant, captures it, then converts it into a
proportional binary number. We say that we are digitizing the signal. The
sample points are shown by the dots on the analog curve. The binary value of
the sample is shown to the right of the curve. The conversion process actually
results in a sequence of binary numbers that represent the analog waveform.
These values are usually stored in a RAM or transmitted to other circuits as
shown in Figure 5-27. Note the symbol for an ADC.

Digital-to-Analog Conversion

To recover the original signal, we put the data sequence previously captured
by the ADC into a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) (see Figure 5.28). The
output is a version of the analog signal. The DAC output is not a perfect
reproduction, but just an approximation. This is shown in more detail in
Figure 5.29. Each binary input results in a constant voltage output from the
DAC during the sample period. The result is a stepped approximation to the
original signal. The rate at which the binary data is [sic] sent to the DAC
must be the same as the sampling interval to recover the original frequency
information in the signal.

Resolution and Sampling Interval

The key to good data conversion is to use greater resolution and faster
sampling rates. Resolution refers t the number of bits used in the data
conversion. In Figure 5.27, only 4 bits are used, so the resolution is poor.
The voltage range is only divided into 16 intervals, meaning that amplitude
variations at [sic] less than 0.625 volt are missed. This problem can be
corrected by using more bits. ADCs are available in many bit sizes. The most
common are 8, 10,, and 12 bits, but 14 and 16 bits are available. Some methods
of ADC produce resolutions of 20 to 26 bits. The result is a finer conversion
of amplitude detail. As an example, if the 0- to 10-volt range in Figure 5.27
was [sic] a 12-bit ADC, the individual smallest voltage increment that can be
detected is 10/2^12 = 10/4096 = 2.44mV instead of the 0.625 volt[s] in the
figure.

Another critical specification is sampling rate. To retain all the frequency
detail in a signal, the sampling rate must be at least twice the highest
frequency in the signal. This called the Nyquist criterion. For example, when
digitizing music with a frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz, the sampling rate
must be at least double the 20-kHz frequency. In most systems, a rate of 44.1
kHz or 48 kHz is used.

----------------------------------------------

For those who haven't fallen asleep (or died), here's part of my review of
another bad book, "Signals and Systems Using MATLAB".

I wrote "...on p9, he confuses "analog" with "continuous time" -- which is NOT
correct. One can have analog data that are discrete-time."

One reader responded "...it is impossible to have an analog signal that is
discrete time. An analog signal can be represented by a discrete time signal
very well, but an analog signal IS continuous, where a discrete time signal is
defined as being discontinuous. Since it is impossible to have a continuous
signal be equal to a discontinuous signal, your argument is invalid."

This confusion of time and amplitude remains common. (Note also the confusion
between "signal" and "data".) You might want to chew on it a bit. (ar-ar)


Thanks for your interest. Have at it!


* Several years ago I complained to a Wiley editor about a miserable book on
the history of radio. He was a very nice person -- but admitted he had almost
no technical knowledge. So what made him think he could edit technical books?
He'd applied for and taken a job he was unqualified for. I think I have a
right to be outraged.

"'We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions."
-- Edwin Land

[PStamler]

It's obvious that Frenzel has a muddled understanding of what's going on. I also suspect that English is not his first language; it's possible that this book was written in another language, then translated -- usually a bad idea for a technical work.

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/17/2013 2:17 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Here are the excerpts from Frenzel's "Electronics Explained" that
> disturbed me. I believe in encouraging people to think for themselves,
> so instead of explaining what's wrong, I invite people to say what
> /they/ think is wrong (including "important stuff" that's been left
> out). I might prompt a little, but I prefer that people figure out these
> things on their own.

Thanks. In order to play editor here, I'd need more context. If this was
an audio book, I'd treat the subject differently than if it was a
general electronics book, which I infer from the title. But either way,
it looks like the author is either confused about the digital
representation of an analog signal or else he just edited himself too
brutally (or an editor who didn't get it did) and over-simplified to the
point that it's incomplete.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"PStamler" wrote in message
...

> It's obvious that Frenzel has a muddled understanding
> of what's going on.

You caught that? <grin>

> I also suspect that English is not his first language; it's
> possible that this book was written in another language,
> then translated -- usually a bad idea for a technical work.

Frenzel has been with "Electronic Design" for some years. I don't think he's a
"furriner". Given how cheap most publishers are, it's unlikely they would pay
to have something translated.

I'm currently studying Merhaut's "Theory of Electroacoustics", which was
written in Czech. The English version -- which was translated by a physics
teacher and has the author's approval -- is a pretty clear read.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 6/17/2013 2:17 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Here are the excerpts from Frenzel's "Electronics Explained" that
>> disturbed me. I believe in encouraging people to think for themselves,
>> so instead of explaining what's wrong, I invite people to say what
>> /they/ think is wrong (including "important stuff" that's been left
>> out). I might prompt a little, but I prefer that people figure out these
>> things on their own.

> Thanks. In order to play editor here, I'd need more context. If this was an
> audio book, I'd treat the subject differently than if it was a general
> electronics book, which I infer from the title. But either way, it looks
> like the author is either confused about the digital representation of an
> analog signal or else he just edited himself too brutally (or an editor who
> didn't get it did) and over-simplified to the point that it's incomplete.

This book is an introduction to electronics for the "unknowing". (I use that
in both senses of the word.)

The book reads throughout like an unedited first draft. I suspect Frenzel was
trying to be "quick and breezy" without regard for the little (and sometimes
big) details.

The other day I started to write an explanation of "digital" from scratch --
and it is not easy. There is so much preliminary material to present (such as
why one would want to represent information as quantized values, rather than
continuous variation) it can be daunting. That, however, is no excuse for
getting so much wrong.

[PStamler]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 5:52:14 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> This book is an introduction to electronics for the "unknowing". (I use that
>
> in both senses of the word.)

Not an easy task. I do that for a living myself, as does Mike Rivers (and as you used to do back in the Stereophile days), and it's always a fine line to walk. In this case I think the author fell off the line.

> The book reads throughout like an unedited first draft. I suspect Frenzel was
>
> trying to be "quick and breezy" without regard for the little (and sometimes
>
> big) details.

He also writes an endless string of short declarative sentences. That's deadly. Maybe Hemingway got away with it, but he wrote *good* short sentences.

> The other day I started to write an explanation of "digital" from scratch --
>
> and it is not easy. There is so much preliminary material to present (such as
>
> why one would want to represent information as quantized values, rather than
>
> continuous variation) it can be daunting. That, however, is no excuse for
>
> getting so much wrong.

No, it's not easy. At the beginning of this discussion I offered my definitions of "analog" and "digital", and I found I had to use many weasel words, to cover the many ambiguities. And yes, it's important for the reader to know the "prior art" -- the explanations for the explanations, if you will, or the foundational material we take for granted but most "civilians" have never been exposed to.

Peace,
Paul

[William Sommerwerck]

"PStamler" wrote in message
...

>> The other day I started to write an explanation of "digital" from
>> scratch --
>> and it is not easy. There is so much preliminary material to present (such
>> as why one would want to represent information as quantized values,
>> rather than continuous variation) it can be daunting. That, however,
>> is no excuse for getting so much wrong.

> No, it's not easy. At the beginning of this discussion I offered my
> definitions
> of "analog" and "digital", and I found I had to use many weasel words, to
> cover the many ambiguities.

You're touching on an issue that hasn't been discussed yet.

The word "signal" has two meanings -- the waveform coming out of or going into
a circuit, and the information carried by that waveform. The failure to
recognize this causes writers to talk about analog or digital signals
(waveforms), when in reality, there are no such things. "Analog" and "digital"
refer to the way the data is represented or "coded" -- not the waveform that
carries that representation or coding.

You thus have writers stating that pulsed signals (waveforms) represent
digital information, when in reality the waveform has nothing whatever to do
with "analog" or "digital" information.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "PStamler" wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> The other day I started to write an explanation of "digital" from
>>> scratch --
>>> and it is not easy. There is so much preliminary material to
>>> present (such
>>> as why one would want to represent information as quantized
>>> values,
>>> rather than continuous variation) it can be daunting. That,
>>> however,
>>> is no excuse for getting so much wrong.
>
>> No, it's not easy. At the beginning of this discussion I offered my
>> definitions
>> of "analog" and "digital", and I found I had to use many weasel
>> words, to
>> cover the many ambiguities.
>
> You're touching on an issue that hasn't been discussed yet.

Of course it's been discussed. You've gone through this whole
rigmarole in the past, and you're rehashing it. Do you have a
short memory? None of this is new to many of us, and it seems
that none of it new even to the newsgroup.

> The word "signal" has two meanings -- the waveform coming out of or
> going into a circuit, and the information carried by that waveform.

Actually, it has even more meanings. "Continuous" also has
multiple meanings, and your failure to distinguish between them
caught you up last time. You called a discrete-time signal
"continuous", although in the mathematical sense usually
used in Signals and Systems, a discrete-time signal cannot
be continuous, as it is a series of discontinuous points with
no continuity anywhere.

Perhaps this kind of careless writing in technical discussions
is part of the reason for people disagreeing with you, despite
your ridiculous claim that you are (almost) always right. In
fact, you have shown yourself to be wrong, ambiguous, and
unclear in many cases here in RAP.

The whole point of this redundant charade seems to be to
fail, once again, to prove how wonderful you are. QED. Long
ago, not so long ago, and now, once again. When you're
wrong, you simple deny it. No doubt, after the dust settles,
you'll be back again with the same horse****.

If anyone wants to jump ahead to the punch line, they can
simply search for the previous re-runs of the Willie Thinks He's
Always Right Comedy Hour.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/17/2013 6:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> The other day I started to write an explanation of "digital" from
> scratch -- and it is not easy. There is so much preliminary material to
> present (such as why one would want to represent information as
> quantized values, rather than continuous variation) it can be daunting.

That's why I didn't attempt a rewrite. At $100/hour, I don't think that
rec.audio.pro can afford it. ;)

It's possible that the book only got a grammatical edit, not a technical
one, and it's really hard to edit your own writing. I did the technical
editing for Ethan Winer's book The Audio Expert. It wasn't all that
difficult because Ethan knows his stuff and didn't really make any
errors. The sort of things that i contributed were changes that made the
language easier to understand, and occasionally suggest an different
example that made the point clearer than what he used. But I knew the
subject matter. If I was handed, say, a book about using Pro Tools to
produce hip hop, I couldn't have done as good a job.

My own writing tends to be pretty breezy and informal, but at least I
try to get the technical parts correct. A brutal editor could probably
cut my word count by 25 to 50 percent, but I can't.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> The purpose of this exercise is not to start arguments,

Of course it is. Are you now writing Monty Python skits?

> but to get people thinking about what they understand or don't
> understand.

No, it's for you to engage in an auto-erotic display of egotism.

> He says the same thing over and over in a slightly different way
> each time, rather than expressing it once, simply. He would have had
> a great career as a paid-by-the-word pulp-fiction writer.

If you have any self-awareness left, you should stand in
front of a mirror, and read that to yourself until it sinks in.
You might want to clear your calendar.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> The word "signal" has two meanings -- the waveform coming out of or going
>> into a circuit, and the information carried by that waveform.

> Actually, it has even more meanings. "Continuous" also has
> multiple meanings, and your failure to distinguish between them
> caught you up last time. You called a discrete-time signal
> "continuous", although in the mathematical sense usually
> used in Signals and Systems, a discrete-time signal cannot
> be continuous, as it is a series of discontinuous points with
> no continuity anywhere.

I never said anything of the sort. You either can't read (likely) or you're
lying (not so likely).

A discrete-time signal can be analog. Analog and continuous do not mean the
same thing.

Sorry, but I am always always right. Sorry about that.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

> My own writing tends to be pretty breezy and informal, but at least I
> try to get the technical parts correct. A brutal editor could probably
> cut my word count by 25 to 50 percent, but I can't.

I have the same problem. You can learn to do this but it's difficult.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/17/2013 6:28 PM, None wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The purpose of this exercise is not to start arguments,
>
> Of course it is. Are you now writing Monty Python skits?
>
>> but to get people thinking about what they understand or don't
>> understand.
>
> No, it's for you to engage in an auto-erotic display of egotism.
>
>> He says the same thing over and over in a slightly different way each
>> time, rather than expressing it once, simply. He would have had a
>> great career as a paid-by-the-word pulp-fiction writer.
>
> If you have any self-awareness left, you should stand in
> front of a mirror, and read that to yourself until it sinks in.
> You might want to clear your calendar.
>

100% Agreed.

Nobody who wants to learn about electronics is going to
rely on one book anyways. For anyone who will end up designing
circuits, it all sinks in eventually.

Maybe if William was actually duly employed, he'd have less time
to tear down the work of others. I'm still waiting for his
magically lucid description of the "truth".

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>>> The word "signal" has two meanings -- the waveform coming out of
>>> or going into a circuit, and the information carried by that
>>> waveform.
>
>> Actually, it has even more meanings. "Continuous" also has
>> multiple meanings, and your failure to distinguish between them
>> caught you up last time. You called a discrete-time signal
>> "continuous", although in the mathematical sense usually
>> used in Signals and Systems, a discrete-time signal cannot
>> be continuous, as it is a series of discontinuous points with
>> no continuity anywhere.
>
> I never said anything of the sort. You either can't read (likely) or
> you're lying (not so likely).
>
> A discrete-time signal can be analog. Analog and continuous do not
> mean the same thing.
>
> Sorry, but I am always always right. Sorry about that.

Masturbating in public is impolite, but I guess you really
crave the attention that you can't get in real life. I'm sure
you're accustomed to being ignored and reviled, because
that's what you demand.

And you have confirmed what most of us already knew:
you don't mean it when you apologize. Your recent sham
apology was not sincere, which you have confirmed at least
four time now, since you puked it onto Usenet.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/17/2013 10:14 PM, Paul wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 6:28 PM, None wrote:
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The purpose of this exercise is not to start arguments,
>>
>> Of course it is. Are you now writing Monty Python skits?
>>
>>> but to get people thinking about what they understand or don't
>>> understand.
>>
>> No, it's for you to engage in an auto-erotic display of egotism.
>>
>>> He says the same thing over and over in a slightly different way each
>>> time, rather than expressing it once, simply. He would have had a
>>> great career as a paid-by-the-word pulp-fiction writer.
>>
>> If you have any self-awareness left, you should stand in
>> front of a mirror, and read that to yourself until it sinks in.
>> You might want to clear your calendar.
>>
>
> 100% Agreed.
>
> Nobody who wants to learn about electronics is going to
> rely on one book anyways. For anyone who will end up designing
> circuits, it all sinks in eventually.
>
> Maybe if William was actually duly employed, he'd have less time
> to tear down the work of others. I'm still waiting for his
> magically lucid description of the "truth".
>
>
>
Were I truly cynical I might tend to think that he's waiting
to review our responses before he (contrives) and presents
his spin of the absolute truth.

Ah, but can anyone actually be that cynical?
==
Later...
Ron Capik <<< cynic--training >>>
--

[William Sommerwerck]

"Paul" wrote in message ...

> Maybe if William was actually duly employed, he'd have
> less time to tear down the work of others.

If I were duly employed, that's what I'd be paid to do.

It might not bother you that most technical books are overpriced toilet paper,
but it bothers me.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I'm still waiting for his magically lucid description of the "truth".

I started writing it, but (as I said to Mike), it's not easy. I'll complete it
if you (Ron) agree to give it a //serious// review in this group.

I doubt you would, because it would be too easy to call it everything in it
wrong and say I didn't know what I was talking about.

I'm calling you out on this.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/17/2013 10:41 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Paul" wrote in message ...
>
>> Maybe if William was actually duly employed, he'd have
>> less time to tear down the work of others.
>
> If I were duly employed, that's what I'd be paid to do.
>
> It might not bother you that most technical books are overpriced toilet
> paper, but it bothers me.

However it seems the free market isn't buying
what you're selling. You may sit and stew, change
your marketing, or change your product. Seems
you've opted for the first state.

I opted for retirement, thus have no dogs in the fight.

[OK, I may still care about accuracy ...at some level.]
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/17/2013 7:23 PM, None wrote:
>
>
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>> The word "signal" has two meanings -- the waveform coming out of or
>>>> going into a circuit, and the information carried by that waveform.
>>
>>> Actually, it has even more meanings. "Continuous" also has
>>> multiple meanings, and your failure to distinguish between them
>>> caught you up last time. You called a discrete-time signal
>>> "continuous", although in the mathematical sense usually
>>> used in Signals and Systems, a discrete-time signal cannot
>>> be continuous, as it is a series of discontinuous points with
>>> no continuity anywhere.
>>
>> I never said anything of the sort. You either can't read (likely) or
>> you're lying (not so likely).
>>
>> A discrete-time signal can be analog. Analog and continuous do not
>> mean the same thing.
>>
>> Sorry, but I am always always right. Sorry about that.
>
> Masturbating in public is impolite, but I guess you really
> crave the attention that you can't get in real life. I'm sure
> you're accustomed to being ignored and reviled, because
> that's what you demand.
>
> And you have confirmed what most of us already knew:
> you don't mean it when you apologize. Your recent sham
> apology was not sincere, which you have confirmed at least
> four time now, since you puked it onto Usenet.
>

100% agreed.

William is like most "know-it-all" personalities: only he
knows the truth, and everyone else is a dumb****.

Get over yourself, William, you've got the attention you wanted...
now put your dick back in your pants....

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm still waiting for his magically lucid description of the
>> "truth".
>
> I started writing it, but (as I said to Mike), it's not easy. I'll
> complete it if you (Ron) agree to give it a //serious// review in
> this group.
>
> I doubt you would, because it would be too easy to call it
> everything in it wrong and say I didn't know what I was talking
> about.
>
> I'm calling you out on this.

LOL! "Calling you out". What a ****ing asshole! In a world
where you could invent your own definitions, and no other
definitions ever have any validity, you could probably make
a case that you're always right. But in the real world, where
definitions exist by common understanding, your refusal
to accept common understanding just leaves you behind
as an unemployable loser.

You repeatedly come here and pretend that you and you
alone know the one and only true definition of some term
or other, and then you pretend that it makes you superior.
The truth is, that your inability to engage in productive
communication,
and your condescending attitude that your pig-headedness
makes you superior, is one of the reasons that you deserve
the mockery and contempt that you get.

When you are proven wrong, you simply refuse to hear it,
because your head is so far up your asshole that you can
see your back teeth. And now, like a petulant bratty child,
you demand that others dance to your tune. But in fact,
you can't play a tune, and nobody wants to dance with
you.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 6/17/2013 8:08 PM, None wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> I'm still waiting for his magically lucid description of the "truth".
>>
>> I started writing it, but (as I said to Mike), it's not easy. I'll
>> complete it if you (Ron) agree to give it a //serious// review in this
>> group.
>>
>> I doubt you would, because it would be too easy to call it everything
>> in it wrong and say I didn't know what I was talking about.
>>
>> I'm calling you out on this.
>
> LOL! "Calling you out". What a ****ing asshole! In a world
> where you could invent your own definitions, and no other
> definitions ever have any validity, you could probably make
> a case that you're always right. But in the real world, where
> definitions exist by common understanding, your refusal
> to accept common understanding just leaves you behind
> as an unemployable loser.
>
> You repeatedly come here and pretend that you and you
> alone know the one and only true definition of some term
> or other, and then you pretend that it makes you superior.
> The truth is, that your inability to engage in productive communication,
> and your condescending attitude that your pig-headedness
> makes you superior, is one of the reasons that you deserve
> the mockery and contempt that you get.
>
> When you are proven wrong, you simply refuse to hear it,
> because your head is so far up your asshole that you can
> see your back teeth. And now, like a petulant bratty child,
> you demand that others dance to your tune. But in fact,
> you can't play a tune, and nobody wants to dance with
> you.

Jesus, I couldn't agree more.

No wonder no one wants to hire this idiot.....

[Gary Eickmeier]

Well, if no one else is going to answer you I will try.

The biggest problem that I see in the text is that he thinks the digital
file will not be a perfect copy of the analog input, and that digital
waveforms are a connect the dots stair stepped approximation of the analog.
That would be a serious error.

Gary Eickmeier

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> As friendly professor Peter Schickele once said... "Truth is truth.
> You can't have opinions about truth."
>
> I'm accused of having obsessions no one else cares about. (I'm
> willing to confess to an excessive fondness for gerbils.) But I do
> care about the truth, and make no apologies for it.
>
> Part of the reason for this obsession is that, as an under-employed
> technical writer and editor, I see technically incompetent people
> with little or no ability to write or edit /being paid/ to do so. *
> Is it any wonder I blow my stack over errors that a competent editor
> would have caught?
> Anyhow...
>
> Here are the excerpts from Frenzel's "Electronics Explained" that
> disturbed me. I believe in encouraging people to think for
> themselves, so instead of explaining what's wrong, I invite people to
> say what /they/ think is wrong (including "important stuff" that's
> been left out). I might prompt a little, but I prefer that people
> figure out these things on their own.
> The purpose of this exercise is not to start arguments, but to get
> people thinking about what they understand or don't understand.
>
> (Frenzel is a master of tautological writing. He says the same thing
> over and over in a slightly different way each time, rather than
> expressing it once, simply. He would have had a great career as a
> paid-by-the-word pulp-fiction writer.)
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> p89
>
> Recall that there are two basic types of electronic signals -- analog
> and digital. A digital signal is one that varies in discrete steps.
> Unlike an analog signal, which varies continuously, a digital signal
> has two levels or states. The signal switches or changes abruptly
> from one state to the other.
> Figure 5.1 shows a DC digital signal that switches between two known
> levels such as zero volts or close to it (<0.1 volts) or 0V and
> +3.3V. The positive voltage can be anything between about 1 volt and
> 12 volts with 3.3 and 5 being the most common.
>
> [Those who can get p89 to appear might ask themselves whether the
> figure actually shows a digital signal. How do you know it's digital
> and not analog? Can a pulsed signal be analog? Can a sine wave be
> digital?]
> Digital signals with two discrete levels are also referred to as
> binary signals. Binary means two -- two states or two discrete levels
> of voltage.
> Humans use the decimal number system that represents quantities with
> digits 0 through 9. However, digital equipment and computers do not.
> Internally, digital equipment processes binary data.
> ----------------------------------------------
> p118ff
>
> Analog-to-Digital Conversion
>
> The process of converting an analog signal into a digital one is
> called analog-to-digital conversion, and is performed by an
> analog-to-digital converter (ADC). The process, also referred to as
> sampling, is illustrated in Figure 5-26. The ADC looks at the analog
> input and periodically takes a sample of the voltage at that instant,
> captures it, then converts it into a proportional binary number. We
> say that we are digitizing the signal. The sample points are shown by
> the dots on the analog curve. The binary value of the sample is shown
> to the right of the curve. The conversion process actually results in
> a sequence of binary numbers that represent the analog waveform.
> These values are usually stored in a RAM or transmitted to other
> circuits as shown in Figure 5-27. Note the symbol for an ADC.
> Digital-to-Analog Conversion
>
> To recover the original signal, we put the data sequence previously
> captured by the ADC into a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) (see
> Figure 5.28). The output is a version of the analog signal. The DAC
> output is not a perfect reproduction, but just an approximation. This
> is shown in more detail in Figure 5.29. Each binary input results in
> a constant voltage output from the DAC during the sample period. The
> result is a stepped approximation to the original signal. The rate at
> which the binary data is [sic] sent to the DAC must be the same as
> the sampling interval to recover the original frequency information
> in the signal.
> Resolution and Sampling Interval
>
> The key to good data conversion is to use greater resolution and
> faster sampling rates. Resolution refers t the number of bits used in
> the data conversion. In Figure 5.27, only 4 bits are used, so the
> resolution is poor. The voltage range is only divided into 16
> intervals, meaning that amplitude variations at [sic] less than 0.625
> volt are missed. This problem can be corrected by using more bits.
> ADCs are available in many bit sizes. The most common are 8, 10,, and
> 12 bits, but 14 and 16 bits are available. Some methods of ADC
> produce resolutions of 20 to 26 bits. The result is a finer
> conversion of amplitude detail. As an example, if the 0- to 10-volt
> range in Figure 5.27 was [sic] a 12-bit ADC, the individual smallest
> voltage increment that can be detected is 10/2^12 = 10/4096 = 2.44mV
> instead of the 0.625 volt[s] in the figure.
> Another critical specification is sampling rate. To retain all the
> frequency detail in a signal, the sampling rate must be at least
> twice the highest frequency in the signal. This called the Nyquist
> criterion. For example, when digitizing music with a frequency range
> of 20 Hz to 20 kHz, the sampling rate must be at least double the
> 20-kHz frequency. In most systems, a rate of 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz is
> used.
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> For those who haven't fallen asleep (or died), here's part of my
> review of another bad book, "Signals and Systems Using MATLAB".
>
> I wrote "...on p9, he confuses "analog" with "continuous time" --
> which is NOT correct. One can have analog data that are
> discrete-time."
> One reader responded "...it is impossible to have an analog signal
> that is discrete time. An analog signal can be represented by a
> discrete time signal very well, but an analog signal IS continuous,
> where a discrete time signal is defined as being discontinuous. Since
> it is impossible to have a continuous signal be equal to a
> discontinuous signal, your argument is invalid."
> This confusion of time and amplitude remains common. (Note also the
> confusion between "signal" and "data".) You might want to chew on it
> a bit. (ar-ar)
>
> Thanks for your interest. Have at it!
>
>
> * Several years ago I complained to a Wiley editor about a miserable
> book on the history of radio. He was a very nice person -- but
> admitted he had almost no technical knowledge. So what made him think
> he could edit technical books? He'd applied for and taken a job he
> was unqualified for. I think I have a right to be outraged.
>
> "'We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
> questions." -- Edwin Land

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/17/2013 10:41 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> It might not bother you that most technical books are overpriced toilet
> paper, but it bothers me.

Not very good toilet paper. The covers are too slick, and the pictures
aren't very interesting.

I suspect that the problem is with the publishing industry rather than
with the authors. Publishers don't want a thick book with a lot of
details about a very small range of topics because they'd only sell a
handful. They want a book that covers a wider scope.

For example, I've been thinking for a couple of years about writing a
book, probably 100-150 pages, about connections between elements of a PA
system. But who'd buy it if it didn't tell them how to mic a drum kit or
compress a bass?


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2013 2:01 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Well, if no one else is going to answer you I will try.
>
> The biggest problem that I see in the text is that he thinks the digital
> file will not be a perfect copy of the analog input, and that digital
> waveforms are a connect the dots stair stepped approximation of the analog.
> That would be a serious error.

I don't think he even got far enough to make that error. When you know
that this is what most people who aren't about to present the sampling
theorem will say about digital representation of an analog signal, it's
easy to infer even from an incomplete explanation, that he's telling you
that the digital representation isn't smooth.

And in fact, it isn't smooth. It's a series of binary numbers that
represent analog levels sampled at discrete intervals. It's only an
accurate representation of the analog signal when you take a further
step and remove information that is out of bounds of the sampling theory.

And that's a very simplified and not entirely precise explanation.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
/
> The other day I started to write an explanation of "digital" from
> scratch -- and it is not easy. There is so much preliminary material to
> present (such as why one would want to represent information as quantized
> values, rather than continuous variation) it can be daunting. That,
> however, is no excuse for getting so much wrong.

Part of the problem may be that the word digital is a word that is something
like the word fridge. Everybody thinks they know what it means but tend to
forget that when you start formulating formal definitions, fuzz around the
edges becomes intolerable.

When I think of the word digital what I really mean is "Discrete value,
discrete time" or "Quantized value, quantized time". Once you agree with
that, life seems to become considerably easier. Those definitions also
admits what I find to be an amazingly large number of different kinds of
signals and brings in a lot of history. I lived through a lot of it. For
example, binary signals are only a subset of all of the possible kinds of
digital signals.

[John Williamson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
> /
>> The other day I started to write an explanation of "digital" from
>> scratch -- and it is not easy. There is so much preliminary material to
>> present (such as why one would want to represent information as quantized
>> values, rather than continuous variation) it can be daunting. That,
>> however, is no excuse for getting so much wrong.
>
> Part of the problem may be that the word digital is a word that is something
> like the word fridge. Everybody thinks they know what it means but tend to
> forget that when you start formulating formal definitions, fuzz around the
> edges becomes intolerable.
>
> When I think of the word digital what I really mean is "Discrete value,
> discrete time"

Which I would define as "Taking the nearest value of the signal,
selected from a number of such, encoded as a number, at the instant when
the clock ticks". The way a normal ADC works.

> or "Quantized value, quantized time".

Which I would take as meaning "Taking a known value at a known instant".
The known value is not necessarily encoded, but could, for instance, be
represented as the amount of charge on a capacitor as measured by an
analogue meter, and the time can be arbitrary, not exactly defined by a
clock. The way a "Sample and hold" circuit works. If the timing is set
by a clock ticking and you have a number of sample and hold circuits, in
series, then you have the principle of a bucket brigade delay.

At the ultimate resolution, though, all signal values are quantised by
the charge of an electron, and the time resolution is limited by the
Planck time, which is (5.39106(32) × 10-44 s).

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> Well, if no one else is going to answer you I will try.

> The biggest problem that I see in the text is that he thinks the digital
> file will not be a perfect copy of the analog input, and that digital
> waveforms are a connect the dots stair stepped approximation of the analog.
> That would be a serious error.

That seems to be what he's saying, and it /is/ a serious error. There are
others.

Frenzel doesn't properly address -- even in passing -- the issue of how
accurate a quantized representation can be. Indeed, he says that faster
sampling and a deeper bit depth give a better representation -- but this isn't
necessarily true.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> The other day I started to write an explanation of "digital" from
>> scratch -- and it is not easy. There is so much preliminary material
>> to present (such as why one would want to represent information
>> as quantized values, rather than continuous variation) it can be
>> daunting. That, however, is no excuse for getting so much wrong.

> Part of the problem may be that the word digital is a word that is
> something like the word fridge. Everybody thinks they know what it
> means, but tend to forget that when you start formulating formal
> definitions, fuzz around the edges becomes intolerable.

You mean... A fridge isn't a Frigidaire? And if it's not an Amana, it's not a
Radarange? (I shouldn't have to mark this as a joke, but it seems necessary.)


> When I think of the word digital what I really mean is "Discrete value,
> discrete time" or "Quantized value, quantized time". Once you agree with
> that, life seems to become considerably easier. Those definitions also
> admits what I find to be an amazingly large number of different kinds
> of signals and brings in a lot of history. I lived through a lot of it.
> For
> example, binary signals are only a subset of all of the possible kinds of
> digital signals.

What he said. It's all correct. Thank you.

[William Sommerwerck]

"No wonder no one wants to hire this idiot..."

Those who have hired me, and let me do my job without telling me how to do it,
have been happy with my work.

At Data I/O I rewrote the horrible user manual for the schematic-capture
software Data I/O had recently purchased. When the product went out the door,
it immediately received kudos from customers who'd had trouble with the
previous manuals.

At Microsoft, I rewrote material I was told /not/ to rewrite -- and got
uninvited compliments.

I rewrote Software Bisque's user manuals. SB got compliments from customers --
and fewer phone calls.

At AccessLine, I had a "love affair" with my boss. If you've ever had a
manager who demands your best work, and supports you in achieving it, you know
how great going to work can be.

I'm "sorry", Mr No-Name, but as a technical writer, I usually know what I'm
doing. I don't need your approval, nor will I grovel in front of you asking
for permission to speak in public on subjects I know something about.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> LOL! "Calling you out". What a ****ing asshole! In a world
> where you could invent your own definitions, and no other
> definitions ever have any validity, you could probably make
> a case that you're always right. But in the real world, where
> definitions exist by common understanding, your refusal
> to accept common understanding just leaves you behind
> as an unemployable loser.

And in all your long, rich existence, you have never had the experience of
reading or hearing some "expert" say something. and reacting "Wait. That's
wrong."?

It's interesting that Mike Rivers and Ron Capik -- who have writing
experience -- aren't so quick to dump on me. (I'm /not/ saying they approve of
everything I say or do.) Could it be they know you can't write well about
things you don't understand?


"But in the real world, where definitions exist by common understanding..."

Which is another way of saying that common belief is fact -- which it isn't.

Most people believe what they're told by their parents or "experts", without
questioning it. More than anything, this is what I'm fighting.

I've always been weak on acoustics. I've just started studying Merhaut's
"Theory of Electroacoustics", and this time I seem to be understanding it.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 6/17/2013 10:41 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> It might not bother you that most technical books are overpriced
>> toilet paper, but it bothers me.

> Not very good toilet paper. The covers are too slick, and the pictures
> aren't very interesting.

> I suspect that the problem is with the publishing industry rather than with
> the authors. Publishers don't want a thick book with a lot of details about
> a very small range of topics because they'd only sell a handful. They want a
> book that covers a wider scope.

> For example, I've been thinking for a couple of years about writing a
> book, probably 100-150 pages, about connections between elements
> of a PA system. But who'd buy it if it didn't tell them how to mic a
> drum kit or compress a bass?

How about a book titled "Installing and Maintaining PA Systems"? Wouldn't
there be a market for that?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...
On 6/17/2013 10:41 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Paul" wrote in message ...

>>> Maybe if William was actually duly employed, he'd have
>>> less time to tear down the work of others.

>> If I were duly employed, that's what I'd be paid to do.
>> It might not bother you that most technical books are
>> overpriced toilet paper, but it bothers me.

> However it seems the free market isn't buying what you're
> selling. You may sit and stew, change your marketing, or
> change your product. Seems you've opted for the first state.
> I opted for retirement, thus have no dogs in the fight.
> [OK, I may still care about accuracy ...at some level.]

I sincerely thank Ron for (more or less) agreeing with me.

My marketing approach has always been "I can help you provide better customer
support and improve customer satisfaction". It has worked in only one case
that I remember.

Isn't anyone bothered that the expensive books they buy are often poorly
written and organized? Or that they have only rarely been edited for technical
accuracy?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2013 9:49 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> How about a book titled "Installing and Maintaining PA Systems"?
> Wouldn't there be a market for that?

There are already a couple of books that cover that subject pretty well,
the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook and Sound System Engineering
(the Don Davis bunch).

A title like that would scare away the people I want to write for. This
would be a book for the person who posts on a fourm: "I just bought a
new mixer. Can someone tell me the best way to hook it up?"


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 6/18/2013 9:49 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> How about a book titled "Installing and Maintaining PA Systems"?
>> Wouldn't there be a market for that?

> There are already a couple of books that cover that subject
> pretty well, the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook
> and Sound System Engineering (the Don Davis bunch).
> A title like that would scare away the people I want to write
> for. This would be a book for the person who posts on a fourm:
> "I just bought a new mixer. Can someone tell me the best way
> to hook it up?"

I see a couple of issues... A mixer is necessarily /part of/ a larger system.
Is it possible to explain how to hook it up without the context of the system
as a whole? I'm not sure it is.

To put it a slightly different way... It's usually assumed that if you
understand how trees work, you won't have trouble assembling them into a
forest. That is rarely true for a newcomer -- they often don't even understand
the trees.

I once tried to twist Mr Mackie's arm into letting me rewrite the mixer
manual. It was /locally/ well-written, but poorly organized. It needed to be
laid out from the perspective of someone who had no practical experience with
mixers, and had to be instructed from the ground up, starting with the
simplest things (ie, where do you plug in a mic and how do you set its
level?).

Basically, it's the manufacturers' responsibility to provide this sort of
documentation. To the extent they don't, you have a market.

How about "The Big Dummy's Guide to Installing and Using a Mixer"?

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 6/18/2013 9:49 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> How about a book titled "Installing and Maintaining PA Systems"?
>> Wouldn't there be a market for that?

>There are already a couple of books that cover that subject pretty well,
>the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook and Sound System Engineering
>(the Don Davis bunch).

>A title like that would scare away the people I want to write for. This
>would be a book for the person who posts on a fourm: "I just bought a
>new mixer. Can someone tell me the best way to hook it up?"

How about joining the "Idiots Guide" franchise? I've seen some surprising topics in
that area (sorry, escapes me now; something like the "Idiot's Guide to Funerals", or
some such was one; there are some other arcane topics as well).

So, "The Idiot's Guide to Small PA Systems"...

Personally, the entire franchise is somewhat annoying to me, but hey, if you can
sell them on your writing in your field but using their editorial guidelines, why
not?

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2013 12:28 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> I see a couple of issues... A mixer is necessarily /part of/ a larger
> system. Is it possible to explain how to hook it up without the context
> of the system as a whole? I'm not sure it is.

The question, of course, is naive. What they really mean to ask, and
what I would answer in the book, is to how to hook up the sort of sound
system that a person who would ask a question that way would be likely
to buy.

> To put it a slightly different way... It's usually assumed that if you
> understand how trees work, you won't have trouble assembling them into a
> forest. That is rarely true for a newcomer -- they often don't even
> understand the trees.

And that's why there needs to be a good book. Every mixer instruction
manual tells you where the Auxiliary Send controls are, but few explain
that they feed signals to a bus and that bus is where you connect your
monitors (and why), or outboard effect processors. I'll leave the
rigging and line arrays for another book if I ever think I have enough
experience to write about them.

> I once tried to twist Mr Mackie's arm into letting me rewrite the mixer
> manual. It was /locally/ well-written, but poorly organized. It needed
> to be laid out from the perspective of someone who had no practical
> experience with mixers, and had to be instructed from the ground up,
> starting with the simplest things (ie, where do you plug in a mic and
> how do you set its level?).

Are you talking about my big mixer book, or the manual for one of their
mixers? I used to point people to the Mackie 1604 VLZ manual because it
had several suggested hook-up diagrams that covered real situations. The
first page or so of all of their manuals back then had "The Mackie Level
Setting Procedure" that offered one way of setting the channel trims so
that there was enough headroom in the mixer. Trouble was that people
looked at the meters and said "my mixer isn't hot enough." The problem
was one of gain structure in the system and a meter scale that covered
too wide of a range.

> How about "The Big Dummy's Guide to Installing and Using a Mixer"?

I'd probably get sued by John Wiley, the folks who publish the "For
Dummies" books. I was thinking about "PA Systems For Drummers" but the
bass player might feel slighted.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[S. King]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:51:38 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> "Ron C" wrote in message
> ...
> On 6/17/2013 10:41 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Paul" wrote in message ...
>
>>>> Maybe if William was actually duly employed, he'd have less time to
>>>> tear down the work of others.
>
>>> If I were duly employed, that's what I'd be paid to do.
>>> It might not bother you that most technical books are overpriced
>>> toilet paper, but it bothers me.
>
>> However it seems the free market isn't buying what you're selling. You
>> may sit and stew, change your marketing, or change your product. Seems
>> you've opted for the first state.
>> I opted for retirement, thus have no dogs in the fight. [OK, I may
>> still care about accuracy ...at some level.]
>
> I sincerely thank Ron for (more or less) agreeing with me.
>
> My marketing approach has always been "I can help you provide better
> customer support and improve customer satisfaction". It has worked in
> only one case that I remember.

SNIP

You're marketing approach is probably fine. I suspect that potential
employers spend a few minutes in conversation with you or in written
communication with you and conclude that you are trouble with a capital T,
unable to play or work effectively with others, and likely to harm the
enterprise more than you might help.

Steve King

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm answering this directly.

>> I once tried to twist Mr Mackie's arm into letting me rewrite the mixer
>> manual. It was /locally/ well-written, but poorly organized. It needed
>> to be laid out from the perspective of someone who had no practical
>> experience with mixers, and had to be instructed from the ground up,
>> starting with the simplest things (ie, where do you plug in a mic and
>> how do you set its level?).

> Are you talking about my big mixer book, or the manual for one of their
> mixers? I used to point people to the Mackie 1604 VLZ manual because it had
> several suggested hook-up diagrams that covered real situations. The first
> page or so of all of their manuals back then had "The Mackie Level Setting
> Procedure" that offered one way of setting the channel trims so that there
> was enough headroom in the mixer. Trouble was that people looked at the
> meters and said "my mixer isn't hot enough." The problem was one of gain
> structure in the system and a meter scale that covered too wide of a range.

I didn't know you'd written a mixer book. I was thinking of the manual.

I have an odd approach to learning things. I'm more interested in principles
than facts. With respect to mixers (I used to own a Mackie, which I used
solely as a mic preamp), I wanted to /understand/ how it worked and how it was
used. I don't like having to be dependent on a diagram.

In general, a manual should help the user understand the product sufficiently
that he rarely, if ever, has to refer to the manual.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "PStamler" wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> The other day I started to write an explanation of "digital" from
>>> scratch --
>>> and it is not easy. There is so much preliminary material to present
>>> (such
>>> as why one would want to represent information as quantized values,
>>> rather than continuous variation) it can be daunting. That, however,
>>> is no excuse for getting so much wrong.
>
>> No, it's not easy. At the beginning of this discussion I offered my
>> definitions
>> of "analog" and "digital", and I found I had to use many weasel words, to
>> cover the many ambiguities.
>
> You're touching on an issue that hasn't been discussed yet.
>
> The word "signal" has two meanings -- the waveform coming out of or
> going into a circuit, and the information carried by that waveform.

Sort of...

> The
> failure to recognize this causes writers to talk about analog or digital
> signals (waveforms), when in reality, there are no such things. "Analog"
> and "digital" refer to the way the data is represented or "coded" -- not
> the waveform that carries that representation or coding.
>


But these are a dual of each other - in the mathematical sense of
"dual". There's no metaphysical dualism; it's simply
a matter of the domain in which the signal is being discussed. There
exist devices or algorithms that perform a conversion between these
two domains.

There is a perfectly useful bijective mapping. A bijective mapping
can be construed as "equivalence". So...

Of course there are domains over which this distinction matters, but
those are much less likely than a general case. They mainly
matter to people implementing converters.


> You thus have writers stating that pulsed signals (waveforms) represent
> digital information, when in reality the waveform has nothing whatever
> to do with "analog" or "digital" information.

When one takes measurements in the digital domains, one will see
classes of waveforms. Ditto analog domains.

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

>> My marketing approach has always been "I can help you provide
>> better customer support and improve customer satisfaction".
>> It has worked in only one case that I remember.

SNIP

> Your marketing approach is probably fine. I suspect that potential
> employers spend a few minutes in conversation with you or in written
> communication with you and conclude that you are trouble with a
> capital T, unable to play or work effectively with others, and likely
> to harm the enterprise more than you might help.

You suspect far too much.

In many cases I have offered my services as an independent contractor who
would work off site.

What you don't understand is that most businesses aren't interested in
high-quality documentation, and don't go running after what they (think) they
don't need. Otherwise I and many other writers wouldn't be begging for work,
and you and I probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one reason and one
reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.

[PStamler]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one reason and one
>
> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.

Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition, which provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure they can get away with doing the same.

In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the user manual as well as the physical product.

Peace,
Paul

[S. King]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:25:21 -0700, PStamler wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one reason
>> and one
>>
>> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.
>
> Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition, which
> provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure they can get
> away with doing the same.
>
> In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the user
> manual as well as the physical product.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

I've written and produced a lot of videos over the years for manufacturers
explaining to customers how to use products. My experience is that they
do care about accuracy, clarity, usefulness. Typically, I'm dealing with
rather high-cost stuff. Often I have a committee of engineers who
designed the gizmo and sales-support people who work with customers who
use the gizmo checking my work from script to finished video. I have
frequently been asked to simplify product history and theory of
operation. The explanation often is that the user base is not very
technical and not very educated. They want to know which knob to turn to
make the gizmo do what they want, or on which two test points to put the
VOM probes and what to do if the reading is out of spec. I realize that
this is different than writing a text book that purports to explain theory.

Paul is almost certainly right about the needs and motivations of
manufacturers regarding user manuals. I would add that if enough
customers complained and/or chewed up support resources that cost the
manufacturer money, they would change.

I still believe I am almost certainly right about the reasons for the
success of your marketing. Because, like you, I am never wrong. Ever.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Steve

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>
> I once tried to twist Mr Mackie's arm into letting me rewrite the
> mixer manual. It was /locally/ well-written, but poorly organized.
> It needed to be laid out from the perspective of someone who had no
> practical experience with mixers, and had to be instructed from the
> ground up, starting with the simplest things (ie, where do you plug
> in a mic and how do you set its level?).
>
> Basically, it's the manufacturers' responsibility to provide this
> sort of documentation. To the extent they don't, you have a market.

Sure they do. But you don't write for the intended audience:
people who want to know how to use the equipment. You
write for yourself, to impress yourself, and to try to prop up
the unsupportable position that you're always right. Nobody
wants to read that ****, especially not if they have to pay
for it.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> I'm answering this directly.

No, you're jerking around. And off.

> I have an odd approach to learning things.

But people who pay to have books written don't give a
**** about your learning disabilities, and they don't
want to pay to to masturbate in print.

> I'm more interested in principles than facts.

Well, I thinks it's well established that you don't give a
flying **** about facts, despite your persistent denial.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "No wonder no one wants to hire this idiot..."
> I'm "sorry",

YOu've already established that your apologies are
insincere. No need for the scare quotes.

> Mr No-Name, but as a technical writer, I usually know what I'm
> doing.

But apparently you're not a technical writer. You're a bum.

> I don't need your approval,

Of course you don't. All you need is someone to hire
you, but you refuse to produce anything that they want.

> nor will I grovel in front of you

Of course you won't. You're too busy pretending you're never wrong.
You may be fooling yourself, but you're not fooling anyone else.

> asking for permission to speak in public on subjects I know
> something about.

What the ****? Who's expecting you ask permission?
Plenty of people would like you to shut the **** up, but
nobody's asking you to grovel or ask for permission.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2013 5:57 PM, S. King wrote:

> I've written and produced a lot of videos over the years for manufacturers
> explaining to customers how to use products. My experience is that they
> do care about accuracy, clarity, usefulness.

I don't think that it's a matter that manufacturers don't care about
having a good manual,, it's that the users have told them that they
don't the read manuals, good or bad. They just dive in, and then call
Tech Support or get on a forum with their questions.

A good video probably costs as much to produce as a good manual, but you
have something that the user can watch end to end in 15 minutes or so,
he downloads it so they have no printing or packaging costs, and they
don't care if the user throws it away.

Personally, I like to have a manual for reference. I read it before I
start using the device and ten years later when I forget how to use a
feature (or that it has the feature) I can look it up pretty quickly in
the manual. Videos are a good "show and tell" but they're a lousy
reference.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> m...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> LOL! "Calling you out". What a ****ing asshole! In a world
>> where you could invent your own definitions, and no other
>> definitions ever have any validity, you could probably make
>> a case that you're always right. But in the real world, where
>> definitions exist by common understanding, your refusal
>> to accept common understanding just leaves you behind
>> as an unemployable loser.
>
> And in all your long, rich existence, you have never had the
> experience of reading or hearing some "expert" say something. and
> reacting "Wait. That's wrong."?

Sure. In fact, that so-called expert is frequently you, Bunky.
One of the subject that you're usually wrong about is whether
you're wrong.

> It's interesting that Mike Rivers and Ron Capik -- who have writing
> experience -- aren't so quick to dump on me. (I'm /not/ saying they
> approve of everything I say or do.) Could it be they know you can't
> write well about things you don't understand?
>
>
> "But in the real world, where definitions exist by common
> understanding..."
>
> Which is another way of saying that common belief is fact -- which
> it isn't.

No, it's not another way of saying that. Not even close.
What a crock of ****. No wonder you can't get work.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> My marketing approach has always been "I can help you provide better
> customer support and improve customer satisfaction". It has worked
> in only one case that I remember.

In all the other cases, you've been wrong, apparently

> Isn't anyone bothered that the expensive books they buy are often
> poorly written and organized? Or that they have only rarely been
> edited for technical accuracy?

Of course people are bothered by that. My, you are
a wellspring of strawmen!

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>>> My marketing approach has always been "I can help you provide
>>> better customer support and improve customer satisfaction".
>>> It has worked in only one case that I remember.
>
> SNIP
>
>> Your marketing approach is probably fine. I suspect that potential
>> employers spend a few minutes in conversation with you or in
>> written
>> communication with you and conclude that you are trouble with a
>> capital T, unable to play or work effectively with others, and
>> likely
>> to harm the enterprise more than you might help.
>
> You suspect far too much.
>
> In many cases I have offered my services as an independent
> contractor who would work off site.

I guess the comment just went right over your head.
Not surprising, with your head up your asshole.

[William Sommerwerck]

"S. King" wrote in message ...

> I've written and produced a lot of videos over the years for manufacturers
> explaining to customers how to use products. My experience is that they
> do care about accuracy, clarity, usefulness. Typically, I'm dealing with
> rather high-cost stuff. Often I have a committee of engineers who
> designed the gizmo and sales-support people who work with customers who
> use the gizmo checking my work from script to finished video. I have
> frequently been asked to simplify product history and theory of
> operation. The explanation often is that the user base is not very
> technical and not very educated. They want to know which knob to turn to
> make the gizmo do what they want, or on which two test points to put the
> VOM probes and what to do if the reading is out of spec. I realize that
> this is different than writing a text book that purports to explain theory.

You're fortunate to have been able to work on such products. The
most-expensive thing I own (other than my car) is a Pioneer plasma TV. It has
the most God-awful user manual I've ever seen (even worse than those for my
DSLRs). It tells you essentially nothing about how to get the most out of the
set -- and it runs 150 pages!


> Paul is almost certainly right about the needs and motivations of
> manufacturers regarding user manuals. I would add that if enough
> customers complained and/or chewed up support resources that
> cost the manufacturer money, they would change.

But when you point out that good documentation will reduce the number of calls
they have to answer, they're hardly ever interested. It makes no sense.

It seems companies have largely "off-loaded" customer support onto user-run
support groups, effectively sweeping the problem under the rug.

By the way, Linksys (Cisco) has excellent customer support. The techs actually
know what they're talking about, and provide solid information. This is one of
the reasons I buy Linksys products.


> I still believe I am almost certainly right about the reasons for the
> success of your marketing. Because, like you, I am never wrong.
> Ever. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Actually, I say that I am hardly ever wrong. But I don't care whether or not
you're kidding. I agree. You should never hide your light under a bushel. If a
courteous approach doesn't work, lay it on the line. (This sometimes works
with men, but never with women.)

One of the nice things about being retired is that you can often say exactly
what you like to a potential employer. Some months after I added a description
of a new feature to the user manual for HDR software, the company's owner came
back to me to redo the entire manual. She got upset when she learned that I
was not thoroughly familiar with the product, and I told her it didn't matter,
because I would pick it up as I went along, with her programmers answering
specific questions as they arose. She didn't like that at all -- especially as
she was offering $50 an hour, which I found more of a bribe than a fair wage.
I told her where to get off.

I understand -- and even sympathize -- with wanting a writer who already
understands your product. In her case, she had a professional photographer who
understood it forwards, backwards, and sideways. But he can't write. His book
on HDR processing has magnificent photos, but is poorly organized and written.

From my perspective, it's easier for a writer to learn a product, than for a
product expert to learn how to write. This is similar to the way William S
Gilbert saw things -- he wanted actors who could sing, not singers who could
act.

The company is still in business, but given how cameras are increasingly
incorporating HDR processing, its continued success might depend on the
quality of its documentation. One of the purposes of documentation is to
minimize the amount of experimentation needed to use the product effectively.
Many companies think it's enough to describe the features. It isn't.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> I once tried to twist Mr Mackie's arm into letting me rewrite the mixer
>> manual. It was /locally/ well-written, but poorly organized. It needed to
>> be laid out from the perspective of someone who had no practical experience
>> with mixers, and had to be instructed from the ground up, starting with the
>> simplest things (ie, where do you plug in a mic and how do you set its
>> level?).
>> Basically, it's the manufacturers' responsibility to provide this sort of
>> documentation. To the extent they don't, you have a market.

> Sure they do. But you don't write for the intended audience:
> people who want to know how to use the equipment. You
> write for yourself, to impress yourself, and to try to prop up
> the unsupportable position that you're always right. Nobody
> wants to read that ****, especially not if they have to pay for it.

Do you actually think that's an intelligent remark that will win you admirers?
You cannot imagine how stupid it sounds -- especially as you've never read any
of my documentation. You just like being nasty, don't you?

I ALWAYS write for someone who isn't familiar with the product. He/she is
always your audience. Too many manuals are written on the assumption that the
user already knows how to use the product!

One woman wrote to Software Bisque, saying "I often have trouble using
software. But I just followed the instructions and it worked." This was
because I always double-check my instructions to make sure they'll work when
blindly followed.

[William Sommerwerck]

I've snipped the nasty and pointless remarks. I have the feeling None is
approaching a psychotic break.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> I've snipped the nasty and pointless remarks. I have the feeling
> None is approaching a psychotic break.

You've "snipped"? Howzat? You deleted something from Usenet?
Did you forget to read the manual, or was it that you forgot to write
it?

You've insulted everyone who frequents this newsgroup, and
compounded the insult with a phony apology. That's pretty
nasty and pointless, but pretending that you "snipped"
something is not only pointless, it's also clueless.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> I once tried to twist Mr Mackie's arm into letting me rewrite the mixer
> manual. It was /locally/ well-written, but poorly organized. It needed to be
> laid out from the perspective of someone who had no practical experience with
> mixers, and had to be instructed from the ground up, starting with the
> simplest things (ie, where do you plug in a mic and how do you set its
> level?).

Hmmm... The manual for my "vintage" 1202 fits that demand nicely.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Luxey]

Seams William, demand for your level of expertise disappeared as soon as WWW caught some ground?

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/18/2013 9:49 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> How about a book titled "Installing and Maintaining PA Systems"?
>> Wouldn't there be a market for that?
>
> There are already a couple of books that cover that subject pretty well,
> the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook and Sound System Engineering (the
> Don Davis bunch).
>
> A title like that would scare away the people I want to write for. This
> would be a book for the person who posts on a fourm: "I just bought a new
> mixer. Can someone tell me the best way to hook it up?"

But such a person isn't likely to pay for a book when the information
usually already came with their mixer (although they haven't read it yet
presumably) and basic information is also readilly available free on the
internet.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Luxey" wrote in message
...

> Seems, William, demand for your level of expertise
> disappeared as soon as WWW caught some ground?

Possibly. Product managers might have felt that anyone could write a brief
explanation of a particular feature, eliminating the need for someone who
understood how to organize and present material.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...
"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...

>> A title like that would scare away the people I want to write for.
>> This would be a book for the person who posts on a fourm: "I just
>> bought a new mixer. Can someone tell me the best way to hook it up?"

> But such a person isn't likely to pay for a book when the information
> usually already came with their mixer (although they haven't read it
> yet, presumably) and basic information is also readilly available free
> on the Internet.

Are there Web documents that step a raw beginner through the process of
understanding how a mixer is set up and operated?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2013 7:44 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> But when you point out that good documentation will reduce the number of
> calls they have to answer, they're hardly ever interested. It makes no
> sense.

Seems like this would make great sense, but there are (at least) two
forces against it, and I'm not making this up. I've been there.

One is that some companies put significant (marketing) value on having
personal contact with their customers. It's not just a bunch of dumdums
sitting around waiting for the phone to ring, it's a very closely
managed part of the business. If someone calls, even with a dumb
question, they learn something useful about their customer base. If they
find that they're getting repeated calls about the same thing, it tells
the company that there's something they need to change or fix. And if
the tech support exchange is successful, that customer is likely to
respond, some time, to some person, on a forum, that the company has
great customer service.

The other thing is that (and I wish I could get Verizon to believe this)
not all problems can be resolved by going through a script, nor can they
be solved by RTFM. You can't tell a customer, either in a manual or via
direct communication: "we didn't design it for that purpose so we won't
help you." Sometimes it's necessary to think along with the customer in
order to get him up to speed, or absolutely understand (and be able to
make the customer understand) that he can't do that.

> By the way, Linksys (Cisco) has excellent customer support. The techs
> actually know what they're talking about, and provide solid information.
> This is one of the reasons I buy Linksys products.

See?? Unfortunately, I have very little need for Linksys products, and
those that I do have have never needed anything but to be plugged in and
they work. But I understand that they have products that probably need a
well trained technician to set up or troubleshoot.

> One of the nice things about being retired is that you can often say
> exactly what you like to a potential employer.

I've done that and it usually results in no job.

> Some months after I added
> a description of a new feature to the user manual for HDR software, the
> company's owner came back to me to redo the entire manual. She got upset
> when she learned that I was not thoroughly familiar with the product,

I used to participate actively on the PreSonus forum. I got familiar
with a few of their pieces of gear when I had them for reviews. If
you've ever seen one of my reviews, often it's like a re-write or an
addition to the manual. But since they don't make anything that I need,
I don't own any of their products. Apparently a user got upset because a
non-user was telling him how to use their equipment.

> From my perspective, it's easier for a writer to learn a product, than
> for a product expert to learn how to write.

I've had some people tell me that a good writer can write about
anything. I don't agree. I wouldn't tackle a Pro Tools manual, for
example. I've also been told that a good writer can write a good manual
from a good product specification. He doesn't even need to see the
product. The problem with that, in this field, is that often product
specs aren't sufficiently detailed and the product grows in the
development process.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/19/2013 6:03 AM, Trevor wrote:

> But such a person isn't likely to pay for a book when the information
> usually already came with their mixer (although they haven't read it yet
> presumably) and basic information is also readilly available free on the
> internet.

That's the trouble with kids these days. They only know what they can
learn from the Internet for free.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/19/2013 6:03 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> But such a person isn't likely to pay for a book when the information
>> usually already came with their mixer (although they haven't read it yet
>> presumably) and basic information is also readilly available free on the
>> internet.
>
> That's the trouble with kids these days. They only know what they can
> learn from the Internet for free.

True, but the alternative of only being able to afford a few expensive
text/reference books, and hoping they were both correct and comprehensive,
as was the norm in the past, is not much better.
I believe I can find more information for free now, than I could ever afford
to buy before the internet. And I still have the same fallback position of
borrowing books from the library where necessary, and available.

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one reason and
>> one
>>
>> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.
>
> Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition, which
> provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure they can get
> away with doing the same.
>
> In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the user
> manual as well as the physical product.


In this day and age, someone selling something that requires a user manual
is an interesting concept.

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> I've had some people tell me that a good writer can write about
> anything. I don't agree. I wouldn't tackle a Pro Tools manual, for
> example. I've also been told that a good writer can write a good manual
> from a good product specification. He doesn't even need to see the
> product. The problem with that, in this field, is that often product
> specs aren't sufficiently detailed and the product grows in the
> development process.

A good writer with no experience on a subject creates fiction. Plenty of
those writers in the marketing departments.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "PStamler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >
> >> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one reason and
> >> one
> >>
> >> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.
> >
> > Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition, which
> > provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure they can get
> > away with doing the same.
> >
> > In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the user
> > manual as well as the physical product.
>
>
> In this day and age, someone selling something that requires a user manual
> is an interesting concept.

The congency of that remark is both hilarious and appalling. Thanks for
my opening morning chuckle, Arny.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:58:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>
>>> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one reason and
>>> one
>>>
>>> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.
>>
>> Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition, which
>> provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure they can get
>> away with doing the same.
>>
>> In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the user
>> manual as well as the physical product.
>
>
>In this day and age, someone selling something that requires a user manual
>is an interesting concept.
>
I'm going to agree with this, at least in my major field, RF and
microwaves. I frequently get hold of a new piece of equipment - some
sort of generator and analyser - and am asked by the manufacturer to
assess it. If the manual has to come out of the shrink wrap, the
product has, as far as I am concerned, failed. I know exactly what the
thing should do, and I expect the sequence needed to achieve it to be
logical to the point of intuitive.

d

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:58:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one reason
>>>> and
>>>> one
>>>>
>>>> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.
>>>
>>> Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition, which
>>> provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure they can get
>>> away with doing the same.
>>>
>>> In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the user
>>> manual as well as the physical product.

>>In this day and age, someone selling something that requires a user manual
>>is an interesting concept.

> I'm going to agree with this, at least in my major field, RF and
> microwaves. I frequently get hold of a new piece of equipment - some
> sort of generator and analyser - and am asked by the manufacturer to
> assess it. If the manual has to come out of the shrink wrap, the
> product has, as far as I am concerned, failed. I know exactly what the
> thing should do, and I expect the sequence needed to achieve it to be
> logical to the point of intuitive.

On balance there are tools that are so complex - a large digital console
being an example, that some kind of a reference manual may still be
justified. But not a small one.

OTOH, computer operating systems are probably among the most complex things
around, and I've haven't read the manual for one since Win95.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/19/2013 7:08 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Are there Web documents that step a raw beginner through the process of
> understanding how a mixer is set up and operated?

Apparently not. That's why I see a need for a book.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/19/2013 7:55 AM, Trevor wrote:

> True, but the alternative of only being able to afford a few expensive
> text/reference books, and hoping they were both correct and comprehensive,
> as was the norm in the past, is not much better.

I wouldn't want to write a $90 book. I'd like to see it be under $20.
And anybody who would rather scramble around on the Internet looking for
what might be the right information rather than spend $20 for a book can
just go fumble. He probably wouldn't read the book anyway (which is why
he's looking on the Internet).

> I believe I can find more information for free now, than I could ever afford
> to buy before the internet.

Certainly, but there was a time when I didn't need all that information.
And I still don't need most of what I find that's interesting. And I
still can't find service documentation for a lot of the things I have
that need fixing.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/19/2013 7:58 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

> In this day and age, someone selling something that requires a user manual
> is an interesting concept.

This is certainly a good goal, but few achieve it. The next best thing
is to have a manual that explains enough things well enough so that the
user doesn't have to call Tech Support or go searching the Internet for
answers.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/19/2013 7:55 AM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> True, but the alternative of only being able to afford a few expensive
>> text/reference books, and hoping they were both correct and
>> comprehensive,
>> as was the norm in the past, is not much better.
>
> I wouldn't want to write a $90 book. I'd like to see it be under $20. And
> anybody who would rather scramble around on the Internet looking for what
> might be the right information rather than spend $20 for a book can just
> go fumble. He probably wouldn't read the book anyway (which is why he's
> looking on the Internet).
>
>> I believe I can find more information for free now, than I could ever
>> afford
>> to buy before the internet.
>
> Certainly, but there was a time when I didn't need all that information.
> And I still don't need most of what I find that's interesting. And I still
> can't find service documentation for a lot of the things I have that need
> fixing.

I got pretty deep into a fair number of analog mixers without looking at a
book, but never worked with one with VCAs or mute groups.

My first 02R96 got me into its manual pretty deeply any number of times.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:24:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:58:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one reason
>>>>> and
>>>>> one
>>>>>
>>>>> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.
>>>>
>>>> Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition, which
>>>> provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure they can get
>>>> away with doing the same.
>>>>
>>>> In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the user
>>>> manual as well as the physical product.
>
>>>In this day and age, someone selling something that requires a user manual
>>>is an interesting concept.
>
>> I'm going to agree with this, at least in my major field, RF and
>> microwaves. I frequently get hold of a new piece of equipment - some
>> sort of generator and analyser - and am asked by the manufacturer to
>> assess it. If the manual has to come out of the shrink wrap, the
>> product has, as far as I am concerned, failed. I know exactly what the
>> thing should do, and I expect the sequence needed to achieve it to be
>> logical to the point of intuitive.
>
>On balance there are tools that are so complex - a large digital console
>being an example, that some kind of a reference manual may still be
>justified. But not a small one.
>
>OTOH, computer operating systems are probably among the most complex things
>around, and I've haven't read the manual for one since Win95.
>

I find the complexity is rarely the problem, it is trying achieve too
many functions through too few actual controls. Unless the user has
the same mind-set as the programmer (has that ever been the case?)
then the tortuous routes through nested menus are going to flummox.

And so often the most frequently used functions are buried three
layers deep while the control to loop send number 10 to the line input
of channel 15 is right there on the home screen.

d

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/19/2013 1:04 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

> I got pretty deep into a fair number of analog mixers without looking at a
> book, but never worked with one with VCAs or mute groups.

You're a pretty smart guy. The people I'm looking to write for don't
know what the controls do, but more important, how to hook up speakers
so they can hear something. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people
out there who know nothing about sound gear that they buy. And they
don't know anyone local who they can ask.

Back before the Internet, first off, not every band had two members who
bought sound equipment, and second, when they bought it, they bought it
from a dealer who could make sure they knew at least how to get sound
out of it. But that's not true today.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

> My first 02R96 got me into its manual
> pretty deeply any number of times.

What were your reasons for turning to the manual?

[William Sommerwerck]

> I'm going to agree with this, at least in my major field, RF and
> microwaves. I frequently get hold of a new piece of equipment - some
> sort of generator and analyser - and am asked by the manufacturer to
> assess it. If the manual has to come out of the shrink wrap, the
> product has, as far as I am concerned, failed. I know exactly what the
> thing should do, and I expect the sequence needed to achieve it to be
> logical to the point of intuitive.

But note that such a product performs a clearly defined set of functions that
users should already be familiar with. (The same goes for 'scopes and
multimeters.) Not all products do.

Furthermore, if a product /has/ to understandable without referring to the
manual, manufacturers might be disinclined to add innovative features.

But, yes, the controls, their operations, and their layout should "fit" with
the way experienced users expect to make measurements.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

>> In this day and age, someone selling something that requires
>> a user manual is an interesting concept.

> This is certainly a good goal, but few achieve it. The next best thing
> is to have a manual that explains enough things well enough so that
> the user doesn't have to call Tech Support or go searching the Internet
> for answers.

This is do-able. But it requires giving the writer sufficient time to figure
out the best way to do it, and not telling the writer how to write the manual.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:23 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:58:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "PStamler" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one
>>>>> reason and one
>>>>>
>>>>> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.
>>>>
>>>> Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition,
>>>> which provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure
>>>> they can get away with doing the same.
>>>>
>>>> In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the user
>>>> manual as well as the physical product.
>>>
>>>
>>> In this day and age, someone selling something that requires a user
>>> manual is an interesting concept.
>>>
>> I'm going to agree with this, at least in my major field, RF and
>> microwaves. I frequently get hold of a new piece of equipment - some
>> sort of generator and analyser - and am asked by the manufacturer to
>> assess it. If the manual has to come out of the shrink wrap, the
>> product has, as far as I am concerned, failed. I know exactly what the
>> thing should do, and I expect the sequence needed to achieve it to be
>> logical to the point of intuitive.
>>
>If the equipment that you receive has fairly well-established or even
>standardized modes of operation and connections, that's one thing. I can't
>say that the same holds true for digital audio mixers beyond some
>rudimentary gozintas and gozoutas. Everything in between is based on a
>design group's philosophy that presumes a lot about what the purchaser
>really wants to do. The higher the level of abstraction, such as those
>mixers with almost no individualized controls, the more someone will need a
>manual.

Well there's the thing. Mixing desks have been around long enough. The
big difference I can see is that the kind of equipment I use is
designed by people who actually use it the same way I do (and I have
designed test equipment myself), whereas with audio, a great deal (not
all, I know) of the design work is done by people who have never seen
the inside of a studio.

d

[Neil Gould]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:58:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "PStamler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one
>>>> reason and one
>>>>
>>>> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.
>>>
>>> Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition,
>>> which provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure
>>> they can get away with doing the same.
>>>
>>> In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the user
>>> manual as well as the physical product.
>>
>>
>> In this day and age, someone selling something that requires a user
>> manual is an interesting concept.
>>
> I'm going to agree with this, at least in my major field, RF and
> microwaves. I frequently get hold of a new piece of equipment - some
> sort of generator and analyser - and am asked by the manufacturer to
> assess it. If the manual has to come out of the shrink wrap, the
> product has, as far as I am concerned, failed. I know exactly what the
> thing should do, and I expect the sequence needed to achieve it to be
> logical to the point of intuitive.
>
If the equipment that you receive has fairly well-established or even
standardized modes of operation and connections, that's one thing. I can't
say that the same holds true for digital audio mixers beyond some
rudimentary gozintas and gozoutas. Everything in between is based on a
design group's philosophy that presumes a lot about what the purchaser
really wants to do. The higher the level of abstraction, such as those
mixers with almost no individualized controls, the more someone will need a
manual.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> OTOH, computer operating systems are probably among the most complex
> things around, and I've haven't read the manual for one since Win95.
>
Tried an Android tablet yet? No manuals and little consistency between the
basic functions of apps make it a "poke and stroke" environment ("why would
a user want or need to exit an app???"). 8-D

--
best regards,

Neil

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/19/2013 4:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:23 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:58:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "PStamler" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one
>>>>>> reason and one
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition,
>>>>> which provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure
>>>>> they can get away with doing the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the user
>>>>> manual as well as the physical product.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this day and age, someone selling something that requires a user
>>>> manual is an interesting concept.
>>>>
>>> I'm going to agree with this, at least in my major field, RF and
>>> microwaves. I frequently get hold of a new piece of equipment - some
>>> sort of generator and analyser - and am asked by the manufacturer to
>>> assess it. If the manual has to come out of the shrink wrap, the
>>> product has, as far as I am concerned, failed. I know exactly what the
>>> thing should do, and I expect the sequence needed to achieve it to be
>>> logical to the point of intuitive.
>>>
>> If the equipment that you receive has fairly well-established or even
>> standardized modes of operation and connections, that's one thing. I can't
>> say that the same holds true for digital audio mixers beyond some
>> rudimentary gozintas and gozoutas. Everything in between is based on a
>> design group's philosophy that presumes a lot about what the purchaser
>> really wants to do. The higher the level of abstraction, such as those
>> mixers with almost no individualized controls, the more someone will need a
>> manual.
>
> Well there's the thing. Mixing desks have been around long enough. The
> big difference I can see is that the kind of equipment I use is
> designed by people who actually use it the same way I do (and I have
> designed test equipment myself), whereas with audio, a great deal (not
> all, I know) of the design work is done by people who have never seen
> the inside of a studio.
>
> d
>
Hmm, I'm going to guess DAWs fall in to that category.
I tried Pro Tools lite and never quite got the hang of it.
Thank goodness don't mix enough to need to dive in.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/19/2013 3:56 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> I'm going to agree with this, at least in my major field, RF and
>> microwaves. I frequently get hold of a new piece of equipment - some
>> sort of generator and analyser - and am asked by the manufacturer to
>> assess it. If the manual has to come out of the shrink wrap, the
>> product has, as far as I am concerned, failed. I know exactly what the
>> thing should do, and I expect the sequence needed to achieve it to be
>> logical to the point of intuitive.
>
> But note that such a product performs a clearly defined set of functions
> that users should already be familiar with. (The same goes for 'scopes
> and multimeters.) Not all products do.
>
> Furthermore, if a product /has/ to understandable without referring to
> the manual, manufacturers might be disinclined to add innovative features.
>
> But, yes, the controls, their operations, and their layout should "fit"
> with the way experienced users expect to make measurements.

I used to do a lot of photography back in the film/manual camera
days. I recently bought a digital SLR and was blown away by all
the automatic crap and figuring how to work around it. The controls,
their operations, and their layout /should have/ been a piece of cake.
I spent a lot of time reading the manual.

Then I jumped into Photoshop CS6. Yeeps!!! It's complex, highly nuanced,
and comes with no manual what-so-ever. Heck, it doesn't even come
with a basic help file.

Steep learning curves, but I'm now doing things I'd never dreamed of
doing with film and darkroom technology.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[PStamler]

On the day mixing consoles introduced automation, they became devices that needed manuals. On some consoles, even doing simple assignment of channels to a 2-mix bus is something that takes multiple steps and a manual to get right. These consoles will do all kinds of tricks that simpler consoles won't do...but in consequence, mixing a vocal mic with two guitar mics requires a lot of steps before you start pushing faders.

We have an SSL Duality at our university. No way anybody can use it without a manual. It's the nature of the beast.

Peace,
Paul

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

> I used to do a lot of photography back in the film/manual camera
> days. I recently bought a digital SLR and was blown away by all
> the automatic crap and figuring how to work around it. The controls,
> their operations, and their layout /should have/ been a piece of cake.
> I spent a lot of time reading the manual.

And you've probably forgotten half of it.

One approach is to pick a configuration that works for /you/, then save it as
a Custom setup.

By the way, if you read the manuals closely, you'll see that the people
writing them know next to nothing about photography.


> Then I jumped into Photoshop CS6. Yeeps!!! It's complex, highly
> nuanced, and comes with no manual what-so-ever. Heck, it doesn't
> even come with a basic help file.

Adobe's attitude towards its users strikes me as downright arrogant. Their
Website is virtually useless in helping you decide which product will best
meet your needs. Adobe knows about this, and doesn't care.

There are British "magazines" (available at well-stocked newsstands or Costco)
that go through Photoshop's features step-by-step. Surprisingly, they /aren't/
very well-written.

By the way, I've yet to figure out how to play the non-Adobe instructional
DVDs that came with the software. Does anyone out there know?


> Steep learning curves, but I'm now doing things I'd never dreamed
> of doing with film and darkroom technology.

It shouldn't be that hard. But nobody cares.

It's ludicrous that such an expensive piece of software doesn't come with a
dozen instructional DVDs.

[Frank Stearns]

Ron C > writes:

-snips-

>Hmm, I'm going to guess DAWs fall in to that category.
>I tried Pro Tools lite and never quite got the hang of it.
>Thank goodness don't mix enough to need to dive in.

Yes, the old lite PT was rather odd. It's the first PT I saw and the hatred was
immediate and perhaps mutual. As far as I could tell, the thing was pretty broken.
And I don't mean "crippled for demo" - it just was, well, weird.

Two years later, when I was forced to use PT (newer version) much of the interface
seemed to make a lot more sense. And this was in spite of the many design
requirements in a tool of that complexity with some UI needs in conflict with
others.

While there are a few dopey things, it appears PT has progressively improved in the
newer versions. Haven't seen 10 (or is 11 now), but folks I trust have
said 10 is pretty good.

YMMV

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Neil Gould]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:23 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:58:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "PStamler" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you buy a product with a lousy user manual, it's for one
>>>>>> reason and one
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reason only -- the manufacturer doesn't care.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or doesn't want to spend the money. They look at the competition,
>>>>> which provides poor manuals and sells lots of product, and figure
>>>>> they can get away with doing the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> In writing reviews of products, I make a point of reviewing the
>>>>> user manual as well as the physical product.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this day and age, someone selling something that requires a user
>>>> manual is an interesting concept.
>>>>
>>> I'm going to agree with this, at least in my major field, RF and
>>> microwaves. I frequently get hold of a new piece of equipment - some
>>> sort of generator and analyser - and am asked by the manufacturer to
>>> assess it. If the manual has to come out of the shrink wrap, the
>>> product has, as far as I am concerned, failed. I know exactly what
>>> the thing should do, and I expect the sequence needed to achieve it
>>> to be logical to the point of intuitive.
>>>
>> If the equipment that you receive has fairly well-established or even
>> standardized modes of operation and connections, that's one thing. I
>> can't say that the same holds true for digital audio mixers beyond
>> some rudimentary gozintas and gozoutas. Everything in between is
>> based on a design group's philosophy that presumes a lot about what
>> the purchaser really wants to do. The higher the level of
>> abstraction, such as those mixers with almost no individualized
>> controls, the more someone will need a manual.
>
> Well there's the thing. Mixing desks have been around long enough. The
> big difference I can see is that the kind of equipment I use is
> designed by people who actually use it the same way I do (and I have
> designed test equipment myself), whereas with audio, a great deal (not
> all, I know) of the design work is done by people who have never seen
> the inside of a studio.
>
Some of these items were designed by folks who know a great deal about
studio work, and came up with devices that add a lot of flexibility and
efficiency to the process of recording. In doing so, things that you could
look at and get some idea of what's going where, such as patch bays, gave
way to matrix switching that provide options that aren't practical, or even
possible with the physical alternatives. The problem that I see is that the
purchaser of these things can't determine whether the unit's design
philosophy is compatible with the way they go about their work without
spending a very long time with the units because the good manuals can't be
more than a general reference without turning into a pretty big library.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Ron C > wrote:
>
>I used to do a lot of photography back in the film/manual camera
>days. I recently bought a digital SLR and was blown away by all
>the automatic crap and figuring how to work around it. The controls,
>their operations, and their layout /should have/ been a piece of cake.
>I spent a lot of time reading the manual.

Sadly, the later film-based SLRs are the same way. And so are a lot of
mixing consoles.

Your job as an experienced user of cameras but a first-time user of this
model is to figure out how to shut ALL the crap off and set it manually.
You look at the scene, you can guess the exposure and where the shadows
fall with respect to the highlights, you now just need to make the camera
obey you.

There should be a whole section in the front of the manual telling you how
to set it up this way. Then, once you get the hang of doing that, then maybe
later you can investigate the automated modes.

>Steep learning curves, but I'm now doing things I'd never dreamed of
>doing with film and darkroom technology.

There's no _reason_ for the steep learning curve, though, other than poor
documentation and UI design.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/19/2013 3:56 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Furthermore, if a product /has/ to understandable without referring to
> the manual, manufacturers might be disinclined to add innovative features.

Innovation is good, but by the time it gets to market, it needs to be
understandable. Not only understandable to use, but we need to
understand what we might use that feature for. Many times I'll be
looking at a product and think "Why would anyone want to do THAT?"
Sometimes there are useful examples, other times we're just left on our
own to innovate with the new innovation.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> My first 02R96 got me into its manual
>> pretty deeply any number of times.
>
> What were your reasons for turning to the manual?

Patching internal connections.

02R96s have one of the highest ratios between logical I/O and physical I/O
of any console I know of, with something like 24 physical inputs and 10
physical outputs versus 112 or more logical inputs and at least 66 logical
outputs. All of the inputs and outputs can be patched, which means that they
can be rerouted among the 34 or more inboard physical I/O ports and another
112+ physical outboard I/O ports. There are another couple of dozen ports
that belong to inboard EFX units and follow other rules for routing. Load
this thing up with a bunch of external I/O ports and an Aviom or other
monitoring system and your head will spin for a while after you even just
figure out what it can do.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
Ron C > wrote:

>> I used to do a lot of photography back in the film/manual camera
>> days. I recently bought a digital SLR and was blown away by all
>> the automatic crap and figuring how to work around it. The controls,
>> their operations, and their layout /should have/ been a piece of cake.
>> I spent a lot of time reading the manual.

> Your job as an experienced user of cameras but a first-time user of this
> model is to figure out how to shut ALL the crap off and set it manually.
> You look at the scene, you can guess the exposure and where the shadows
> fall with respect to the highlights, you now just need to make the camera
> obey you.

The first step is to set the camera for Manual, Aperture-priority, or
Shutter-priority exposure. But that's just one step of many.


> There should be a whole section in the front of the manual telling
> you how to set it up this way. Then, once you get the hang of doing
> that, then maybe later you can investigate the automated modes.

I've never seen a user manual with such a section. Japanese-written
documentation invariably focuses on the trees, and ignores the forest.

In order to decide which features you want to use, you'll have to go through
the book page by page and make individual decisions. This can be difficult
when (as is usually the case) you aren't told exactly what the feature does,
or how it works.

For example, Canon has some sort of "lighting compensation modifier" that --
in a professional camera! -- is turned on by default! Not only does Canon
refuse to explain exactly what it does (Canon appears to be afraid a
competitor will steal the idea), but it has an odd side-effect not explained
in the manual. It seems that if you try to manually compensate the exposure by
2 stops (or more), the camera won't let you do it!


>> Steep learning curves, but I'm now doing things I'd never dreamed of
>> doing with film and darkroom technology.

> There's no _reason_ for the steep learning curve, though, other than
> poor documentation and UI design.

That pretty much covers everything, doesn't it?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
> ...

>>> My first 02R96 got me into its manual
>>> pretty deeply any number of times.

>> What were your reasons for turning to the manual?

> Patching internal connections.

> 02R96s have one of the highest ratios between logical I/O and physical I/O
> of any console I know of, with something like 24 physical inputs and 10
> physical outputs versus 112 or more logical inputs and at least 66 logical
> outputs. All of the inputs and outputs can be patched, which means that they
> can be rerouted among the 34 or more inboard physical I/O ports and another
> 112+ physical outboard I/O ports. There are another couple of dozen ports
> that belong to inboard EFX units and follow other rules for routing. Load
> this thing up with a bunch of external I/O ports and an Aviom or other
> monitoring system and your head will spin for a while after you even just
> figure out what it can do.

This is a "neutral" (not critical) question. Do you see any way the product
could be redesigned and/or the manual rewritten, so that you could
//understand// the patching in a way that would eliminate the need to refer to
the manual? (This might not be possible.)


Ever used a dbx 400X switcher? Several years ago I put three in my home system
so that the front, side, and rear channels could be independently configured.
Though the manual wasn't at all bad, I still went crazy trying to understand
the logic of how it had been designed. And I nearly went blind studying the
schematic to figure out how to disable the interlock that prevented a tape
deck's output from being connected to its input. I eventually got everything
working just the way I wanted -- but had to write an instruction sheet (!!!),
which I sometimes have to refer to.

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Ron C > wrote:
>>
>> I used to do a lot of photography back in the film/manual camera
>> days. I recently bought a digital SLR and was blown away by all
>> the automatic crap and figuring how to work around it. The controls,
>> their operations, and their layout /should have/ been a piece of
>> cake. I spent a lot of time reading the manual.
>
> Sadly, the later film-based SLRs are the same way. And so are a lot
> of mixing consoles.
>
> Your job as an experienced user of cameras but a first-time user of
> this model is to figure out how to shut ALL the crap off and set it
> manually.
> You look at the scene, you can guess the exposure and where the
> shadows
> fall with respect to the highlights, you now just need to make the
> camera obey you.
>
> There should be a whole section in the front of the manual telling
> you how to set it up this way. Then, once you get the hang of doing
> that, then maybe later you can investigate the automated modes.
>
>> Steep learning curves, but I'm now doing things I'd never dreamed of
>> doing with film and darkroom technology.
>
> There's no _reason_ for the steep learning curve, though, other than
> poor documentation and UI design.
>
I think that one problem is that these new devices, be they "cameras" or
"consoles" appear to be similar to the previous generation items, but they
are completely different. With film cameras, guessing the exposure is about
the film, not the camera, so for a camera without film, what is the basis
for guessing the exposure? It's easy to see that the best use of the
computers in the camera is to make the exposure adjustment based on
information that the user can't have, such things as the sensitivity of the
sensor, system processing delays and such. Shut all of that off, and the
user could literally be in the dark!

Digital consoles are somewhat analogous to this, since few users will know
the particulars of the DSPs being used or of the firmware that ultimately
determines what happens when some parameter is changed. A goood approach to
these things is to have good documentation and to know one's own limitations
with regard to grasping that documentation.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>>
>I think that one problem is that these new devices, be they "cameras" or
>"consoles" appear to be similar to the previous generation items, but they
>are completely different. With film cameras, guessing the exposure is about
>the film, not the camera, so for a camera without film, what is the basis
>for guessing the exposure?

It's the same. You have a sensor that has some logarithmic sensitivity,
with the height of the straight line portion of the curve measured on the
ASA scale and the slope of the straight line curve measured as gamma.

Digital, analogue, doesn't matter. The shape of the curve can differ
and where each zone falls on a given exposure may differ as a result, but
the exposure methods of the same. And you should have a good grasp of the
overall curve shape in your head.

> It's easy to see that the best use of the
>computers in the camera is to make the exposure adjustment based on
>information that the user can't have, such things as the sensitivity of the
>sensor, system processing delays and such. Shut all of that off, and the
>user could literally be in the dark!

No, the camera has no idea how I want the picture to look. The camera does
not know that I want the shadows to fall full black zone zero instead of
Zone I. The camera is stupid. It averages the exposure assuming that the
scene is 18% grey across the field. It probably has some intelligence that
knows to block off very black or very white areas from the calculation, or
maybe it draws a histogram of values and sets the average exposure based on
the mode rather than the median grey scale value.

But maybe I don't want that. Maybe I _wanted_ the foreground to be vignetted.
On the other hand, maybe I wanted detail in the foreground and didn't care
that the background blew out. That's my decision. It's not a decision I
want to trust to some piece of software that has no idea what I want the
picture to look like.

What makes the digital camera software so elaborate is that there are ways
to tell the software how you want these things. But for someone with
reasonable experience in visualization, it's easier (though often not faster)
to just set the exposure based on a meter and some simple math. For people
who need to shoot at high speed without any real ability or time to
previsualize, the software can be a great help, but only after they spend
a lot of time learning how to use it.

>Digital consoles are somewhat analogous to this, since few users will know
>the particulars of the DSPs being used or of the firmware that ultimately
>determines what happens when some parameter is changed. A goood approach to
>these things is to have good documentation and to know one's own limitations
>with regard to grasping that documentation.

This is true. I was very surprised to find that when I set the Q to a
given number on the Tascam digital console, I got a very different curve
slope than I got when I set to the same Q on a Presonus console. (And
not surprisingly the Orban 622 is different than either). But digital
consoles, unlike digital cameras, aren't trying to make artistic decisions
for me.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> No, the camera has no idea how I want the picture to look. The camera does
> not know that I want the shadows to fall full black zone zero instead of
> Zone I. The camera is stupid. It averages the exposure assuming that the
> scene is 18% grey across the field.

"Full-frame averaging" exposure has been obsolete at least since Nikon
introduced center-weighted metering. * Most cameras supposedly have some form
of "evaluative" metering that takes measurements over dozens of points.
However, I often wonder whether these systems work as they're claimed to. (In
the days before digital, "Modern Photography" ran an article showing that the
evaluative systems of that era simply did not work.) And let's not talk about
automatic white balance, another non-functioning "feature".

* Minolta had a system that prevented a bright sky from underexposing the
image. And Konica had a clever center-weighted system that adjusted its field
of view /optically/ according to the lens's focal length.


> What makes the digital camera software so elaborate is that there are
> ways to tell the software how you want these things. But for someone with
> reasonable experience in visualization, it's easier (though often not
> faster)
> to just set the exposure based on a meter and some simple math. For people
> who need to shoot at high speed without any real ability or time to
> previsualize, the software can be a great help, but only after they spend
> a lot of time learning how to use it.

A major advantage of digital imaging is the ability to see the image on
camera's screen, and view an exposure histogram.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/20/2013 10:31 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> This is a "neutral" (not critical) question. Do you see any way the
> product could be redesigned and/or the manual rewritten, so that you
> could //understand// the patching in a way that would eliminate the need
> to refer to the manual? (This might not be possible.)

Um . . . how do you write the manual in a way that eliminates need to
refer to it? <g>

I assume you mean eliminating the need to frequently refer to it when
setting up a signal route. The way to do this is (in the manual) is to
first explain all of the internal and external ports - how they're
named, what the go into, and what they come out of. Then explain the
mechanics of connecting one to another using the matrix.

Still, with that many possible gozintas and gozoutas, you may know that
you want to do this or that and simply not remember that there's a port
available at a patch point in the matrix. The way to fix that is to
have a consistent naming system, both consistent within the device and
consistent within the industry. The Behringer X-32, for example, doesn't
have X number of subgroup outputs, Y number of auxiliary outputs and Z
number of main mix outputs, it has sixteen outputs. You can have your
main outputs be 1 and 2, or 7 and 11 if you want. If you only need four
subtroup outputs, that's four more headphone or wedge monitor mixes that
you can find a gozouta for.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/20/2013 1:03 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>>
>>> I think that one problem is that these new devices, be they
>>> "cameras" or "consoles" appear to be similar to the previous
>>> generation items, but they are completely different. With film
>>> cameras, guessing the exposure is about the film, not the camera, so
>>> for a camera without film, what is the basis for guessing the
>>> exposure?
>>
>> It's the same. You have a sensor that has some logarithmic
>> sensitivity, with the height of the straight line portion of the curve
> measured on
>> the ASA scale and the slope of the straight line curve measured as gamma.
>>
> Well, the problem to solve is determining "some logarithmic sensitivity" of
> the sensor & firmware combination, since these factors interact in such a
> way that the actual ASA performance of the camera can change with a firmware
> upgrade (BTDT).
>
>> Digital, analogue, doesn't matter. The shape of the curve can differ
>> and where each zone falls on a given exposure may differ as a result,
>> but
>> the exposure methods of the same. And you should have a good grasp
>> of the overall curve shape in your head.
>>
> All I can tell you about your supposition is that my Nikon, Canon, and Sony
> digital cameras do not interpret the same lighting conditions in the same
> way except in a very general sense. Sensors and firmware matters. OTOH, my
> Leica, Rolleiflex and Olympus analog cameras are much more predictable and
> consistent, to the point where the film is the critical factor in the
> outcome.
>
>>> It's easy to see that the best use of the
>>> computers in the camera is to make the exposure adjustment based on
>>> information that the user can't have, such things as the sensitivity
>>> of the sensor, system processing delays and such. Shut all of that
>>> off, and the user could literally be in the dark!
>>
>> No, the camera has no idea how I want the picture to look. The
>> camera does not know that I want the shadows to fall full black zone
>> zero instead of Zone I. The camera is stupid. It averages the exposure
> assuming
>> that the scene is 18% grey across the field. It probably has some
>> intelligence that knows to block off very black or very white areas
>> from the calculation, or maybe it draws a histogram of values and
>> sets the average exposure based on the mode rather than the median
>> grey scale value.
>>
>> But maybe I don't want that. Maybe I _wanted_ the foreground to be
>> vignetted. On the other hand, maybe I wanted detail in the foreground
>> and didn't care that the background blew out. That's my decision.
>> It's not a decision I want to trust to some piece of software that
>> has no idea what I want the picture to look like.
>>
> Of course, Scott, but if one is going to be picky enough to want to place
> parts of the image in different zones with a digital camera, it is best
> determined by using the camera and seeing the results, not by theorizing
> about what it should do. And if you do a firmware upgrade, start over.
>
> [...]
>
>>> Digital consoles are somewhat analogous to this, since few users
>>> will know the particulars of the DSPs being used or of the firmware
>>> that ultimately determines what happens when some parameter is
>>> changed. A goood approach to these things is to have good
>>> documentation and to know one's own limitations with regard to
>>> grasping that documentation.
>>
>> This is true. I was very surprised to find that when I set the Q to a
>> given number on the Tascam digital console, I got a very different
>> curve slope than I got when I set to the same Q on a Presonus
>> console. (And
>> not surprisingly the Orban 622 is different than either). But digital
>> consoles, unlike digital cameras, aren't trying to make artistic
>> decisions for me.
>>
> Oh? Then how would you account for the different results you got from the
> same settings on different EQs (yeah, I know that the same thing happened in
> the analog world, but it's much easier to understand why)? I'd say that the
> differences are due to what the designer thought "sounded good" when
> considering down-stream processing, and if so, then they certainly are
> making artistic decisions for you.
>
I'm finding this much more interesting (and maybe even more useful) than
bashing Mr. Sommerwerck's bashing of some basic electronics book.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:36:16 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Ron C > wrote:
>>>
>>> I used to do a lot of photography back in the film/manual camera
>>> days. I recently bought a digital SLR and was blown away by all
>>> the automatic crap and figuring how to work around it. The controls,
>>> their operations, and their layout /should have/ been a piece of
>>> cake. I spent a lot of time reading the manual.
>>
>> Sadly, the later film-based SLRs are the same way. And so are a lot
>> of mixing consoles.
>>
>> Your job as an experienced user of cameras but a first-time user of
>> this model is to figure out how to shut ALL the crap off and set it
>> manually.
>> You look at the scene, you can guess the exposure and where the
>> shadows
>> fall with respect to the highlights, you now just need to make the
>> camera obey you.
>>
>> There should be a whole section in the front of the manual telling
>> you how to set it up this way. Then, once you get the hang of doing
>> that, then maybe later you can investigate the automated modes.
>>
>>> Steep learning curves, but I'm now doing things I'd never dreamed of
>>> doing with film and darkroom technology.
>>
>> There's no _reason_ for the steep learning curve, though, other than
>> poor documentation and UI design.
>>
>I think that one problem is that these new devices, be they "cameras" or
>"consoles" appear to be similar to the previous generation items, but they
>are completely different. With film cameras, guessing the exposure is about
>the film, not the camera, so for a camera without film, what is the basis
>for guessing the exposure? It's easy to see that the best use of the
>computers in the camera is to make the exposure adjustment based on
>information that the user can't have, such things as the sensitivity of the
>sensor, system processing delays and such. Shut all of that off, and the
>user could literally be in the dark!
>
>Digital consoles are somewhat analogous to this, since few users will know
>the particulars of the DSPs being used or of the firmware that ultimately
>determines what happens when some parameter is changed. A goood approach to
>these things is to have good documentation and to know one's own limitations
>with regard to grasping that documentation.

But digital cameras do have one distinct advantage. You can fire off
any number of test shots at various apertures and speed, and see
instantly what the result is. The software that came with my Cannon
will even tell me exactly where on an image there is clipping (over or
under exposure). It only took me about an hour of playing before I
understood the manual mode completely, and could set it to give me the
best exposure compromise. Being only 8 bits, the dynamic range is not
all it might be, but I'm sure new generations of sensor will do for
photography what 16 bit digital did for audio - allowed a huge amount
of sloppy level control while still producing a perfectly acceptable
result.

I still use full auto - at events like parties where nobody wan't to
hang around while some geek fiddles with his camera.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

> I'm finding this much more interesting (and maybe even more useful)
> than bashing Mr. Sommerwerck's bashing of some basic electronics
> book.

So does Mr Sommerwerck! I'm learning a few things, including that other people
take a similarly dyspeptic view of user manuals.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

On 6/20/2013 10:31 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> This is a "neutral" (not critical) question. Do you see any way the
>> product could be redesigned and/or the manual rewritten, so that
>> you could //understand// the patching in a way that would eliminate
>> the need to refer to the manual? (This might not be possible.)

> Um . . . how do you write the manual in a way that eliminates
> the need to refer to it? <g>

Excellent question! No grin needed.

There's an old observation that you don't need to memorize what you
understand. You can mentally recreate from basic principles. This is why I say
that principles are more interesting and useful than facts.

Note that I said "This might not be possible". I'm assuming at least some
products can be designed in such a way that their operating principles are
"rational" (whatever that means), and the user can figure out what to do
without having to refer to the book. Similarly, any manual should present use
& operation in terms of broad principles (forest), before getting into the
details (trees).

Unfortunately, microprocessors make it possible for products to have a
virtually unlimited range of features, with little or no logical connection
with each other (other than that they "do something" useful). If you think
DSLRs are complex, you should see Amateur handy-talkies, and similar products.
You'd plotz.


> I assume you mean eliminating the need to frequently refer to it when
> setting up a signal route. The way to do this is (in the manual) is to first
> explain all of the internal and external ports - how they're named, what the
> go into, and what they come out of. Then explain the mechanics of connecting
> one to another using the matrix.

> Still, with that many possible gozintas and gozoutas, you may know that you
> want to do this or that and simply not remember that there's a port
> available at a patch point in the matrix. The way to fix that is to have a
> consistent naming system, both consistent within the device and consistent
> within the industry. The Behringer X-32, for example, doesn't have X number
> of subgroup outputs, Y number of auxiliary outputs and Z number of main mix
> outputs, it has sixteen outputs. You can have your main outputs be 1 and 2,
> or 7 and 11 if you want. If you only need four subgroup outputs, that's four
> more headphone or wedge monitor mixes
> that you can find a gozouta for.

Excellent suggestions.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

One other point...

Smart companies have their technical writers sit in when a product is being
designed. Good writers are aware of designs likely to be difficult to explain
or use.

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>
>> I think that one problem is that these new devices, be they
>> "cameras" or "consoles" appear to be similar to the previous
>> generation items, but they are completely different. With film
>> cameras, guessing the exposure is about the film, not the camera, so
>> for a camera without film, what is the basis for guessing the
>> exposure?
>
> It's the same. You have a sensor that has some logarithmic
> sensitivity, with the height of the straight line portion of the curve
measured on
> the ASA scale and the slope of the straight line curve measured as gamma.
>
Well, the problem to solve is determining "some logarithmic sensitivity" of
the sensor & firmware combination, since these factors interact in such a
way that the actual ASA performance of the camera can change with a firmware
upgrade (BTDT).

> Digital, analogue, doesn't matter. The shape of the curve can differ
> and where each zone falls on a given exposure may differ as a result,
> but
> the exposure methods of the same. And you should have a good grasp
> of the overall curve shape in your head.
>
All I can tell you about your supposition is that my Nikon, Canon, and Sony
digital cameras do not interpret the same lighting conditions in the same
way except in a very general sense. Sensors and firmware matters. OTOH, my
Leica, Rolleiflex and Olympus analog cameras are much more predictable and
consistent, to the point where the film is the critical factor in the
outcome.

>> It's easy to see that the best use of the
>> computers in the camera is to make the exposure adjustment based on
>> information that the user can't have, such things as the sensitivity
>> of the sensor, system processing delays and such. Shut all of that
>> off, and the user could literally be in the dark!
>
> No, the camera has no idea how I want the picture to look. The
> camera does not know that I want the shadows to fall full black zone
> zero instead of Zone I. The camera is stupid. It averages the exposure
assuming
> that the scene is 18% grey across the field. It probably has some
> intelligence that knows to block off very black or very white areas
> from the calculation, or maybe it draws a histogram of values and
> sets the average exposure based on the mode rather than the median
> grey scale value.
>
> But maybe I don't want that. Maybe I _wanted_ the foreground to be
> vignetted. On the other hand, maybe I wanted detail in the foreground
> and didn't care that the background blew out. That's my decision.
> It's not a decision I want to trust to some piece of software that
> has no idea what I want the picture to look like.
>
Of course, Scott, but if one is going to be picky enough to want to place
parts of the image in different zones with a digital camera, it is best
determined by using the camera and seeing the results, not by theorizing
about what it should do. And if you do a firmware upgrade, start over.

[...]

>> Digital consoles are somewhat analogous to this, since few users
>> will know the particulars of the DSPs being used or of the firmware
>> that ultimately determines what happens when some parameter is
>> changed. A goood approach to these things is to have good
>> documentation and to know one's own limitations with regard to
>> grasping that documentation.
>
> This is true. I was very surprised to find that when I set the Q to a
> given number on the Tascam digital console, I got a very different
> curve slope than I got when I set to the same Q on a Presonus
> console. (And
> not surprisingly the Orban 622 is different than either). But digital
> consoles, unlike digital cameras, aren't trying to make artistic
> decisions for me.
>
Oh? Then how would you account for the different results you got from the
same settings on different EQs (yeah, I know that the same thing happened in
the analog world, but it's much easier to understand why)? I'd say that the
differences are due to what the designer thought "sounded good" when
considering down-stream processing, and if so, then they certainly are
making artistic decisions for you.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>> No, the camera has no idea how I want the picture to look. The camera does
>> not know that I want the shadows to fall full black zone zero instead of
>> Zone I. The camera is stupid. It averages the exposure assuming that the
>> scene is 18% grey across the field.
>
>"Full-frame averaging" exposure has been obsolete at least since Nikon
>introduced center-weighted metering. * Most cameras supposedly have some form
>of "evaluative" metering that takes measurements over dozens of points.
>However, I often wonder whether these systems work as they're claimed to. (In
>the days before digital, "Modern Photography" ran an article showing that the
>evaluative systems of that era simply did not work.) And let's not talk about
>automatic white balance, another non-functioning "feature".

They do in fact work as they are claimed, and I described how they work in
the following paragraph which you snipped. But, how they work is not
necessarily how I want them to work.

Most of the digital systems today will generate a histogram of all points in
the image and take the median of that, so large dark or light areas will not
affect the exposure so much.... unless they are greater than 50% of the image
in which case they will.

>* Minolta had a system that prevented a bright sky from underexposing the
>image. And Konica had a clever center-weighted system that adjusted its field
>of view /optically/ according to the lens's focal length.

A lot of engineering was put into systems to allow people who do not really
understand exposure to take photographs. The problem is that if you do
understand exposure, they are often more annoying than not.

>> What makes the digital camera software so elaborate is that there are
>> ways to tell the software how you want these things. But for someone with
>> reasonable experience in visualization, it's easier (though often not
>> faster)
>> to just set the exposure based on a meter and some simple math. For people
>> who need to shoot at high speed without any real ability or time to
>> previsualize, the software can be a great help, but only after they spend
>> a lot of time learning how to use it.
>
>A major advantage of digital imaging is the ability to see the image on
>camera's screen, and view an exposure histogram.

These are good things, but beware of trying to judge exposure based on the
screen. The camera's screen has very little real dynamic range and you
can have severely blown-out highlights for instance, and not notice it on
the screen. The histogram will tell you the real truth of the matter, but
you have to look at it and use your brain. Letting the software look at it
for you may not be sufficient, but then again it might be. The man behind
the camera should be the final arbiter.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>>
>>> I think that one problem is that these new devices, be they
>>> "cameras" or "consoles" appear to be similar to the previous
>>> generation items, but they are completely different. With film
>>> cameras, guessing the exposure is about the film, not the camera, so
>>> for a camera without film, what is the basis for guessing the
>>> exposure?
>>
>> It's the same. You have a sensor that has some logarithmic
>> sensitivity, with the height of the straight line portion of the curve
>measured on
>> the ASA scale and the slope of the straight line curve measured as gamma.
>>
>Well, the problem to solve is determining "some logarithmic sensitivity" of
>the sensor & firmware combination, since these factors interact in such a
>way that the actual ASA performance of the camera can change with a firmware
>upgrade (BTDT).

Yes, and not only that, some cameras allow you to adjust the shape of the
curve with different transfer functions. Many of them hide this under a
million menus under some obscure name. It's important.

>> Digital, analogue, doesn't matter. The shape of the curve can differ
>> and where each zone falls on a given exposure may differ as a result,
>> but
>> the exposure methods of the same. And you should have a good grasp
>> of the overall curve shape in your head.
>>
>All I can tell you about your supposition is that my Nikon, Canon, and Sony
>digital cameras do not interpret the same lighting conditions in the same
>way except in a very general sense. Sensors and firmware matters. OTOH, my
>Leica, Rolleiflex and Olympus analog cameras are much more predictable and
>consistent, to the point where the film is the critical factor in the
>outcome.

When you change from the Nikon to the Sony, you are changing from one sensor
to another. This is as dramatic as changing from Tri-X Professional to
Verichrome Pan.

The sensor and associated firmware, or the film and processing, is the
critical factor in the outcome because that's where your transfer curve
is coming from. Of course, the Nikon and Canon have different transfer
curves. If you change the firmware on the Nikon, you'll have a different
transfer curve than you did before. Different films have different curves
as well... and I can take Tri-X in D-23 and make the toe of the curve very
short, or I can put the same film in Diafine and make the toe of the curve
very long indeed. This is what sensitometry is all about.

>> But maybe I don't want that. Maybe I _wanted_ the foreground to be
>> vignetted. On the other hand, maybe I wanted detail in the foreground
>> and didn't care that the background blew out. That's my decision.
>> It's not a decision I want to trust to some piece of software that
>> has no idea what I want the picture to look like.
>>
>Of course, Scott, but if one is going to be picky enough to want to place
>parts of the image in different zones with a digital camera, it is best
>determined by using the camera and seeing the results, not by theorizing
>about what it should do. And if you do a firmware upgrade, start over.

I'm sorry, I am not a big fan of trial and error. Better to just get it
right the first time. If you use the software to get it right, that's fine.
If you do it manually, that's fine too. But the system needs to be designed
to allow you to whichever you find convenient in a rapid and easy fashion.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 20 Jun 2013 14:13:49 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Neil Gould > wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I think that one problem is that these new devices, be they
>>>> "cameras" or "consoles" appear to be similar to the previous
>>>> generation items, but they are completely different. With film
>>>> cameras, guessing the exposure is about the film, not the camera, so
>>>> for a camera without film, what is the basis for guessing the
>>>> exposure?
>>>
>>> It's the same. You have a sensor that has some logarithmic
>>> sensitivity, with the height of the straight line portion of the curve
>>measured on
>>> the ASA scale and the slope of the straight line curve measured as gamma.
>>>
>>Well, the problem to solve is determining "some logarithmic sensitivity" of
>>the sensor & firmware combination, since these factors interact in such a
>>way that the actual ASA performance of the camera can change with a firmware
>>upgrade (BTDT).
>
>Yes, and not only that, some cameras allow you to adjust the shape of the
>curve with different transfer functions. Many of them hide this under a
>million menus under some obscure name. It's important.
>
>>> Digital, analogue, doesn't matter. The shape of the curve can differ
>>> and where each zone falls on a given exposure may differ as a result,
>>> but
>>> the exposure methods of the same. And you should have a good grasp
>>> of the overall curve shape in your head.
>>>
>>All I can tell you about your supposition is that my Nikon, Canon, and Sony
>>digital cameras do not interpret the same lighting conditions in the same
>>way except in a very general sense. Sensors and firmware matters. OTOH, my
>>Leica, Rolleiflex and Olympus analog cameras are much more predictable and
>>consistent, to the point where the film is the critical factor in the
>>outcome.
>
>When you change from the Nikon to the Sony, you are changing from one sensor
>to another. This is as dramatic as changing from Tri-X Professional to
>Verichrome Pan.
>
>The sensor and associated firmware, or the film and processing, is the
>critical factor in the outcome because that's where your transfer curve
>is coming from. Of course, the Nikon and Canon have different transfer
>curves. If you change the firmware on the Nikon, you'll have a different
>transfer curve than you did before. Different films have different curves
>as well... and I can take Tri-X in D-23 and make the toe of the curve very
>short, or I can put the same film in Diafine and make the toe of the curve
>very long indeed. This is what sensitometry is all about.
>
>>> But maybe I don't want that. Maybe I _wanted_ the foreground to be
>>> vignetted. On the other hand, maybe I wanted detail in the foreground
>>> and didn't care that the background blew out. That's my decision.
>>> It's not a decision I want to trust to some piece of software that
>>> has no idea what I want the picture to look like.
>>>
>>Of course, Scott, but if one is going to be picky enough to want to place
>>parts of the image in different zones with a digital camera, it is best
>>determined by using the camera and seeing the results, not by theorizing
>>about what it should do. And if you do a firmware upgrade, start over.
>
>I'm sorry, I am not a big fan of trial and error. Better to just get it
>right the first time. If you use the software to get it right, that's fine.
>If you do it manually, that's fine too. But the system needs to be designed
>to allow you to whichever you find convenient in a rapid and easy fashion.
>--scott

The most important point in all of this is to always save files in RAW
format - exactly as it came off ther sensor. All the colour and lens
correction information is still present as metadata, but you have a
true original to work with. If you opt for JPG save even at maximum
quality, that is all lost.

d

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>> Of course, Scott, but if one is going to be picky enough to want to
>> place parts of the image in different zones with a digital camera,
>> it is best determined by using the camera and seeing the results,
>> not by theorizing about what it should do. And if you do a firmware
>> upgrade, start over.
>
> I'm sorry, I am not a big fan of trial and error.
>
Who is talking about trial and error? I'm not into the "touchy-feely"
approach from chimping and presuming that the histogram is telling you all
you need to know about the scene. There is no significant difference, for
example, between calibrating the performance of a particular batch of a film
in preparation for employing the zone system and the calibration of the
results that you get from a particular sensor and firmware combination. Once
you have such objective information, it's easier to make artistic decisions.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>Who is talking about trial and error? I'm not into the "touchy-feely"
>approach from chimping and presuming that the histogram is telling you all
>you need to know about the scene. There is no significant difference, for
>example, between calibrating the performance of a particular batch of a film
>in preparation for employing the zone system and the calibration of the
>results that you get from a particular sensor and firmware combination. Once
>you have such objective information, it's easier to make artistic decisions.

This is 100% true.

The histogram tells you a lot of what you want to know, and the spotmeter
tool (or whatever Nikon calls it) tells you the rest of it.

But the PROBLEM is getting the camera to shut off all the crap and getting
it to give you that information and to accept your information. The problem
is a UI problem.

An adjustable camera only needs three things to adjust, everything else is
gravy. Four or five if you consider being able to change the sensitivity of
the sensor and the curve shape. But the camera has hundreds of menus and
submenus. Your job is to figure out how to turn all the crap off to begin
with, which is not as easy as it sounds.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>The most important point in all of this is to always save files in RAW
>format - exactly as it came off ther sensor. All the colour and lens
>correction information is still present as metadata, but you have a
>true original to work with. If you opt for JPG save even at maximum
>quality, that is all lost.

Good point, that goes without saying. Once you start adding in perceptual
encoding stuff, it gets a lot harder.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/20/2013 1:03 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

> All I can tell you about your supposition is that my Nikon, Canon, and Sony
> digital cameras do not interpret the same lighting conditions in the same
> way except in a very general sense. Sensors and firmware matters. OTOH, my
> Leica, Rolleiflex and Olympus analog cameras are much more predictable and
> consistent, to the point where the film is the critical factor in the
> outcome.

I wonder if their thinking is along the line of "This picture is going
to see a computer soon after it leaves the camera, and there, anything
can be adjusted to the photographer's liking." It's not like with a film
camera where the majority of users (even professionals) sent the film
to the lab. got the prints back, and the job's done. A pro learns his
camera and film well enough so that he knows what the outcome will be
rather than having to fool with a computer program.

Sort of like recording with a DAW compared with recording to tape.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/20/2013 12:42 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Smart companies have their technical writers sit in when a product is
> being designed. Good writers are aware of designs likely to be difficult
> to explain or use.

I was with Mackie when the HDR24/96 was being hatched and I spent quite
a bit of time with the designers. I even found several bugs while I was
writing material for the manual and said "huh? I can't write that it
works like THIS!" Thing is that they weren't working from a detailed
functional spec, so they kept adding things and removing things and it
was only when the marketing department said "We have to ship it NOW"
that they decided they were done. And a lot of the changes required
changes to the user interface so it was fun to keep up.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/20/2013 1:03 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> All I can tell you about your supposition is that my Nikon, Canon,
>> and Sony digital cameras do not interpret the same lighting
>> conditions in the same way except in a very general sense. Sensors
>> and firmware matters. OTOH, my Leica, Rolleiflex and Olympus analog
>> cameras are much more predictable and consistent, to the point where
>> the film is the critical factor in the outcome.
>
> I wonder if their thinking is along the line of "This picture is going
> to see a computer soon after it leaves the camera, and there, anything
> can be adjusted to the photographer's liking." It's not like with a
> film camera where the majority of users (even professionals) sent
> the film to the lab. got the prints back, and the job's done. A pro
> learns his camera and film well enough so that he knows what the
> outcome will be rather than having to fool with a computer program.
>
This might be true for casual users, street shooters, or news photographers.
For commercial work and those who have to get things spot on or not get
paid, it's a lot more critical, and requires a lot more control over every
step of the imaging process.

> Sort of like recording with a DAW compared with recording to tape.
>
With the tools used for recording to tape, there were a lot of physical and
technical limitations that have been removed by digital technology. I much
prefer matrix switching to patch bays, for example. DAWs are a different
matter, since they provide several post-production functions in a single
box. Folks can choose the UI that best suits them. I, for one, don't want to
see any pseudo-analog controls on my screen.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/20/2013 12:24 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:36:16 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Ron C > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I used to do a lot of photography back in the film/manual camera
>>>> days. I recently bought a digital SLR and was blown away by all
>>>> the automatic crap and figuring how to work around it. The controls,
>>>> their operations, and their layout /should have/ been a piece of
>>>> cake. I spent a lot of time reading the manual.
>>>
>>> Sadly, the later film-based SLRs are the same way. And so are a lot
>>> of mixing consoles.
>>>
>>> Your job as an experienced user of cameras but a first-time user of
>>> this model is to figure out how to shut ALL the crap off and set it
>>> manually.
>>> You look at the scene, you can guess the exposure and where the
>>> shadows
>>> fall with respect to the highlights, you now just need to make the
>>> camera obey you.
>>>
>>> There should be a whole section in the front of the manual telling
>>> you how to set it up this way. Then, once you get the hang of doing
>>> that, then maybe later you can investigate the automated modes.
>>>
>>>> Steep learning curves, but I'm now doing things I'd never dreamed of
>>>> doing with film and darkroom technology.
>>>
>>> There's no _reason_ for the steep learning curve, though, other than
>>> poor documentation and UI design.
>>>
>> I think that one problem is that these new devices, be they "cameras" or
>> "consoles" appear to be similar to the previous generation items, but they
>> are completely different. With film cameras, guessing the exposure is about
>> the film, not the camera, so for a camera without film, what is the basis
>> for guessing the exposure? It's easy to see that the best use of the
>> computers in the camera is to make the exposure adjustment based on
>> information that the user can't have, such things as the sensitivity of the
>> sensor, system processing delays and such. Shut all of that off, and the
>> user could literally be in the dark!
>>
>> Digital consoles are somewhat analogous to this, since few users will know
>> the particulars of the DSPs being used or of the firmware that ultimately
>> determines what happens when some parameter is changed. A goood approach to
>> these things is to have good documentation and to know one's own limitations
>> with regard to grasping that documentation.
>
> But digital cameras do have one distinct advantage. You can fire off
> any number of test shots at various apertures and speed, and see
> instantly what the result is. The software that came with my Cannon
> will even tell me exactly where on an image there is clipping (over or
> under exposure). It only took me about an hour of playing before I
> understood the manual mode completely, and could set it to give me the
> best exposure compromise. Being only 8 bits, the dynamic range is not
> all it might be, but I'm sure new generations of sensor will do for
> photography what 16 bit digital did for audio - allowed a huge amount
> of sloppy level control while still producing a perfectly acceptable
> result.
>
> I still use full auto - at events like parties where nobody wan't to
> hang around while some geek fiddles with his camera.
>
> d
>
Note that the Canon EOS t3 series has a 14 bit per channel
dynamic range in RAW mode. Adding a +/- 3 stop bracket then
gives a 20 bit HDR dynamic range. Too bad prints only have
about 5 bits (5 stops) of dynamic range.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/20/2013 1:03 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> All I can tell you about your supposition is that my Nikon, Canon, and
>> Sony
>> digital cameras do not interpret the same lighting conditions in the same
>> way except in a very general sense. Sensors and firmware matters.
>> OTOH, my
>> Leica, Rolleiflex and Olympus analog cameras are much more predictable
>> and
>> consistent, to the point where the film is the critical factor in the
>> outcome.
>
> I wonder if their thinking is along the line of "This picture is going
> to see a computer soon after it leaves the camera, and there, anything
> can be adjusted to the photographer's liking."

I am pretty sure that's the case.

> It's not like with a film
> camera where the majority of users (even professionals) sent the film
> to the lab. got the prints back, and the job's done.

Well....

Ansel Adams' work was more in the darkroom than capturing the exposure.
So it depends.

> A pro learns his
> camera and film well enough so that he knows what the outcome will be
> rather than having to fool with a computer program.
>
> Sort of like recording with a DAW compared with recording to tape.
>
>

When I record with a DAW, I record just like it was
tape. A tape with a blindingly fast rewind.

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> OTOH, computer operating systems are probably among the most complex
> things around, and I've haven't read the manual for one since Win95.

What manual? Haven't even seen a manual for any Windows since Win98. But I
bet you've looked it up on the internet when you have a problem, just as you
are expected to do now.
The last thing I do when setting up computers for others is download the
best .pdf guide I can find and put a shortcut to it on the desktop. Saves a
few calls as I'm amazed how many people don't check the internet first, and
of course some can't get that far even when you've already configured
everything for them :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Tried an Android tablet yet? No manuals and little consistency between
> the
> basic functions of apps make it a "poke and stroke" environment

Shouldn't that be poke and hope?

>("why would a user want or need to exit an app???"). 8-D

Sadly many such concepts are completely unknown by most users. And nobody
seems to know or care what personal information they are freely giving away.
Most Android apps make Google, Facebook etc. seem like bastions of privacy.
Hell they even beat most malware on the PC, but unlike the PC you only get
two choices, accept it or don't use one :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/19/2013 7:08 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Are there Web documents that step a raw beginner through the process of
>> understanding how a mixer is set up and operated?
>
> Apparently not. That's why I see a need for a book.

How hard have you looked? I've found lots, not all of it legit of course,
just as any book you write will probably end up on the net somewhere without
your consent. I know much of my material does. And I'm amazed how musicians
who complain about piracy of their material are sometimes the worst
offenders :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> And I still can't find service documentation for a lot of the things I
> have that need fixing.

True, but I do find a lot more now than before the internet. And I still
have manuals I had to buy at great expense just to fix my own items in the
past, even though the products themselves have long since gone :-(
Some companies would send you a photocopy at minimal expense, but others
charged the equivalent of a few hours wages for a few page leaflet, just to
protect their service dealers, whilst others simply refuse altogether.
Nothing much has changed that I can see.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Ron C" > wrote in message
...
> Then I jumped into Photoshop CS6. Yeeps!!! It's complex, highly nuanced,
> and comes with no manual what-so-ever. Heck, it doesn't even come
> with a basic help file.

Adobe are happy to sell you all manner of manuals, instruction courses etc.
for *more* money!
Which supports a *huge* industry for third party manuals and how to's.
And Adobe are not alone there in the computer world, in fact it has become
the norm.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Ron C > wrote:
>>I used to do a lot of photography back in the film/manual camera
>>days. I recently bought a digital SLR and was blown away by all
>>the automatic crap and figuring how to work around it. The controls,
>>their operations, and their layout /should have/ been a piece of cake.
>>I spent a lot of time reading the manual.
>
> Sadly, the later film-based SLRs are the same way. And so are a lot of
> mixing consoles.
>
> Your job as an experienced user of cameras but a first-time user of this
> model is to figure out how to shut ALL the crap off and set it manually.
> You look at the scene, you can guess the exposure and where the shadows
> fall with respect to the highlights, you now just need to make the camera
> obey you.
>
> There should be a whole section in the front of the manual telling you how
> to set it up this way. Then, once you get the hang of doing that, then
> maybe
> later you can investigate the automated modes.

Which is the reverse of what the inexperienced user does, and most camera's
are designed to be used by inexperienced people first.
However most DSLR's I have used have a readily apparent manual mode. Those
with only one setting dial can sometimes be a bit trickier to figure out how
to set both aperture and shutter speed though :-)


>>Steep learning curves, but I'm now doing things I'd never dreamed of
>>doing with film and darkroom technology.
>
> There's no _reason_ for the steep learning curve, though, other than poor
> documentation and UI design.

Not so. It all depends on what knowledge and experience you start with.
Beginners struggle with Photoshop because they have no idea of the concepts.
Hell I know a local newspaper photog who has worked in the field for over 30
years, he had NO idea what "unsharp mask" meant until I explained it to him.
Having used lith film in my own darkroom for years, the concept was second
nature to me, but not many others it seems.
Photoshop makes it easy IMO, since there are a dozen ways to achieve almost
any outcome, depending on your understanding of where to start. Few get the
best out of the program, but any powerful software has lots the average user
never needs, and lots even a power user only needs occasionly.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> All I can tell you about your supposition is that my Nikon, Canon, and
> Sony
> digital cameras do not interpret the same lighting conditions in the same
> way except in a very general sense. Sensors and firmware matters. OTOH, my
> Leica, Rolleiflex and Olympus analog cameras are much more predictable and
> consistent, to the point where the film is the critical factor in the
> outcome.

Well duh! The film is equivalent to the sensor and associated electronics
in the digital. You *can* put any film you like in those analog camera's
(and get different results) but you can't switch sensors between camera's so
easily. Once you are used to how a particular camera model performs however,
it's the same as understanding how each film type (and it's processing)
performs differently. Far easier of course since you usually keep one camera
body for a while, and you don't have to put up with film processing
inconsistancies or variations in emulsions from one film batch to another,
or variations caused by film storage before and after processing.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
>> It's not like with a film
>> camera where the majority of users (even professionals) sent the film
>> to the lab. got the prints back, and the job's done.
>
> Ansel Adams' work was more in the darkroom than capturing the exposure. So
> it depends.

Exactly! And conversely most digital photographs never see a software photo
editor these days, anyone who spends a few minutes on Facebook etc will soon
see that :-(


> When I record with a DAW, I record just like it was
> tape. A tape with a blindingly fast rewind.

And less noise, less ditortion, less wow, less flutter, less media cost,
less maintenance cost....... and the ability to edit easily IF you want to
later.
Even with tape there were times we did razor blade edits, and worse yet
lossy dubs to another recorder :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>A major advantage of digital imaging is the ability to see the image on
>>camera's screen, and view an exposure histogram.

Yep, annoys me that people use the derogatory term "chimping" when pro's
often used polaroid backs on their camera's in days of old to check lighting
set ups etc. Nobody called us chimps back then, having such equipment was
considered extremely professional because amateurs could only dream of it
:-)


> These are good things, but beware of trying to judge exposure based on the
> screen. The camera's screen has very little real dynamic range and you
> can have severely blown-out highlights for instance, and not notice it on
> the screen.

Many camera's have highlight saturation warning if turned on.


>The histogram will tell you the real truth of the matter,

And not always then, some camera's with a single histogram for instance will
not always indicate a single channel overexposure.


>The man behind the camera should be the final arbiter.

If your camera doesn't allow that, you simply bought the wrong one, trade it
in on another one. More likely you just need to learn how to use it.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Ron C" > wrote in message
...
> Note that the Canon EOS t3 series has a 14 bit per channel
> dynamic range in RAW mode. Adding a +/- 3 stop bracket then
> gives a 20 bit HDR dynamic range. Too bad prints only have
> about 5 bits (5 stops) of dynamic range.

So true, I miss Cibachrome transparencies. However there are papers and inks
that can do better than 5 stops, on par with Cibachrome prints of old
anyway.
And computer displays and TV's are getting better all the time, they are the
new transparency film/light box combo, and slide night alternatives, but
*far* more versatile.

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>> Who is talking about trial and error? I'm not into the "touchy-feely"
>> approach from chimping and presuming that the histogram is telling you all
>> you need to know about the scene. There is no significant difference, for
>> example, between calibrating the performance of a particular batch of a film
>> in preparation for employing the zone system and the calibration of the
>> results that you get from a particular sensor and firmware combination. Once
>> you have such objective information, it's easier to make artistic decisions.
>
> This is 100% true.
>
> The histogram tells you a lot of what you want to know, and the spotmeter
> tool (or whatever Nikon calls it) tells you the rest of it.
>
> But the PROBLEM is getting the camera to shut off all the crap and getting
> it to give you that information and to accept your information. The problem
> is a UI problem.
>
Yup.

> An adjustable camera only needs three things to adjust, everything else is
> gravy. Four or five if you consider being able to change the sensitivity of
> the sensor and the curve shape. But the camera has hundreds of menus and
> submenus. Your job is to figure out how to turn all the crap off to begin
> with, which is not as easy as it sounds.
>
+1 to all that.

I recently bought a Fuji HS50 "bridge" camera, which gives me the option
to save RAW and JPEG at the same time. It also has the option to display
a histogram, and many other options up to and including full manual
control. The RAW files are 46.5 megabytes each.

I bought a little less recently a Panasonic Lumix FZ48, also a bridge
camera, which not only will not save RAW files, it processes all JPEG
files in camera to look like a TV set with the colour turned all the way
up at best. At worst, you really don't want to use them. There is no way
to turn this "enhancement" off, which is a pity, because otherwise, it's
a nice versatile camera and very easy to use even in its manual mode.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:08:42 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article >):

> Are there Web documents that step a raw beginner through the process of
> understanding how a mixer is set up and operated?
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

Depends on the mixer. Yamaha has great documentations and some good demo
videos (to name one example). But to tell you the truth, I know more and
more projects -- albums and film -- that record and mix entirely in Pro
Tools. A lot of the recording business now revolves around how well the
engineer knows Pro Tools, since the "mixer" is now a passive control surface
that just operates the software remotely.

The Yamaha mixers I've used for the past 12-13 years were all digital mixers
that were kind of partly analog but mostly digital. Once you learn one, you
have the gist of how to set up most of the other ones, since the new ones
build on what came before. It's not as complicated as you might think.

--MFW

[Trevor]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> I bought a little less recently a Panasonic Lumix FZ48, also a bridge
> camera, which not only will not save RAW files,

Sounds like a case of not doing your homework before parting with your cash
if you wanted that, and you'd be silly if you didn't.


> it processes all JPEG files in camera to look like a TV set with the
> colour turned all the way up at best. At worst, you really don't want to
> use them. There is no way to turn this "enhancement" off, which is a pity,
> because otherwise, it's a nice versatile camera and very easy to use even
> in its manual mode.

Within the limitations of Jpeg processing, you can probably make them half
decent in a photo editor. Good enough for the 6"x4" prints, or Facebook
snaps, for which they are intended anyway. Any camera that doesn't save RAW
files is not intended for anything serious, but is probably still an
improvement on the most common camera used nowadays, the iPhone :-(

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

Trevor wrote:
> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I bought a little less recently a Panasonic Lumix FZ48, also a bridge
>> camera, which not only will not save RAW files,
>
> Sounds like a case of not doing your homework before parting with your cash
> if you wanted that, and you'd be silly if you didn't.
>
The story of my life. I was, at the time of purchase, under the
impression that it could be hacked to save RAW files. It can't. :-/
>
>> it processes all JPEG files in camera to look like a TV set with the
>> colour turned all the way up at best. At worst, you really don't want to
>> use them. There is no way to turn this "enhancement" off, which is a pity,
>> because otherwise, it's a nice versatile camera and very easy to use even
>> in its manual mode.
>
> Within the limitations of Jpeg processing, you can probably make them half
> decent in a photo editor. Good enough for the 6"x4" prints, or Facebook
> snaps, for which they are intended anyway. Any camera that doesn't save RAW
> files is not intended for anything serious, but is probably still an
> improvement on the most common camera used nowadays, the iPhone :-(
>
Good enough for Facebook if I turn down the saturation a lot. The
definition's good enough for up to 10"x8" at 300dpi, which matches what
I used to be able to do in the darkroom using a 110 SLR camera as
source. For reasonable distance viewing, then it will go up to 20"x16",
but I could project 110 Kodachrome up to 48" across..

The compression artifacts are what kill it for editing use. A bit like
mp3s, really.....
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> Good enough for Facebook if I turn down the saturation a lot. The
> definition's good enough for up to 10"x8" at 300dpi, which matches what I
> used to be able to do in the darkroom using a 110 SLR camera as source.
> For reasonable distance viewing, then it will go up to 20"x16", but I
> could project 110 Kodachrome up to 48" across..
>
> The compression artifacts are what kill it for editing use. A bit like
> mp3s, really.....

If you were happy with 110 at 48", or even 8x10" prints you can't be too
bloody fussy! Any digital camera these days should beat that. Perhaps you
mean 120?
6x6cm slides certainly had quality IME :-)
Never bought a 6x6 slide projector actually, but they printed well on
Cibachrome, and I could cut them to fit 4x4cm supersize slide mounts to suit
a 35mm projector when necessary.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/20/2013 6:55 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

>> I wonder if their thinking is along the line of "This picture is going
>> to see a computer soon after it leaves the camera . . .

> This might be true for casual users, street shooters, or news photographers.
> For commercial work and those who have to get things spot on or not get
> paid, it's a lot more critical, and requires a lot more control over every
> step of the imaging process.

Like with recording equipment, and computers, and guns, and barbecue
grills, the vast majority of the users are not professional or
commercial users. But the problem with those users is that they think
that if they have all the features the pros do, they can do
professional-like work. So the cameras sold to the mass market have all
the bells and whistles. It's up to the user to learn how to use them,
and most don't bother. For them, there really should be a mode that just
lets them take snapshots.

> With the tools used for recording to tape, there were a lot of physical and
> technical limitations that have been removed by digital technology.

True for some limitations, but there are more choices, too, and nobody
wants those to be taken away even though 90% of the users would be
better off with just a couple of simple switches.

> I much prefer matrix switching to patch bays, for example.

It certainly has its advantages, no contact maintenance and flexibility
for two. But I find it much easier to connect and trace through a patchy
bay when I can see the physical connections as wires rather than dots on
a grid. Another thing is that a patchbay is always the same size and
shape and things are always in the same place. A routing matrix that's
part of a DAW can change its dimensions depending on options that have
been enabled (or not) somewhere else.

> DAWs are a different
> matter, since they provide several post-production functions in a single
> box. Folks can choose the UI that best suits them. I, for one, don't want to
> see any pseudo-analog controls on my screen.

And I'm completely opposite. I don't want to have to have to start out
by building my own user interface when I don't know what's available.
It's nice to be able to customize to a certain extent, but I need a
usable starting point.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2013 12:47 AM, Trevor wrote:

>> When I record with a DAW, I record just like it was
>> tape. A tape with a blindingly fast rewind.
>
> And less noise, less ditortion, less wow, less flutter, less media cost,
> less maintenance cost....... and the ability to edit easily IF you want to
> later.

Some of those are arguable, so I'll argue.

There's almost always less THD but digital systems bring forms of
distortion that analog systems don't have, some of which can be annoying.

It's hard to compare maintenance costs because both need maintenance.
There's a difference in the knowledge, skills, and tools required for
each one. People always talk about needing to align a tape deck before
each session (you really don't have to but you can't ignore it either)
but it really doesn't take long. Once you know how to do it and have the
proper tools, it's a repeatable process. When something breaks, test
equipment and a schematic can take you to the source of the problem
pretty quickly. There's no repeatable process for troubleshooting a
computer software problem, however, except perhaps to "do a complete
re-install" and you can't easily test a disk drive or graphics card
other than to replace it.

Media cost isn't easy to compare, either. For one thing, because we
believe that media cost is so low, we tend to save much more than we did
with tape, and then we have to sort it out. And to make a dollar
comparison, a 1 terabyte USB hard drive costs about twice as much as a
reel of 2" tape today. Comparing a 2013 project on a DAW with a 1985
project on tape (at 1985's cost), media cost is a lot closer. Sure, you
have hundreds of re-takes on that hard drive that would have been erased
with tape, but then you need to manage that. How much does it cost to
make a copy on another drive, and them maybe have (and maintain and
constantly back up) a server to store your recordings? Compare that to
handing your client his tape and say "here, it's yours."

Of course for a casual hobbyist, media cost today is indeed neglilgable.

I'll grant you the ease of editing, but temper that with the temptation
to do a lot more editing because it's easier. Are projects finished any
quicker? Doubtful.

I'm not arguing that we're worse off today than we used to be. It's just
different.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2013 5:36 AM, John Williamson wrote:

> The story of my life. I was, at the time of purchase, under the
> impression that it could be hacked to save RAW files. It can't. :-/

You mean you haven't found the video on the 'net about how to do that
yet? <g>



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tried an Android tablet yet? No manuals and little consistency
>> between the
>> basic functions of apps make it a "poke and stroke" environment
>
> Shouldn't that be poke and hope?
>
>> ("why would a user want or need to exit an app???"). 8-D
>
> Sadly many such concepts are completely unknown by most users. And
> nobody seems to know or care what personal information they are
> freely giving away. Most Android apps make Google, Facebook etc. seem
> like bastions of privacy. Hell they even beat most malware on the PC,
> but unlike the PC you only get two choices, accept it or don't use
> one :-(
>
The intrusive nature of these apps and social media sites, along with cloud
computing, and other involuntary "donations" of private information make all
the ignorant hoopla about NSA collecting phone numbers a sad commentary on
our level of awareness.
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...
"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/19/2013 7:08 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>> Are there Web documents that step a raw beginner through
>>> the process of understanding how a mixer is set up and operated?

>> Apparently not. That's why I see a need for a book.

> How hard have you looked? I've found lots, not all of it legit, of
> course, just as any book you write will probably end up on the 'net
> somewhere without your consent. I know much of my material does.

As a tech writer, I have a very specific ideas about how such a book should be
organized and written. Would you be kind enough to provide URLs for one or two
of these? I'd like to see how other writers approach the subject. Thanks.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/20/2013 6:55 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
> > I much prefer matrix switching to patch bays, for example.
>
> It certainly has its advantages, no contact maintenance and
> flexibility for two. But I find it much easier to connect and trace
> through a patchy bay when I can see the physical connections as wires
> rather than dots on a grid. Another thing is that a patchbay is
> always the same size and shape and things are always in the same
> place. A routing matrix that's part of a DAW can change its
> dimensions depending on options that have been enabled (or not)
> somewhere else.
>
Either situation requires the user to keep a lot of "invisible" information
in their head. For patch bays, a knowledge of the devices or internal
routing issues, for matrix switching, what possibilities are created or
eliminated by certain choices. But, for owners of a particular unit (rather
than reviewers of many units) this is not a problem because those
possibilities are really very finite, and will be learned in a relatively
short time. OTOH, I've worked in some studios that have a room with mulitple
racks full of patch bays... no point in trying to remember all of that!
--
best regards,

Neil


>> DAWs are a different
>> matter, since they provide several post-production functions in a
>> single box. Folks can choose the UI that best suits them. I, for
>> one, don't want to see any pseudo-analog controls on my screen.
>
> And I'm completely opposite. I don't want to have to have to start out
> by building my own user interface when I don't know what's available.
> It's nice to be able to customize to a certain extent, but I need a
> usable starting point.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

> Hell, I know a local newspaper photog who has worked in the field
> for over 30 years, he had NO idea what "unsharp mask" meant until
> I explained it to him.

Not surprising, as unsharp masking would not be commonly used in newspaper
photography.

I learned about unsharp masks almost 40 years ago by reading Kodak's 95-cent
guidebooks. Those reading this might want to think about how putting an
unsharp negative in contact with a positive (or vice-versa) and photographing
the composite produces a sharper image. (Think spatial transfer function.)

[S. King]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:23:46 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 6/20/2013 1:03 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>>> All I can tell you about your supposition is that my Nikon, Canon, and
>>> Sony digital cameras do not interpret the same lighting conditions in
>>> the same way except in a very general sense. Sensors and firmware
>>> matters.
>>> OTOH, my Leica, Rolleiflex and Olympus analog cameras are much more
>>> predictable and consistent, to the point where the film is the
>>> critical factor in the outcome.
>>
>> I wonder if their thinking is along the line of "This picture is going
>> to see a computer soon after it leaves the camera, and there, anything
>> can be adjusted to the photographer's liking."
>
> I am pretty sure that's the case.
>
>> It's not like with a film camera where the majority of users (even
>> professionals) sent the film to the lab. got the prints back, and the
>> job's done.
>
> Well....
>
> Ansel Adams' work was more in the darkroom than capturing the exposure.
> So it depends.
>
>> A pro learns his camera and film well enough so that he knows what the
>> outcome will be rather than having to fool with a computer program.
>>
>> Sort of like recording with a DAW compared with recording to tape.
>>
>>
>>
> When I record with a DAW, I record just like it was tape. A tape with a
> blindingly fast rewind.

Almost as fast a rewind as a Magnecord;-)

Steve King

[William Sommerwerck]

"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
.com...
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:08:42 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article >):

> Are there Web documents that step a raw beginner through the process of
> understanding how a mixer is set up and operated?
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

> The Yamaha mixers I've used for the past 12-13 years were all digital mixers
> that were kind of partly analog but mostly digital. Once you learn one, you
> have the gist of how to set up most of the other ones, since the new ones
> build on what came before. It's not as complicated as you might think.

It's not how complicated I think it is, but how complicated the neophyte
perceives it as.

[S. King]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:20:34 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:

> On 6/21/2013 12:47 AM, Trevor wrote:
>
>>> When I record with a DAW, I record just like it was tape. A tape with
>>> a blindingly fast rewind.
>>
>> And less noise, less ditortion, less wow, less flutter, less media
>> cost, less maintenance cost....... and the ability to edit easily IF
>> you want to later.
>
> Some of those are arguable, so I'll argue.
>
> There's almost always less THD but digital systems bring forms of
> distortion that analog systems don't have, some of which can be
> annoying.
>
> It's hard to compare maintenance costs because both need maintenance.
> There's a difference in the knowledge, skills, and tools required for
> each one. People always talk about needing to align a tape deck before
> each session (you really don't have to but you can't ignore it either)
> but it really doesn't take long. Once you know how to do it and have the
> proper tools, it's a repeatable process.

Tape recorder maintenance was a line item cost and not trivial in the
budgets of the two studios I worked at or managed in the 60s-70s. Sure
aligning a single mono or two-track machine doesn't take long. Still, you
have to go to the shop, get the equipment, bring it to the control or tape
room, set it up, and do the alignment and put it all away .... maybe 20
minutes. But, in the control room are two 2-tracks, a four track, and a
16 track machine (later 24-tracks--two of them synced), all of which may
be used on a given music session. Now you're talking money even at the
$10 per hour prevailing wage.


SNIP
>
> Media cost isn't easy to compare, either. For one thing, because we
> believe that media cost is so low, we tend to save much more than we did
> with tape, and then we have to sort it out. And to make a dollar
> comparison, a 1 terabyte USB hard drive costs about twice as much as a
> reel of 2" tape today. Comparing a 2013 project on a DAW with a 1985
> project on tape (at 1985's cost), media cost is a lot closer. Sure, you
> have hundreds of re-takes on that hard drive that would have been erased
> with tape, but then you need to manage that. How much does it cost to
> make a copy on another drive, and them maybe have (and maintain and
> constantly back up) a server to store your recordings? Compare that to
> handing your client his tape and say "here, it's yours."

Tape was pretty cheap for studios back in the day; however, it wasn't so
cheap for clients. The mark-up was extreme, 300 - 400% was not unusual.
Of course, studio rental was very low, so the profit on tape was just part
of the equation to keep the lights on and the doors open. Now, a 1 or 2
terabyte drive covers almost any kind of session (doesn't it?). Even with
a mark-up it is far less expensive than 7 to 10 reels of 2" and 6 or 8
reels of 1/2 or 1/4 inch that was typical for an album project.


> Of course for a casual hobbyist, media cost today is indeed neglilgable.
>
> I'll grant you the ease of editing, but temper that with the temptation
> to do a lot more editing because it's easier. Are projects finished any
> quicker? Doubtful.

From the point of view of the client quicker is better; however, that's
not necessarily the case for a studio for hire. I loved fumbler/bumblers/
nitpickers as clients. It wasn't fun, but it did keep the salaries paid.

>
> I'm not arguing that we're worse off today than we used to be. It's just
> different.

It is indeed.

Steve King

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/21/2013 10:52 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Marc Wielage" wrote in message
> .com...
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:08:42 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Are there Web documents that step a raw beginner through the process of
>> understanding how a mixer is set up and operated?
>> ------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>
>> The Yamaha mixers I've used for the past 12-13 years were all digital
>> mixers
>> that were kind of partly analog but mostly digital. Once you learn
>> one, you
>> have the gist of how to set up most of the other ones, since the new ones
>> build on what came before. It's not as complicated as you might think.
>
> It's not how complicated I think it is, but how complicated the neophyte
> perceives it as.

I agree, perception (and preconception) can have a lot of influence.
Word selection can also led to unintended confusion. Thus something
I saw (in a recent discussion of photon phase):
~~ ~~ ~~
Our limited thought processes can accept certain
properties easier if we can attribute them to out everyday
experiences, hence the particle and wave descriptions.
~~
A good example is the property of spin. Nothing is 'spinning'.
It's just a label. If you try to think of it as real spin as
in rotation, it gets very weird, because then you have particles
spinning only 1/2 a turn to see the same face, or spinning 2
or 3 times before you see the same face, which in our everyday
experience just makes no sense at all.

Then there's quarks - up, down, top, bottom, charmed, strange.
[ ... ]
~~ ~~ ~~

Jargon and foreign concepts can really befuddle neophytes.
"Know your audience" goes a long way in communicating
concepts.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Peter Irwin]

Ron C > wrote:
>>
> Note that the Canon EOS t3 series has a 14 bit per channel
> dynamic range in RAW mode. Adding a +/- 3 stop bracket then
> gives a 20 bit HDR dynamic range. Too bad prints only have
> about 5 bits (5 stops) of dynamic range.

It is a bit more complicated than that because the important
signal to noise requirement is based on the number of greys you
need to reproduce.

To quote Dr. Mees:
"With any "velvet" surface paper, such as Velvet Velox, we shall find
that the white paper will reflect about twenty-five times as much light
as the deepest silver deposit. The number of distinct tones which are
included in this range from white to black depends, of course, on the
ability of the eye to distinguish them. The eye can actually see about
one hundred distinct tones in such a range."

<http://chestofbooks.com/arts/photography/The-Fundamentals-Of-Photography/Printing-Part-2.html>

Peter.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/21/2013 1:01 PM, Peter Irwin wrote:
> Ron C > wrote:
>>>
>> Note that the Canon EOS t3 series has a 14 bit per channel
>> dynamic range in RAW mode. Adding a +/- 3 stop bracket then
>> gives a 20 bit HDR dynamic range. Too bad prints only have
>> about 5 bits (5 stops) of dynamic range.
>
> It is a bit more complicated than that because the important
> signal to noise requirement is based on the number of greys you
> need to reproduce.
>
> To quote Dr. Mees:
> "With any "velvet" surface paper, such as Velvet Velox, we shall find
> that the white paper will reflect about twenty-five times as much light
> as the deepest silver deposit. The number of distinct tones which are
> included in this range from white to black depends, of course, on the
> ability of the eye to distinguish them. The eye can actually see about
> one hundred distinct tones in such a range."
>
> <http://chestofbooks.com/arts/photography/The-Fundamentals-Of-Photography/Printing-Part-2.html>
>
> Peter.
>
Note that my comments were mostly in response to
Don P's: "Being only 8 bits, the dynamic range is not
all it might be, [ ... ]"

Local contrast and detail enhancements (like Mr. Land's
retinex process) can also greatly increase the perceived
dynamic range.
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/21/2013 12:47 AM, Trevor wrote:
>
>>> When I record with a DAW, I record just like it was
>>> tape. A tape with a blindingly fast rewind.
>>
>> And less noise, less ditortion, less wow, less flutter, less media cost,
>> less maintenance cost....... and the ability to edit easily IF you
>> want to
>> later.
>
> Some of those are arguable, so I'll argue.
>
> There's almost always less THD but digital systems bring forms of
> distortion that analog systems don't have, some of which can be annoying.
>

The only one I can think of is 0dBFS problems, so don't do that.

> It's hard to compare maintenance costs because both need maintenance.

Any person who has taken apart a computer can pretty well maintain a
DAW. I would be a little intimidates taking a big console apart.

A DAW, I think, is less specialized than a standard tape/cabling
/console studio.

> There's a difference in the knowledge, skills, and tools required for
> each one. People always talk about needing to align a tape deck before
> each session (you really don't have to but you can't ignore it either)
> but it really doesn't take long. Once you know how to do it

aha! the plot thickens...

> and have the
> proper tools, it's a repeatable process. When something breaks, test
> equipment and a schematic can take you to the source of the problem
> pretty quickly. There's no repeatable process for troubleshooting a
> computer software problem, however, except perhaps to "do a complete
> re-install" and you can't easily test a disk drive or graphics card
> other than to replace it.
>

I don't find that I have many software problems. But I use old
versions when I can.

> Media cost isn't easy to compare, either. For one thing, because we
> believe that media cost is so low, we tend to save much more than we did
> with tape, and then we have to sort it out. And to make a dollar
> comparison, a 1 terabyte USB hard drive costs about twice as much as a
> reel of 2" tape today. Comparing a 2013 project on a DAW with a 1985
> project on tape (at 1985's cost), media cost is a lot closer.

Perhaps.

> Sure, you
> have hundreds of re-takes

POR QUE?????? I never go above three retakes in one
24 hour day. It is a waste of time.

> on that hard drive that would have been erased
> with tape, but then you need to manage that.

It's simple to delete files.

> How much does it cost to
> make a copy on another drive, and them maybe have (and maintain and
> constantly back up) a server to store your recordings? Compare that to
> handing your client his tape and say "here, it's yours."
>


The cost should be negligible. Sadly, backup is very poorly understood
at all.


> Of course for a casual hobbyist, media cost today is indeed neglilgable.
>

I have ... maybe half a TB of multitracks laying around. If I did a
three-level backup scheme ( daily, weekly, quarterly ) with the proper
NAS appliance plus something for offsite, the cost of media would be
about $600 in terms of actual media ( assume I could fully depreciate
the NAS appliance ).

I can't even guess how much *space* that would take in 2" tape.
Granted, I would not keep all that, but I *can* now.

> I'll grant you the ease of editing, but temper that with the temptation
> to do a lot more editing because it's easier. Are projects finished any
> quicker? Doubtful.
>

So when I run a 4-hour ( 3 hours of material including intersong
futzing ) gig recording, 16 tracks, it usually takes less than 8 hours
to get all the transfers, level diving and mix stood up. Usually,
there's not a lot of level diving.

Any subsequent tweaks depend on what other people want done, and usually
take less than an evening.

I figure an album should take two days at most from start to finish,
with a prepared set of performers. Maybe that'll be two days over a week
or a month. When I write one of my own, it's usually four
or so hours including both audio and MIDI tweezing.

> I'm not arguing that we're worse off today than we used to be. It's just
> different.
>
>

"We" are better off ( since we're all consumers of audio gear ) - it's
just that you could not afford a big console and an Ampex multitrack in
1980 unless you had a good client list or more money than you perhaps
should have. So the studio business is worse off in favor of people
buying their own.

By experiment, I have established that bar bands will not cough up
$500 for a recording of a four-hour gig. They will spend (much)
more than that to "go to a studio" - which is an experience as well
as a way to get a recording.

So the studio is not quite dead yet.

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Irwin" wrote in message ...

To quote Dr. Mees:
"With any "velvet" surface paper, such as Velvet Velox, we shall find
that the white paper will reflect about twenty-five times as much light
as the deepest silver deposit. The number of distinct tones which are
included in this range from white to black depends, of course, on the
ability of the eye to distinguish them. The eye can actually see about
one hundred distinct tones in such a range."

My memory is that glossy paper (properly ferrotyped) has a reflectance range
of 50:1 or 100:1.

[Peter Irwin]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> "Peter Irwin" wrote in message ...
>
> To quote Dr. Mees:
> "With any "velvet" surface paper, such as Velvet Velox, we shall find
> that the white paper will reflect about twenty-five times as much light
> as the deepest silver deposit. The number of distinct tones which are
> included in this range from white to black depends, of course, on the
> ability of the eye to distinguish them. The eye can actually see about
> one hundred distinct tones in such a range."
>
> My memory is that glossy paper (properly ferrotyped) has a reflectance range
> of 50:1 or 100:1.

Right. Glossy paper gives blacks one stop blacker than matte paper,
but the surface doesn't make any difference to the ability to
distinguish between shades of grey, all it does is give you deeper
blacks.

A lot of people seem to assume that the number of distinguishable
shades is equal to the reflectance of the whitest white divided by
the reflectance of the blackest black as if that were the signal
to noise ratio of the print. But a very matte print on cream coloured
stock can show as good gradation in grey levels as a glossy print with
whiteners, although the range from the blackest black to whitest white
is only a third as much.

Peter.
--

[John Williamson]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/21/2013 5:36 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>
>> The story of my life. I was, at the time of purchase, under the
>> impression that it could be hacked to save RAW files. It can't. :-/
>
> You mean you haven't found the video on the 'net about how to do that
> yet? <g>
>
It's not there. trust me, I've looked....

All I found was pages saying how annoying it was thatb it couldn't be done.

Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

Trevor wrote:
> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Good enough for Facebook if I turn down the saturation a lot. The
>> definition's good enough for up to 10"x8" at 300dpi, which matches what I
>> used to be able to do in the darkroom using a 110 SLR camera as source.
>> For reasonable distance viewing, then it will go up to 20"x16", but I
>> could project 110 Kodachrome up to 48" across..
>>
>> The compression artifacts are what kill it for editing use. A bit like
>> mp3s, really.....
>
> If you were happy with 110 at 48", or even 8x10" prints you can't be too
> bloody fussy! Any digital camera these days should beat that. Perhaps you
> mean 120?
> 6x6cm slides certainly had quality IME :-)
> Never bought a 6x6 slide projector actually, but they printed well on
> Cibachrome, and I could cut them to fit 4x4cm supersize slide mounts to suit
> a 35mm projector when necessary.
>
110 *print* film was almost okay up to 6"x4". What killed it was the
grain. The Panasonic camera files will print about 10" x 8" at 300 dpi,
which is about as good a print resolution as you'll get from 35mm film
and most home darkroom equipment. It's certainly better than the average
print shop on the high street.

110 Kodachrome 25 was okay up to 48" projection if you were sat a little
away from the screen. The limit was the quality of the lenses in the
system, the projector I used had a darn good lens, and the camera was
the Ricoh SLR with the zoom lens. Using normal slide film, then a couple
of feet was the limit, but only if your viewers were half blind. I used
what was possibly the last ever roll of 110 Kodachrome in testing the
camera. I've never seen any offered for sale since, and this roll was in
the remnants box, out of date by a good couple of years in the early
'80s. I was actually quite surprised that Kodak developed it for me. The
slides still looked good a few weeks ago.

2 1/4" square rollfim (AKA`120) is excellent, and if they'd made
Kodachrome in that size..... Still, the Fuji offering was good enough to
match my camera.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2013 11:13 AM, S. King wrote:
> Tape recorder maintenance was a line item cost and not trivial in the
> budgets of the two studios I worked at or managed in the 60s-70s. Sure
> aligning a single mono or two-track machine doesn't take long. Still, you
> have to go to the shop, get the equipment, bring it to the control or tape
> room, set it up, and do the alignment and put it all away .... maybe 20
> minutes. But, in the control room are two 2-tracks, a four track, and a
> 16 track machine (later 24-tracks--two of them synced), all of which may
> be used on a given music session. Now you're talking money even at the
> $10 per hour prevailing wage.

A studio has never been a place to make the big bucks. With that many
tape machines, it's not a one-man operation. There was a maintenance
staff. The equivalent today is the IT tech. Remember, too, that nearly
every studio sold tape to their clients at a profit. This could be used
to pay the maintenance tech's salary. When was the last time anybody
charged for disk space?

> Tape was pretty cheap for studios back in the day; however, it wasn't so
> cheap for clients. The mark-up was extreme, 300 - 400% was not unusual.

Exactly. But budgets were bigger then, too. And we always used to say
"tape is cheap" to the clients. And on those big projects, they didn't
hesitate to break out a fresh reel of tape if someone wanted to record
another part or another take of a song.

There are probably about the same number of big budget studios today as
there were in the 1980s. Most of them don't run tape any more as a rule,
but usually have a couple of tape machines ready to go (someone's
keeping them maintained) when the client asks. The difference today is
that there are far more small budget commercial studios than back in
those days, and hundreds of thousands of personal studios that care
capable of doing at least part of the job that used to be exclusive to a
major commercial studio - and this is almost entirely a result of DAW
recording.

So, like we said, different. .


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2013 1:34 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

>> There's almost always less THD but digital systems bring forms of
>> distortion that analog systems don't have, some of which can be annoying.

> The only one I can think of is 0dBFS problems, so don't do that.

That's a biggie which is preventable. But there are converters that
generate harmonics that are much less pleasant sounding than "tape
compression." Unless something's broken, these are usually at a pretty
low level so they contribute hundredths of a percent toward THD, but
they can be more audible than a higher percentage of low order even
harmonics. There's a reason why people didn't like the digital sound for
many years. It's getting better for sure, but to say that distortion is
gone is simply incorrect.

> Any person who has taken apart a computer can pretty well maintain a
> DAW. I would be a little intimidates taking a big console apart.

How does a knowledge of taking apart a computer help you to maintain a
DAW? There are things that you can be done, as a matter of policy (not
maintenance) to keep a DAW running like not surfing the net during
breaks with the DAW computer. You can also not upgrade anything. But
installing a new software plug-in or updating a program or driver brings
a whole different set of problems than patching in a compressor or
replacing an IC.

There really is no way to compare maintenance tasks. However, people who
are good with hardware maintenance generally have a fair amount of
practical experience as well as some book learning. They know how to
trace down a problem and can fix it and know it's fixed. When the DAW
starts acting funny, what's your first step? And second step? Is it
based on actual knowledge and experience, or are you just doing
something you think might help, like re-install a driver, or try to back
out an update.

> A DAW, I think, is less specialized than a standard tape/cabling
> /console studio.

Agreed, and that's what makes keeping it up and running more difficult.
It's harder to know what's changed to make it break, and harder to point
to a problem that you can fix. ,

> I don't find that I have many software problems. But I use old
> versions when I can.

You can't get away with that in a busy commercial operation.

> POR QUE?????? I never go above three retakes in one
> 24 hour day. It is a waste of time.

I agree, but the customer is always right.

> It's simple to delete files.

But most people don't. You never know when there might be something
there that you can use.

> The cost should be negligible. Sadly, backup is very poorly understood
> at all.

What's your strategy?

> I have ... maybe half a TB of multitracks laying around. If I did a
> three-level backup scheme ( daily, weekly, quarterly ) with the proper
> NAS appliance plus something for offsite, the cost of media would be
> about $600 in terms of actual media ( assume I could fully depreciate
> the NAS appliance ).

But do you do that?

> So when I run a 4-hour ( 3 hours of material including intersong
> futzing ) gig recording, 16 tracks, it usually takes less than 8 hours
> to get all the transfers, level diving and mix stood up. Usually,
> there's not a lot of level diving.

> I figure an album should take two days at most from start to finish,
> with a prepared set of performers.

I, too, have the luxury of doing sessions like that, but there aren't
many of us. Othewise, where would Mix magazine get people to write about?

> By experiment, I have established that bar bands will not cough up
> $500 for a recording of a four-hour gig. They will spend (much)
> more than that to "go to a studio" - which is an experience as well
> as a way to get a recording.

They may also spend many times more than that to assemble their own
"studio." That's good for business, but not the studio business.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/21/2013 1:34 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>>> There's almost always less THD but digital systems bring forms of
>>> distortion that analog systems don't have, some of which can be
>>> annoying.
>
>> The only one I can think of is 0dBFS problems, so don't do that.
>
> That's a biggie which is preventable. But there are converters that
> generate harmonics that are much less pleasant sounding than "tape
> compression." Unless something's broken, these are usually at a pretty
> low level so they contribute hundredths of a percent toward THD, but
> they can be more audible than a higher percentage of low order even
> harmonics.

Current ones? Not that old ones won't be in use, but still.

There's a reason why people didn't like the digital sound for
> many years. It's getting better for sure, but to say that distortion is
> gone is simply incorrect.
>
>> Any person who has taken apart a computer can pretty well maintain a
>> DAW. I would be a little intimidates taking a big console apart.
>
> How does a knowledge of taking apart a computer help you to maintain a
> DAW? There are things that you can be done, as a matter of policy (not
> maintenance) to keep a DAW running like not surfing the net during
> breaks with the DAW computer. You can also not upgrade anything. But
> installing a new software plug-in or updating a program or driver brings
> a whole different set of problems than patching in a compressor or
> replacing an IC.
>

That's why I said "take a computer apart" - usually people who can do
that can update drivers.

> There really is no way to compare maintenance tasks. However, people who
> are good with hardware maintenance generally have a fair amount of
> practical experience as well as some book learning. They know how to
> trace down a problem and can fix it and know it's fixed. When the DAW
> starts acting funny, what's your first step? And second step?

Mine just doesn't.

> Is it
> based on actual knowledge and experience, or are you just doing
> something you think might help, like re-install a driver, or try to back
> out an update.
>

The latter. This, of course, after you reboot.

>> A DAW, I think, is less specialized than a standard tape/cabling
>> /console studio.
>
> Agreed, and that's what makes keeping it up and running more difficult.

Less specialized means more people are semi familiar
with what's what. I'd say that makes it easier.

> It's harder to know what's changed to make it break, and harder to point
> to a problem that you can fix. ,
>
>> I don't find that I have many software problems. But I use old
>> versions when I can.
>
> You can't get away with that in a busy commercial operation.
>

I have no idea why that might be - what I have just works.

>> POR QUE?????? I never go above three retakes in one
>> 24 hour day. It is a waste of time.
>
> I agree, but the customer is always right.
>

Feh.

>> It's simple to delete files.
>
> But most people don't. You never know when there might be something
> there that you can use.
>

No. Delete it unless somebody specifically asks that it
be kept. Trust me on this.

>> The cost should be negligible. Sadly, backup is very poorly understood
>> at all.
>
> What's your strategy?
>

Right now, a "backup server" that is off the power grid when it's not
active and a USB drive that gets cycled every three years.

The backup server is an old PC, and not a proper NAS appliance w/ raid
and all that. It could be; I just haven't.

>> I have ... maybe half a TB of multitracks laying around. If I did a
>> three-level backup scheme ( daily, weekly, quarterly ) with the proper
>> NAS appliance plus something for offsite, the cost of media would be
>> about $600 in terms of actual media ( assume I could fully depreciate
>> the NAS appliance ).
>
> But do you do that?
>

Not all of it. Offsite is a problem right now.

>> So when I run a 4-hour ( 3 hours of material including intersong
>> futzing ) gig recording, 16 tracks, it usually takes less than 8 hours
>> to get all the transfers, level diving and mix stood up. Usually,
>> there's not a lot of level diving.
>
> > I figure an album should take two days at most from start to finish,
> > with a prepared set of performers.
>
> I, too, have the luxury of doing sessions like that, but there aren't
> many of us. Othewise, where would Mix magazine get people to write about?
>

I've done it with part time performers, people with day jobs. If you
go too long, the process will kill the project.

>> By experiment, I have established that bar bands will not cough up
>> $500 for a recording of a four-hour gig. They will spend (much)
>> more than that to "go to a studio" - which is an experience as well
>> as a way to get a recording.
>
> They may also spend many times more than that to assemble their own
> "studio." That's good for business, but not the studio business.
>

Yes.

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

> Back in the day, I used to really enjoy my Canon A1 35mm SLR, but
> things have really changed since then and I'm way out of practice.

Why do you think you're out of practice? The basic aesthetic and technical
aspects of photography haven't changed in 150+ years. Everything you learned
with you’re A-1 applies to a DSLR.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2013 6:44 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:

>> That's a biggie which is preventable. But there are converters that
>> generate harmonics that are much less pleasant sounding than "tape
>> compression."

> Current ones? Not that old ones won't be in use, but still.

Older converters didn't sound as good as modern ones because the filters
introduced a whole lot of phase shift at high frequencies. But modern
converters, even higher end ones, aren't immune to "birdies." Take a
look at the noise spectrum in my review of the Focusrite Forte. There's
a spike at around 10 kHz. I'll probably post my review of the Cymatic
LR-16 over the weekend and you can see some interesting harmonics of a 1
kHz tone in that one. Objectively speaking, I don't have any complaints
about the sound of either of these units, but I'll bet some golden ears
would detect something a little off.

> That's why I said "take a computer apart" - usually people who can do
> that can update drivers.

Oh, updating drivers is a no-brainer. Anybody can do that. Smart people
don't update drivers during a work session, though, so you do it when
you're not using the gear for anything important. And you probably don't
really test it after you update the driver other than to assure that it
still passes audio. But the next time you use it you notice that it
doesn't sound right, or maybe it mutes and clicks. Will you remember
that you updated the driver? Do you know how to remove it and re-install
the last one to see if that fixes the problem? Not all of them are as
easy as they should be to remove. And if you do manage to get the old
driver installed (or think you have) and it still burps and farts, what
do you do next? I can take a computer apart, but now and then I've
wasted a lot of time trying to fix a problem when I don't know what
caused it and don't have any way of looking inside to see what's not
happening. Maybe skilled computer techs do, but they probably get paid
more than me.

>> When the DAW starts acting funny, what's your first step? And second step?

> Mine just doesn't.

You've either been very lucky or you're very careful and very
conservative. Most people don't have that kind of discipline, and most
people don't have a computer that they dedicated to DAW use which they
never update once it's working.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/21/2013 6:44 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>>> That's a biggie which is preventable. But there are converters that
>>> generate harmonics that are much less pleasant sounding than "tape
>>> compression."
>
>> Current ones? Not that old ones won't be in use, but still.
>
> Older converters didn't sound as good as modern ones because the filters
> introduced a whole lot of phase shift at high frequencies. But modern
> converters, even higher end ones, aren't immune to "birdies." Take a
> look at the noise spectrum in my review of the Focusrite Forte. There's
> a spike at around 10 kHz.

That's kind of where you'd expect one. This being said, it's moderatly
appalling that they'd release it like that.

I do not recall any artifacts at all on the VF16 I/O. But it's been a
while since I did that.

> I'll probably post my review of the Cymatic
> LR-16 over the weekend and you can see some interesting harmonics of a 1
> kHz tone in that one. Objectively speaking, I don't have any complaints
> about the sound of either of these units, but I'll bet some golden ears
> would detect something a little off.
>

Maybe. You never know.

>> That's why I said "take a computer apart" - usually people who can do
>> that can update drivers.
>
> Oh, updating drivers is a no-brainer. Anybody can do that. Smart people
> don't update drivers during a work session, though, so you do it when
> you're not using the gear for anything important.

Right.

> And you probably don't
> really test it after you update the driver other than to assure that it
> still passes audio.

I test audio, I test MIDI, I connect it to the VF16 and make sure
MTC/SMPTE sync still works both ways...

There were a couple of weeks where I did a lot of deinstall/reinstall
cycles on the Terratec card. And the 64 bit drivers have bugs; the
second MIDI port don't work and you have to record everything 24 bit.

So I wrote a utility to convert to 16 bit and normalize to -25dBRMS at
the same time. Piece of cake. Makes mixing very nearly trivial, too.

> But the next time you use it you notice that it
> doesn't sound right, or maybe it mutes and clicks. Will you remember
> that you updated the driver? Do you know how to remove it and re-install
> the last one to see if that fixes the problem?

Absolutely.

> Not all of them are as
> easy as they should be to remove.

It's all good in Device Manager. I've had to physically
remove whatever was being "driven" , then put it back
in ( with the appropriate number of power up/down cycles at
the right places )

> And if you do manage to get the old
> driver installed (or think you have) and it still burps and farts, what
> do you do next? I can take a computer apart, but now and then I've
> wasted a lot of time trying to fix a problem when I don't know what
> caused it and don't have any way of looking inside to see what's not
> happening. Maybe skilled computer techs do, but they probably get paid
> more than me.
>

Nobody's that good. If you can't fix it, you just can't. But
that has never happened to me personally.

I have had to resort to a "restore" on a Doze machine
exactly once. And that was my fault. 'Course, with XP, you had to
reinstall once a year anyway.

>>> When the DAW starts acting funny, what's your first step? And second
>>> step?
>
>> Mine just doesn't.
>
> You've either been very lucky or you're very careful and very
> conservative.

I dunno. I still use a PCI card. I've stuck with n-Track 3.0, which
was released a looooong time ago. By the time I got done with Win95
lo those many years ago, I had a pretty good feel for what can go wrong
in Windows.

The biggest revelation was: my crashes were coming from *plugins*.
I figured out how to use this one Sonar demo to diagnose those,
and have had little or no trouble since.

Yeah, I have to reinstall n-track about twice a year ( it steps
on its own metadata ) but it's not too bad.

Sonar is a whole lot better. I have found nothing to
match n-track for workflow, though.

> Most people don't have that kind of discipline, and most
> people don't have a computer that they dedicated to DAW use which they
> never update once it's working.
>

I surf on this machine, develop software on it,
do all kind of stuff. No problem, mon.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2013 9:04 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> So I wrote a utility to convert to 16 bit and normalize to -25dBRMS at
> the same time. Piece of cake. Makes mixing very nearly trivial, too.

That might be a piece of cake for you, but I wouldn't have a clue as to
where to start. Shall we start a poll? Who else reading this would whip
off a solution like this?

But I realize that there are folks here who wouldn't have a clue beyond
looking for a blown fuse if a piece of gear didn't turn on.

> I have had to resort to a "restore" on a Doze machine
> exactly once. And that was my fault. 'Course, with XP, you had to
> reinstall once a year anyway.

I've been using Windows XP for many years. It's on five out of the six
computers around here, three of which are connected to the Internet and
are powered up full time. I've never had to re-install the operating
system. On the other hand, when I was setting up a Windows 7 computer
(so I could test things with Pro Tools 10) I screwed up something so
that I no longer had access to several folders over the network. I found
several descriptions of that problem on the 'net, tried all the
solutions, none of which worked. So I re-instaaled Win7, starting with
formatting the drive. But I had no idea how to actually troubleshoot it
other than the obvious re-setting permissions to files or folders, which
promptly got put back the way Windows seemed to want them.

> I dunno. I still use a PCI card. I've stuck with n-Track 3.0, which
> was released a looooong time ago. By the time I got done with Win95
> lo those many years ago, I had a pretty good feel for what can go wrong
> in Windows.

Sounds to me like you have (or should have) a static, dedicated system.
Gook luck keeping the hardware for as long as you want to use it. I,
too, have a PCI audio card in my main studio computer, but fortunately
it's still supported by the manufacturer after about 10 years (Lynx L22)
and I've been able use that card from Win98 through XP, and probably to
Win7 or 8 if I want. But the Turtle Beach and Music Quest cards that I
had in the Win98 version of the computer are useless under XP.

> Yeah, I have to reinstall n-track about twice a year ( it steps
> on its own metadata ) but it's not too bad.

Imagine how I'd feel if I had to replace my recorder or console about
twice a year! It sounds like you're using a program that's not very well
written (I suppose you could say the same about Windows XP, but what're
ya gonna do?) and tolerating it. If my mixer failed a couple of times a
year, I'd find out what's broken and fix it. Then it wouldn't still be
broken.

> Sonar is a whole lot better. I have found nothing to
> match n-track for workflow, though.

So you're trading interruptions in your work flow to fix the program for
a work flow that you prefer. I won't argue with your choice, but it
seems kind of silly to me. I acknowledge the major disruption in work
flow, though, when trying to find and learn a new program. I suppose
that the decision is largely influenced by how much work you actually
need to accomplish and how much time you have to devote to it. Putting
up with broken tools is OK for hobbyists who enjoy, or at least don't
mind fixing them.

You are indeed an exception. Don't call your seeming success typical of
a DAW user.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/21/2013 9:04 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> So I wrote a utility to convert to 16 bit and normalize to -25dBRMS
>> at the same time. Piece of cake. Makes mixing very nearly trivial,
>> too.
>
> That might be a piece of cake for you, but I wouldn't have a clue as
> to where to start. Shall we start a poll? Who else reading this would
> whip off a solution like this?
>
Since you asked... I could. It only takes a fairly trivial piece of code to
do this kind of conversion, unless you have to deal with somebody's
proprietary file format.

>> I dunno. I still use a PCI card. I've stuck with n-Track 3.0, which
>> was released a looooong time ago. By the time I got done with Win95
>> lo those many years ago, I had a pretty good feel for what can go
>> wrong in Windows.
>
> Sounds to me like you have (or should have) a static, dedicated
> system.
>
Well, I think you've hit on a very important issue, here. My DAW is not on
line. It does not have the capacity to surf the web, do word processing,
spreadsheets or any other task unrelated to media production. It's a tool
that, aside from adding larger hard drives, has been basically unchanged for
over a decade. In those regards, it is not significantly different from a
completely analog recording and editing system. So, perhaps the problem is
not so much the hardware, but the way the user relates to it?
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Ron C > wrote:
>>
>Note that the Canon EOS t3 series has a 14 bit per channel
>dynamic range in RAW mode. Adding a +/- 3 stop bracket then
>gives a 20 bit HDR dynamic range. Too bad prints only have
>about 5 bits (5 stops) of dynamic range.

Well, you can get about 7 stops from a really good silver-gelatin print,
although 5 stops is more realistic for mass-produced stuff. I suspect some
of the multi-layer Epson photo printers come very close to the range of a
silver print; they do very black blacks. And of course you can do far more
with a transparency projection.

BUT... the ability to fit 14 stops of range into a 5 stop print is the key
to the whole nonlinear transform that you get with the H-D curve of your
film or with the combination of the sensor design and post-production filtering
in the digital world.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/21/2013 9:04 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> So I wrote a utility to convert to 16 bit and normalize to -25dBRMS at
>> the same time. Piece of cake. Makes mixing very nearly trivial, too.
>
> That might be a piece of cake for you, but I wouldn't have a clue as to
> where to start. Shall we start a poll? Who else reading this would whip
> off a solution like this?
>

I can't believe it's that magickal. It's a relatively small 'C' program.
It depends on libsndfile, but it's not difficult.

Having all the tracks be same RMS level seems extremely useful.
Most of the stuff I've dealt with, pushing the faders to zero,
then re-equing things a bit* will make for a fair default mix.

*bit of rising top on the overheads, some 100Hz on the kik and bass,
a little 1000Hz bandpass on some other things as needed. Strap a spike
catcher on the mix buss ( I use GMax ) and reverb to taste.

If I was sending to a mastering engineer, I'd pull the spike catcher.


> But I realize that there are folks here who wouldn't have a clue beyond
> looking for a blown fuse if a piece of gear didn't turn on.
>
>> I have had to resort to a "restore" on a Doze machine
>> exactly once. And that was my fault. 'Course, with XP, you had to
>> reinstall once a year anyway.
>
> I've been using Windows XP for many years. It's on five out of the six
> computers around here, three of which are connected to the Internet and
> are powered up full time. I've never had to re-install the operating
> system.


I got to to using a registry cleaner the last couple years with the XP
machine and it didn't seem to need reinstalls any more.

>On the other hand, when I was setting up a Windows 7 computer
> (so I could test things with Pro Tools 10) I screwed up something so
> that I no longer had access to several folders over the network. I found
> several descriptions of that problem on the 'net, tried all the
> solutions, none of which worked. So I re-instaaled Win7, starting with
> formatting the drive. But I had no idea how to actually troubleshoot it
> other than the obvious re-setting permissions to files or folders, which
> promptly got put back the way Windows seemed to want them.
>

You basically turn all the new stuff off of Win7 and then it does the
old XP file sharing thing. Win7 has "homegroups"; turn that off and
just use "workgroups", which I presume is more or less the same since
Win311.

>> I dunno. I still use a PCI card. I've stuck with n-Track 3.0, which
>> was released a looooong time ago. By the time I got done with Win95
>> lo those many years ago, I had a pretty good feel for what can go wrong
>> in Windows.
>
> Sounds to me like you have (or should have) a static, dedicated system.

Mostly. I do use it for other things.

> Gook luck keeping the hardware for as long as you want to use it.


It's been fine so far. The old XP machine is still there - it's the
backup server.

I went Win7 for the wrong reasons - you basically could no longer
use XP on a single processor to watch Netflix after they "upgraded"
Silverlight. It stopped using video cards, either to force sale of
machines or to close some perceived hole in the intellectual property
stream.

> I,
> too, have a PCI audio card in my main studio computer, but fortunately
> it's still supported by the manufacturer after about 10 years (Lynx L22)
> and I've been able use that card from Win98 through XP,

Yep - same here.

> and probably to
> Win7 or 8 if I want. But the Turtle Beach and Music Quest cards that I
> had in the Win98 version of the computer are useless under XP.
>
>> Yeah, I have to reinstall n-track about twice a year ( it steps
>> on its own metadata ) but it's not too bad.
>
> Imagine how I'd feel if I had to replace my recorder or console about
> twice a year!

This is more like a power on reset of a digital console. There is a
"revert to defaults" option but I've never used it. Because Win95
was so unstable, I have a process sheet for reinstalling n-track
that takes less than thirty minutes.

Since real consoles don't have memory, there's no good analogy.

> It sounds like you're using a program that's not very well
> written (I suppose you could say the same about Windows XP, but what're
> ya gonna do?)

Exactly. This is a path dependence problem - I started with n-track
before 2.0 because it had the workflow and features.

> and tolerating it. If my mixer failed a couple of times a
> year, I'd find out what's broken and fix it. Then it wouldn't still be
> broken.
>

Subsequent releases of n-track don't always fix bugs. I *should* cut
over to Sonar, but I just haven't. It would be more trouble than the
occasional reinstall.

>> Sonar is a whole lot better. I have found nothing to
>> match n-track for workflow, though.
>
> So you're trading interruptions in your work flow to fix the program for
> a work flow that you prefer. I won't argue with your choice, but it
> seems kind of silly to me.

It may well be.

> I acknowledge the major disruption in work
> flow, though, when trying to find and learn a new program.

Right. I can't really tell how much that will "cost".

> I suppose
> that the decision is largely influenced by how much work you actually
> need to accomplish and how much time you have to devote to it.


It's been less and less every year for both.

> Putting
> up with broken tools is OK for hobbyists who enjoy, or at least don't
> mind fixing them.
>

I am certainly not trying to make this a commercial venture. People
respond to utilization of real estate, not results or being able
to have minimal impact.

I've got a collection of fairly lousy mics that are good enough for
recording bar bands. Since there's no cash flow, that's where it ends.

> You are indeed an exception. Don't call your seeming success typical of
> a DAW user.
>
>

That's entirely possible.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/22/2013 11:35 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

>> On 6/21/2013 9:04 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> So I wrote a utility to convert to 16 bit and normalize to -25dBRMS
>>> at the same time. Piece of cake. Makes mixing very nearly trivial,
>>> too.

> Since you asked... I could. It only takes a fairly trivial piece of code to
> do this kind of conversion, unless you have to deal with somebody's
> proprietary file format.

OK, what do you do for a living? To me, no code is trivial since DOS
batch files. I don't know any languages. It's not part of my skill set.

> Well, I think you've hit on a very important issue, here. My DAW is not on
> line. It does not have the capacity to surf the web, do word processing,
> spreadsheets or any other task unrelated to media production. It's a tool
> that, aside from adding larger hard drives, has been basically unchanged for
> over a decade.

This is not typical of a computer-based DAW. I could say the same about
what I use for multitrack recording - a Mackie HDR24/96. It has a
Celeron motherboard and I could run Windows on it if I wanted to, but as
a recorder, it runs a proprietary operating system and application, has
24 channels of audio I/O (also proprietary), time code sync, and a
control panel that looks and feels like an analog recorder. You can't
get any updates or additions from anyone but Mackie, and they
discontinued support more than 5 years ago.

The upside is that it still does what it did when I got it. The downside
is that the operating system is dedicated to a specific purpose and set
of hardware. Even though it uses some standard PC components, drivers
aren't called by the OS, they're compiled in, so I can't even replace
the graphics card with a modern one.

>In those regards, it is not significantly different from a
> completely analog recording and editing system. So, perhaps the problem is
> not so much the hardware, but the way the user relates to it?

True. But most of today's users want to use the computer that they
already have for audio applications to save money, and want to be able
to take advantage of new programs and accessories. They don't want to be
limited by a closed (and, sadly, obsolete) closed system. I'm perfectly
happy living with those limitations on the Mackie recorder, though I
have a number of different DAW programs loaded on to other computers
here. When it comes do doing real work, I depend on the Mackie and
clientele that don't expect miracles.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/22/2013 6:02 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> I could say the same
>> about what I use for multitrack recording - a Mackie HDR24/96.
>> The upside is that it still does what it did when I got it. The
>> downside is that the operating system is dedicated to a specific
>> purpose and set of hardware.

> And, I don't see that as a down side at all. If your purpose changes such
> that it is no longer met by the device, that's a different issue. But, as
> long as what you're doing falls within its capabilities, then it only has to
> keep doing what it did when you got it.

That's the downside. It's a commercial computer at hear and that won't
live forever. Components fail and replacements aren't available. Because
the software is compiled for specific hardware, and in fact for a
specific motherboard that has a particular port arrangement, you can't
keep it going by replacing the original hardware with what's currently
available. If the motherboard dies, I can't run down to Micro Center,
pick up a new motherboard, and drop it in as I could for, say, a 5 year
old PC. The software won't run on it.

If the source code was available, it still probably wouldn't help
because it's not written on the model where there are driver modules
called by the operating system when the software needs to talk to a
hardware device.

Have you tried dropping a modern motherboard in your DAW computer and
running your old software? When I was looking for laptop computer to use
as a portable DAW, all I could find at the time were ones that came with
Windows 7 installed. I asked if I could re-format the drive and install
XP on it, and didn't get much encouragement. Mostly the wisdom (net
wisdom, for what it's worth) was that WinXP wasn't aware of some of the
hardware used in the computer. Even if a driver could be downloaded from
the computer maker's web site, it wouldn't necessarily work with XP
because it was designed for a computer that was delivered with Win7. I
didn't pursue it.

> Most of the DAW programs that I've used are much deeper than the folks I've
> seen using them. That's why I can really appreciate the few around r.a.p.
> that, like myself, see little reason to "upgrade" to some app requiring an
> extensive learning curve just to break even with previous capabilities.

Sure, there are those who will jump on to the latest update to the
program they're using, and perhaps try different programs. Some do that
simply to have the most supportable version should they need support.
Others stick with what works for as long as they can. But when they
change computers _for whatever reason_ their old software or hardware
may not be supported on the new machine. I have a Thinkpad from about
2004 that has a PCMCIA slot. I have a Firewire adapter in that format
that allows me to use my Firewire connected audio interfaces. But its
replacement (I wanted something lighter to carry) has only USB to
connect to the outside world. If I wanted Firewire support on a new
computer that I could buy today, my choices would be very limited.

Software may never wear out, but hardware does, And there's no guarantee
that old software will run with new hardware.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/22/2013 11:35 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>>> On 6/21/2013 9:04 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> So I wrote a utility to convert to 16 bit and normalize to -25dBRMS
>>>> at the same time. Piece of cake. Makes mixing very nearly trivial,
>>>> too.
>
>> Since you asked... I could. It only takes a fairly trivial piece of
>> code to do this kind of conversion, unless you have to deal with
>> somebody's proprietary file format.
>
> OK, what do you do for a living?
>
I own a technical publishing company, which, in part, requires that I write
data conversion utilities that are far more intricate than reducing the bit
depth and amplitude level of a WAV file.

>> Well, I think you've hit on a very important issue, here. My DAW is
>> not on line. It does not have the capacity to surf the web, do word
>> processing, spreadsheets or any other task unrelated to media
>> production. It's a tool that, aside from adding larger hard drives,
>> has been basically unchanged for over a decade.
>
> This is not typical of a computer-based DAW.
>
It was, before computer-based DAWs were implemented on general-purpose
computers, and since I'm of that era, that is still my orientation toward
them. Make it work, then use it. Change it only if it doesn't work.

> I could say the same
> about what I use for multitrack recording - a Mackie HDR24/96. It has
> a Celeron motherboard and I could run Windows on it if I wanted to,
> but as a recorder, it runs a proprietary operating system and
> application, has 24 channels of audio I/O (also proprietary), time
> code sync, and a control panel that looks and feels like an analog
> recorder. You can't get any updates or additions from anyone but
> Mackie, and they discontinued support more than 5 years ago.
>
> The upside is that it still does what it did when I got it. The
> downside is that the operating system is dedicated to a specific
> purpose and set of hardware.
>
And, I don't see that as a down side at all. If your purpose changes such
that it is no longer met by the device, that's a different issue. But, as
long as what you're doing falls within its capabilities, then it only has to
keep doing what it did when you got it.

>>In those regards, it is not significantly different from a
>> completely analog recording and editing system. So, perhaps the
>> problem is not so much the hardware, but the way the user relates to
>> it?
>
> True. But most of today's users want to use the computer that they
> already have for audio applications to save money, and want to be able
> to take advantage of new programs and accessories. They don't want to
> be limited by a closed (and, sadly, obsolete) closed system. I'm
> perfectly happy living with those limitations on the Mackie recorder,
> though I have a number of different DAW programs loaded on to other
> computers here. When it comes do doing real work, I depend on the
> Mackie and clientele that don't expect miracles.
>
Most of the DAW programs that I've used are much deeper than the folks I've
seen using them. That's why I can really appreciate the few around r.a.p.
that, like myself, see little reason to "upgrade" to some app requiring an
extensive learning curve just to break even with previous capabilities. Of
course, if your business is serving customers that walk through the door
with a wide variety of proprietary formats, then there is little choice, but
that is not a business that I'd find attractive. BTDT, gave it up *long*
ago. ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[High Plains Thumper[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> If the source code was available, it still probably wouldn't help
> because it's not written on the model where there are driver modules
> called by the operating system when the software needs to talk to a
> hardware device.

CP/M was like that. When I was younger, I patched the BIOS and modified
format and partitioning utilities for a CP/M 2.2 computer. After
converting a Z80A based Xerox 820-II to a 16/8 by adding an expansion
chassis with 8086 coprocessor board, I needed a hard disk. In the late
1980's, half height 5-1/4" 10 MB MFM hard disks were still pricey, so I
bought a used one from a friend. The only thing was this one had half
the number of heads but twice the number of cylinders, that the OEM
Shugart had.

I purchased the source listing for the BIOS, but had to disassemble the
utilities. Fortunately back then the software was originally written in
assembly, which made it fairly easy to disassemble. I would overwrite a
portion of code to jump to the end of the program, add the necessary
code, then jump back to continue. Then save the modified utility back to
disk. The hardware on an 8 bit computer was simpler too, to hack.

Moving on to 16 bit computers and higher level languages to write
systems software, unless someone has already done it and has step by
step instructions on how to, makes this type hacking not worth it, IMO.

--
George Hostler

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:52:03 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article >):

> It's not how complicated I think it is, but how complicated the neophyte
> perceives it as.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

All they have to do is to read the manual. It's all in there.

Yamaha also has some free general guides to both recording and PA sound on
their websites.

In my case, I just took a couple of weekend classes on Pro Tools 15 years ago
and got up to speed in less than a week. The rest of it just boils down to
experience, learning the shortcuts, and developing good judgement over time.
The difference between me and a neophyte is that I had already spent several
years in analog recording studios in the 1970s and 1980s, so making the jump
to digital wasn't that hard. A lot of stuff doesn't change, particularly
microphones and studio acoustics.

The Bruce Bartlett PRACTICAL RECORDING TECHNIQUE books aren't too bad, as is
David Huber's MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES and Bobby Owsinski's RECORDING
ENGINEER HANDBOOK. All three are reasonably up-to-date, but this is a
category that changes quickly, particularly in the concept of "in the box"
mixes done so much in the last five years.

--MFW

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/23/2013 8:29 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

> If one is stymied by that kind of problem, they probably shouldn't be
> building their own DAWs anyway, unless it really doesn't matter if it
> doesn't work.

I agree. We (with our recording engineer hat on) shouldn't be building
our own working tools. However, it seems that this is the way it's done.
I'm aware that one can buy a complete turnkey workstation based on a
computer and commercial software, but most users won't leave it alone
for very long.

It's human nature, peer pressure, and good marketing.

> Weren't you the one that posted links to new computers with ISA and PCI
> slots?

Yes, but as far as I can tell, that's just one option, from one source.
And it's a kind of pricey solution. On the other hand, I can put new
(stock, off-the-shelf) bearings in the capstan motor of my Ampex AG-440
and it'll run like new for another 30 years. However, I wouldn't expect
someone whose life revolves around computers to know how to do that, or
even know that it's possible.

It goes both ways.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/22/2013 6:02 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> I could say the same
>>> about what I use for multitrack recording - a Mackie HDR24/96.
>>> The upside is that it still does what it did when I got it. The
>>> downside is that the operating system is dedicated to a specific
>>> purpose and set of hardware.
>
>> And, I don't see that as a down side at all. If your purpose changes
>> such that it is no longer met by the device, that's a different
>> issue. But, as long as what you're doing falls within its
>> capabilities, then it only has to keep doing what it did when you
>> got it.
>
> That's the downside. It's a commercial computer at hear and that won't
> live forever. Components fail and replacements aren't available.
>
Nothing does. In the early '70's, I had a 4-track Ampex 300 and I could
easily get the parts to maintain it. By the late '70s, it was a botique
item. If I was still trying to use that deck today, I'd be spending more
time searching for parts than recording.

> Have you tried dropping a modern motherboard in your DAW computer and
> running your old software?
>
Sure. I did that kind of upgrade on it about 6 years ago. As long as the
motherboard has the slots for my cards, it is likely to be compatible with
the DAW's OS, and if so, it will run my apps.

> When I was looking for laptop computer to
> use as a portable DAW, all I could find at the time were ones that
> came with Windows 7 installed.
>
Laptops are like your Mackie in many ways, and are not very "upgradeable"...
they are what they are.

>> Most of the DAW programs that I've used are much deeper than the
>> folks I've seen using them. That's why I can really appreciate the
>> few around r.a.p. that, like myself, see little reason to "upgrade"
>> to some app requiring an extensive learning curve just to break even
>> with previous capabilities.
>
> Sure, there are those who will jump on to the latest update to the
> program they're using, and perhaps try different programs. Some do
> that simply to have the most supportable version should they need
> support. Others stick with what works for as long as they can. But
> when they change computers _for whatever reason_ their old software
> or hardware may not be supported on the new machine.
>
If one is stymied by that kind of problem, they probably shouldn't be
building their own DAWs anyway, unless it really doesn't matter if it
doesn't work.

> Software may never wear out, but hardware does, And there's no
> guarantee that old software will run with new hardware.
>
Weren't you the one that posted links to new computers with ISA and PCI
slots? I'd expect those to be compatible with the OSes that were around when
those configurations were common, and if so, they'll run the software that
ran on those OSes.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

High Plains Thumper > wrote:
>Moving on to 16 bit computers and higher level languages to write
>systems software, unless someone has already done it and has step by
>step instructions on how to, makes this type hacking not worth it, IMO.

Depends. Now we're living in a world where drivers can be modloaded in and
out of the kernel on the fly, which makes debugging a lot easier. The
driver interfaces are well-documented, even for Windows.

The problem today is that the hardware is invariably undocumented. In
the CP/M era, you'd buy an s-100 card from Godbout and it would come with
ten pages of "this device is at this address and you change it with his
jumper, here is where the control register is and the data register is offset
by two bytes." In the world of today, that information is usually not
available and it becomes a project of reverse-engineering to figure out
that stuff.

Writing drivers is easier than it has ever been, finding out what the
driver is supposed to do is far harder than it has been.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>>
>Nothing does. In the early '70's, I had a 4-track Ampex 300 and I could
>easily get the parts to maintain it. By the late '70s, it was a botique
>item. If I was still trying to use that deck today, I'd be spending more
>time searching for parts than recording.

Actually, thanks to the Internet, getting aftermarket parts for those
machines is pretty easy now. There is an active group of folks using the
300 and 350 machines as "q00l t00b pres" and some of them are discovering
that they can actually be used as tape machines. The Ampex User's Group
/ Ampex Mailing List does pretty well.

It's the newer stuff that people have trouble supporting. I can get parts
for fifty-year-old tape machines and thirty-year-old DEC minicomputers more
easily than getting parts for a five-year-old HP computer or a six-month-old
National Instruments product.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/23/2013 8:29 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> If one is stymied by that kind of problem, they probably shouldn't
>> be building their own DAWs anyway, unless it really doesn't matter
>> if it doesn't work.
>
> I agree. We (with our recording engineer hat on) shouldn't be building
> our own working tools. However, it seems that this is the way it's
> done.
>
That's the way it always was done, AFAICT. My Ampex 300's electronics had
been modified by the previous owner to provide sel-sync. Every studio I
worked in during the '60s had some hardware or other that was customized by
the owner. The move to computer technology didn't change the desire to have
things work the way we wanted.

>> Weren't you the one that posted links to new computers with ISA and
>> PCI slots?
>
> Yes, but as far as I can tell, that's just one option, from one
> source. And it's a kind of pricey solution.
>
It sounds like the cheapest of all possible solutions to me, since it
prolongs the life of specialized cards, improves overall system performance
by using more powerful CPUs and faster RAM, and eliminates the need to
undergo both the learning curve of new software and the inevitable debugging
that accompanies hardware that doesn't work the way the marketing department
implied that it would.
--
best regards,

Neil


On the other hand, I can
> put new (stock, off-the-shelf) bearings in the capstan motor of my
> Ampex AG-440 and it'll run like new for another 30 years. However, I
> wouldn't expect someone whose life revolves around computers to know
> how to do that, or even know that it's possible.
>
> It goes both ways.

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>
>> Nothing does. In the early '70's, I had a 4-track Ampex 300 and I
>> could easily get the parts to maintain it. By the late '70s, it was
>> a botique item. If I was still trying to use that deck today, I'd be
>> spending more time searching for parts than recording.
>
> Actually, thanks to the Internet, getting aftermarket parts for those
> machines is pretty easy now. There is an active group of folks using
> the 300 and 350 machines as "q00l t00b pres" and some of them are
> discovering that they can actually be used as tape machines. The
> Ampex User's Group / Ampex Mailing List does pretty well.
>
Even before the internet, the "botique types" maintained supplies of parts,
and some would make parts that were no longer available from old or NOS.
That's good news for collectors and such. I'm not a collector, though I
might be called an "accumulator", mainly by my wife. ;-D

> It's the newer stuff that people have trouble supporting. I can get
> parts for fifty-year-old tape machines and thirty-year-old DEC
> minicomputers more easily than getting parts for a five-year-old HP
> computer or a six-month-old National Instruments product.
>
The newer stuff is becoming more disposable than maintainable anyway. I
don't even bother trying to fool with surface-mount circuits.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> It's the newer stuff that people have trouble supporting. I can get
>> parts for fifty-year-old tape machines and thirty-year-old DEC
>> minicomputers more easily than getting parts for a five-year-old HP
>> computer or a six-month-old National Instruments product.
>>
>The newer stuff is becoming more disposable than maintainable anyway. I
>don't even bother trying to fool with surface-mount circuits.

That's a problem when something is down and everybody is pointing their
fingers at you and you're on the clock. If you can't fix it easily, you
have to keep backups and then backups for backups and that gets expensive
fast.

Stuff like mixing consoles used to be designed with multiple identical
sections. If you had one spare channel strip and one spare output module
or master module in the spares cabinet, you were set. But when everything
is run off of one master processor, you have to keep spares for every part
of the system.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
.com...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:52:03 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article >):

>> It's not how complicated I think it is, but how complicated
>> the neophyte perceives it as.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

> All they have to do is to read the manual. It's all in there.

I have to disagree. Manuals are sometimes missing important information. Even
if it's there, manuals are almost always badly written and poorly organized.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/23/2013 10:56 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

> Even before the internet, the "botique types" maintained supplies of parts,
> and some would make parts that were no longer available from old or NOS.

Ampex recorders weren't "boutique" before most people stopped recording
on to tape. They were just working tools for (mostly) professionals in
the field.

However, I was pleased to discover that I could get a newly made cursor
frame for my K&E Log Log Duplex slide rule when I took it out of its
case a few years back and found that part corroded beyond restoration.

> The newer stuff is becoming more disposable than maintainable anyway. I
> don't even bother trying to fool with surface-mount circuits.

People keep telling me that surface mount construction isn't any thing
to be afraid of, and in fact, it's easier and cleaner to remove a
surface mount IC than one with 16 leads sticking through holes in the
board. It's trickier to put them back, though. And without a drawing of
the board with callouts, you can easily get lost trying to trace through
a problem. You often can't tell a resistor from a capacitor and can
almost never tell the value by looking at it.

I don't mind throw-away design as long as I can get an exact or fully
equivalent replacement. But if I have to get a different graphics card
than the one that's been working in my computer for years and the new
card has drivers that work work with some older piece of software,
that's a problem. And that's just a simple example. If I need a new
memory module, I might not be able to get one slow enough for the CPU
bus unless I buy it from an antique computer parts scalper - and then
it's probably used.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/23/2013 10:29 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

>> I agree. We (with our recording engineer hat on) shouldn't be building
>> our own working tools. However, it seems that this is the way it's
>> done.

> That's the way it always was done, AFAICT. My Ampex 300's electronics had
> been modified by the previous owner to provide sel-sync. Every studio I
> worked in during the '60s had some hardware or other that was customized by
> the owner.

This is a little different. Most studio owners had a background, or at
least a passionate interest in electronics. And too, it's far easier to
modify an Ampex 300, which has wires that you can see, and a manual that
contains schematics, than it is to modify a DAW. You can actually
predict what will happen with a modification to hardware, but you never
know what will happen when you install an update to a program or a new
hardware component that has software to go along with it. And it's far
easier to test the hardware than the software if something doesn't come
out right.

> The move to computer technology didn't change the desire to have
> things work the way we wanted.

Correct - but it's less predictable that you'll be able to get it to
work the way you want it. And you may not have so many choices if you
need to compromise.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/23/2013 10:29 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>>> I agree. We (with our recording engineer hat on) shouldn't be
>>> building our own working tools. However, it seems that this is the
>>> way it's done.
>
>> That's the way it always was done, AFAICT. My Ampex 300's
>> electronics had been modified by the previous owner to provide
>> sel-sync. Every studio I worked in during the '60s had some hardware
>> or other that was customized by the owner.
>
> This is a little different. Most studio owners had a background, or at
> least a passionate interest in electronics. And too, it's far easier
> to modify an Ampex 300, which has wires that you can see, and a
> manual that contains schematics, than it is to modify a DAW. You can
> actually predict what will happen with a modification to hardware,
> but you never know what will happen when you install an update to a
> program or a new hardware component that has software to go along
> with it. And it's far easier to test the hardware than the software
> if something doesn't come out right.
>
It took a solid background in electronics and some real insights into
sel-sync to modify an Ampex 300 4-track to do that task well. I've said to
you for decades via the PC-DAW list and other venues that the knowledge base
required to build a good DAW is equally extensive. So, I don't see these as
being very different at all... I just know enough about both worlds to
appreciate the requirements. ;-)

>> The move to computer technology didn't change the desire to have
>> things work the way we wanted.
>
> Correct - but it's less predictable that you'll be able to get it to
> work the way you want it.
>
I fully agree, _if_ you're using a notebook as a starting point. But, I've
always used full-sized computers to build DAWs, and there is more than ample
information about the available components to make a predictable system, if
one has the requisite background in computer technology and programming.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> It's the newer stuff that people have trouble supporting. I can get
>>> parts for fifty-year-old tape machines and thirty-year-old DEC
>>> minicomputers more easily than getting parts for a five-year-old HP
>>> computer or a six-month-old National Instruments product.
>>>
>> The newer stuff is becoming more disposable than maintainable
>> anyway. I don't even bother trying to fool with surface-mount
>> circuits.
>
> That's a problem when something is down and everybody is pointing
> their fingers at you and you're on the clock. If you can't fix it
> easily, you have to keep backups and then backups for backups and
> that gets expensive fast.
>
> Stuff like mixing consoles used to be designed with multiple identical
> sections. If you had one spare channel strip and one spare output
> module or master module in the spares cabinet, you were set. But
> when everything is run off of one master processor, you have to keep
> spares for every part of the system.
>
Well, "expensive" is relative, no? It's a lot cheaper to have a spare
digital mixer or two in the closet than some channel strips I've seen. It's
also a lot quicker to get back to where you were by swapping them out rather
than troubleshooting, since the configuration and status may be transferred
instantly if the mixer stored that info externally or on a removable medium.
The onus is on the studio owner to take such things into consideration when
setting up their operation.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>This is a little different. Most studio owners had a background, or at
>least a passionate interest in electronics. And too, it's far easier to
>modify an Ampex 300, which has wires that you can see, and a manual that
>contains schematics, than it is to modify a DAW. You can actually
>predict what will happen with a modification to hardware, but you never
>know what will happen when you install an update to a program or a new
>hardware component that has software to go along with it. And it's far
>easier to test the hardware than the software if something doesn't come
>out right.

And this is what I find so alarming. 30 years ago, it was very common for
studios to have completely custom mixing consoles, because they wanted
something very specific to do one exact job. Why aren't people homebrewing
DAW system software like that today?

Machines are supposed to do what people tell them to do, not the other way
around.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/23/2013 10:00 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> 30 years ago, it was very common for
> studios to have completely custom mixing consoles, because they wanted
> something very specific to do one exact job. Why aren't people homebrewing
> DAW system software like that today?

DAWs are two complicated. People who home-brew software are making
iPhone apps. In terms of technical complexity, that's probably on the
same order as a mixing console, though it's a lot easier to build. If
DAWs were built from modules that were well documented, you could modify
a compressor or equalizer to work as you wanted it.

I'll bet somebody has open source plug-ins. Maybe there's a place to start.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/23/2013 10:00 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> 30 years ago, it was very common for
>> studios to have completely custom mixing consoles, because they wanted
>> something very specific to do one exact job. Why aren't people
>> homebrewing
>> DAW system software like that today?
>
> DAWs are two complicated. People who home-brew software are making
> iPhone apps. In terms of technical complexity, that's probably on the
> same order as a mixing console, though it's a lot easier to build. If
> DAWs were built from modules that were well documented, you could modify
> a compressor or equalizer to work as you wanted it.
>
The Steinberg VST plugin interface is documented well enough to do that,
and Audacity and its plugins are all open source. All you need is the
programming know-how.

> I'll bet somebody has open source plug-ins. Maybe there's a place to start.
>
>
There are a lot of free or open source plugins available for the
Steinberg VST interface. If you use Audacity (Open source) as a DAW, you
can use many VST plugins with it, but you lose most of the GUI for the
plugins. I've not tried it, but I think you may even find that VST
plugins will also work with the Linux version of Audacity.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Mike Rivers
> > wrote:
>>
>> This is a little different. Most studio owners had a background, or
>> at least a passionate interest in electronics. And too, it's far
>> easier to modify an Ampex 300, which has wires that you can see, and
>> a manual that contains schematics, than it is to modify a DAW. You
>> can actually predict what will happen with a modification to
>> hardware, but you never know what will happen when you install an
>> update to a program or a new hardware component that has software to
>> go along with it. And it's far easier to test the hardware than the
>> software if something doesn't come out right.
>
> And this is what I find so alarming. 30 years ago, it was very
> common for studios to have completely custom mixing consoles, because
> they wanted something very specific to do one exact job. Why aren't
> people homebrewing DAW system software like that today?
>
Some people do just that. But, how can studios afford to work that way in a
world where their clients are going to come in with 99 pre-recorded tracks
in a dozen different proprietary formats? The transition to this mode of
production probably began in the analog world, when clients brought their 4
and 8 pre-recorded tracks on 1/4" tape to the studio.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/23/2013 10:00 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> 30 years ago, it was very common for
>> studios to have completely custom mixing consoles, because they
>> wanted something very specific to do one exact job. Why aren't
>> people homebrewing DAW system software like that today?
>
> DAWs are two complicated. People who home-brew software are making
> iPhone apps. In terms of technical complexity, that's probably on the
> same order as a mixing console, though it's a lot easier to build. If
> DAWs were built from modules that were well documented, you could
> modify a compressor or equalizer to work as you wanted it.
>
If that concept was valued by those who buy DAWs, a lot more people would be
using CEP, since that is exactly what that DAW is about. But, most users
don't want to know enough about how a compressor (EQ, filters, etc.) works
to be able to use the excellent tool sets provided in that app. They'd
rather click on a pseudo-analog "button" or "knob" and hear something
different. In my view, that is not engineering in any sense of the word.

> I'll bet somebody has open source plug-ins. Maybe there's a place to
> start.
>
All of that kind of thing has existed for decades, going back to the
earliest versions of Cubase, Cakewalk, et al. Re-creating the wheel is
unlikely to bring about enlightenment.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> And this is what I find so alarming. 30 years ago, it was very
>> common for studios to have completely custom mixing consoles, because
>> they wanted something very specific to do one exact job. Why aren't
>> people homebrewing DAW system software like that today?
>>
>Some people do just that. But, how can studios afford to work that way in a
>world where their clients are going to come in with 99 pre-recorded tracks
>in a dozen different proprietary formats? The transition to this mode of
>production probably began in the analog world, when clients brought their 4
>and 8 pre-recorded tracks on 1/4" tape to the studio.

We already have that problem. It would be nice to see a rosetta stone package
that could convert between different DAW internal formats, or at least
translate to and from Pro Tools.

Pro Tools has become the 2" 24-track of the new millennium. But sometimes
people need to fly in tracks recorded elsewhere...
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>
>> Pro Tools has become the 2" 24-track of the new millennium. But
>> sometimes people need to fly in tracks recorded elsewhere...
>>
>Perhaps in its broad acceptance by studios, but, a 2" 24-track tape is more
>like a standard file format, since it is likely to be playable on different
>brands of machines.

That's sort of what I mean... if you go into a studio with your project
on a disk in Pro Tools format, they'll be able to read all the tracks and
all the metadata. It's become the standard format that people store their
projects in, much the way that 2" 24-track was equally interchangeable between
studios.

Agreed that there were more than a dozen companies making 2" machines from
Aces to Studer but only one company makes a DAW that can use Pro Tools format
files natively, and I think that's a bad thing for the industry at large.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[polymod]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

Trevor wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tried an Android tablet yet? No manuals and little consistency
>> between the
>> basic functions of apps make it a "poke and stroke" environment
>
> Shouldn't that be poke and hope?
>
>> ("why would a user want or need to exit an app???"). 8-D
>
> Sadly many such concepts are completely unknown by most users. And
> nobody seems to know or care what personal information they are
> freely giving away. Most Android apps make Google, Facebook etc. seem
> like bastions of privacy. Hell they even beat most malware on the PC,
> but unlike the PC you only get two choices, accept it or don't use
> one :-(
>
The intrusive nature of these apps and social media sites, along with cloud
computing, and other involuntary "donations" of private information make all
the ignorant hoopla about NSA collecting phone numbers a sad commentary on
our level of awareness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Couldn't have said it better Neil.

Poly

[S. King]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:34:55 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> "Marc Wielage" wrote in message
> .com...
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:52:03 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote (in
> article >):
>
>>> It's not how complicated I think it is, but how complicated the
>>> neophyte perceives it as.
>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>
>> All they have to do is to read the manual. It's all in there.
>
> I have to disagree. Manuals are sometimes missing important information.
> Even if it's there, manuals are almost always badly written and poorly
> organized.

Are you disagreeing in the specific, that the manual that Marc referred to
is not as Marc described it, or are you just taking an opportunity to flog
the same old horse. You say, "Manuals are sometimes missing important
information." That says to me that sometimes manuals do not miss
important information. You say, "Manuals are almost always badly written
and poorly organized." That says to me that sometimes manuals are well
written and properly organized. Well, where is the news in that? My
impression is that you want us all to know that you know how to write
manuals and, essentially, no one else does. Is that your point?

Steve King

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>> And this is what I find so alarming. 30 years ago, it was very
>>> common for studios to have completely custom mixing consoles,
>>> because they wanted something very specific to do one exact job.
>>> Why aren't people homebrewing DAW system software like that today?
>>>
>> Some people do just that. But, how can studios afford to work that
>> way in a world where their clients are going to come in with 99
>> pre-recorded tracks in a dozen different proprietary formats? The
>> transition to this mode of production probably began in the analog
>> world, when clients brought their 4 and 8 pre-recorded tracks on
>> 1/4" tape to the studio.
>
> We already have that problem. It would be nice to see a rosetta
> stone package that could convert between different DAW internal
> formats, or at least translate to and from Pro Tools.
>
There used to be a number of such programs available for graphics apps,
spreadsheets, database formats and such, but recent changes in the law make
it illegal to reverse engineer applications' formats, so those programs are
history. I don't even think it will be possible for Pro Tools to provide the
capability to import other formats for the same reason. The best-case
scenario would be that Pro Tools and other apps use a standard format
instead of their own. How likely is that?

> Pro Tools has become the 2" 24-track of the new millennium. But
> sometimes people need to fly in tracks recorded elsewhere...
>
Perhaps in its broad acceptance by studios, but, a 2" 24-track tape is more
like a standard file format, since it is likely to be playable on different
brands of machines.
--
best regards,

Neil


--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/24/2013 10:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> It would be nice to see a rosetta stone package
> that could convert between different DAW internal formats, or at least
> translate to and from Pro Tools.

That has been talked about almost as long as there have been DAWs, and I
believe there's an AES Standards committee to define common metadata. So
far the best we have is the ability to import a broadcast wave file at
its time stamped position. The problem is with the data that defines
region boundaries, creates fades, and places markers. Then there are the
plug-ins. Every manufacturer thinks he has a better way of doing this
that they don't want others to copy.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> We already have that problem. It would be nice to see a rosetta stone package
> that could convert between different DAW internal formats, or at least
> translate to and from Pro Tools.

A few months ago I read in PRW of just that thing, from guys in
Australia. Will try to find a link when I get enough time to look.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[hank alrich]

hank alrich > wrote:

> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
> > We already have that problem. It would be nice to see a rosetta stone
> > package that could convert between different DAW internal formats, or at
> > least translate to and from Pro Tools.
>
> A few months ago I read in PRW of just that thing, from guys in
> Australia. Will try to find a link when I get enough time to look.

Got it:

http://www.aatranslator.com.au/

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[William Sommerwerck]

"S. King" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:34:55 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Marc Wielage" wrote in message
> .com...
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:52:03 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote (in
> article >):

>>> It's not how complicated I think it is, but how complicated the
>>> neophyte perceives it as.
>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

>>> All they have to do is to read the manual. It's all in there.

>> I have to disagree. Manuals are sometimes missing important information.
>> Even if it's there, manuals are almost always badly written and poorly
>> organized.

> Are you disagreeing in the specific, that the manual that Marc referred to
> is not as Marc described it, or are you just taking an opportunity to flog
> the same old horse. You say, "Manuals are sometimes missing important
> information." That says to me that sometimes manuals do not miss
> important information. You say, "Manuals are almost always badly written
> and poorly organized." That says to me that sometimes manuals are well
> written and properly organized. Well, where is the news in that? My
> impression is that you want us all to know that you know how to write
> manuals and, essentially, no one else does. Is that your point?

As it seems you want a rude response to a rude inquiry, I'll give it to you.

Yes.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/24/2013 1:33 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

> I understand what you mean, but to get a bit nit-picky, to become a standard
> format, a proprietary format would have to be put in the public domain.

It doesn't need to be in the public domain as long as it's available at
reasonable cost. But as long as they don't want the competition to
figure out what they're doing, they aren't going to open that door.

Mackie had an arrangement with Digidesign to import and export HDR24/96
files to Pro Tools, but I think that was only for as long as Pro Tools 5
and 6 lasted. I don't know of any other arrangements like this.

That Austrian company's product AATranslator that Hank mentioned seems
like it's not as universal as you'd like. If I'm interpreting the chart
correctly, it only translates Pro Tools sessions between versions of Pro
Tools. I suppose that's useful for some things, but it's hardly universal.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>
>>> Pro Tools has become the 2" 24-track of the new millennium. But
>>> sometimes people need to fly in tracks recorded elsewhere...
>>>
>> Perhaps in its broad acceptance by studios, but, a 2" 24-track tape
>> is more like a standard file format, since it is likely to be
>> playable on different brands of machines.
>
> That's sort of what I mean... if you go into a studio with your
> project on a disk in Pro Tools format, they'll be able to read all the
tracks
> and all the metadata. It's become the standard format that people store
> their projects in, much the way that 2" 24-track was equally
> interchangeable between studios.
>
I understand what you mean, but to get a bit nit-picky, to become a standard
format, a proprietary format would have to be put in the public domain.

> Agreed that there were more than a dozen companies making 2" machines
> from Aces to Studer but only one company makes a DAW that can use Pro
> Tools format files natively, and I think that's a bad thing for the
> industry at large.
>
I agree 100%.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>> And this is what I find so alarming. 30 years ago, it was very
>>> common for studios to have completely custom mixing consoles, because
>>> they wanted something very specific to do one exact job. Why aren't
>>> people homebrewing DAW system software like that today?
>>>
>> Some people do just that. But, how can studios afford to work that way in a
>> world where their clients are going to come in with 99 pre-recorded tracks
>> in a dozen different proprietary formats? The transition to this mode of
>> production probably began in the analog world, when clients brought their 4
>> and 8 pre-recorded tracks on 1/4" tape to the studio.
>
> We already have that problem. It would be nice to see a rosetta stone package
> that could convert between different DAW internal formats, or at least
> translate to and from Pro Tools.
>
> Pro Tools has become the 2" 24-track of the new millennium. But sometimes
> people need to fly in tracks recorded elsewhere...
> --scott
>
>

My understanding is that *tracks* export/import to/from .wav
and other PCM formats just fine.

So there ya go. If it's broadcast .wav, you
don't even lose the time offset.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/24/2013 1:33 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> I understand what you mean, but to get a bit nit-picky, to become a
>> standard
>> format, a proprietary format would have to be put in the public domain.
>
> It doesn't need to be in the public domain as long as it's available at
> reasonable cost.

It really does need to be in the public domain. At least it needs to
exist independent of whatever corporate entity owns all of ProTools
IP. What happens if a well-placed comet hits the right building?

That people don't scream for this dumbfounds me. That corporations think
proprietary formats are a competitive edge dumbfounds me even more.

But hey, the Photoshop people have gone to a subscription only
model.

> But as long as they don't want the competition to
> figure out what they're doing, they aren't going to open that door.
>

This is not rocket surgery. There very nearly cannot be *anything*
in there that cannot be understood by someone practiced in
the art.

> Mackie had an arrangement with Digidesign to import and export HDR24/96
> files to Pro Tools, but I think that was only for as long as Pro Tools 5
> and 6 lasted. I don't know of any other arrangements like this.
>

Right.

> That Austrian company's product AATranslator that Hank mentioned seems
> like it's not as universal as you'd like. If I'm interpreting the chart
> correctly, it only translates Pro Tools sessions between versions of Pro
> Tools. I suppose that's useful for some things, but it's hardly universal.
>
>
>

General "Buck" Turgidson: Sir, you can't let him in here. He'll see
everything. He'll see the big board!

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003295/quotes

--
Les Cargill

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/24/2013 1:33 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> I understand what you mean, but to get a bit nit-picky, to become a
>> standard format, a proprietary format would have to be put in the
>> public domain.
>
> It doesn't need to be in the public domain as long as it's available
> at reasonable cost. But as long as they don't want the competition to
> figure out what they're doing, they aren't going to open that door.
>
Sure, licensing agreements exist for this kind of thing, but while that will
work pretty well when you have an unchallengable market superiority, such as
exists for the PostScript language, it works less well when you just would
like to have such a position but really don't, such as exists for Pro Tools.
In other words, if you're going to professionally print a large number of
documents, you aren't likely to get around PostScript, but just about
anybody can prepare files for a CD.

> Mackie had an arrangement with Digidesign to import and export
> HDR24/96 files to Pro Tools, but I think that was only for as long as
> Pro Tools 5 and 6 lasted. I don't know of any other arrangements like
> this.
>
Hmm. Apparently, I don't understand the HDR24/96 very well. Do you do a lot
of editing with it, or just lay down tracks that get transferred to a DAW
for editing?

> That Austrian company's product AATranslator that Hank mentioned seems
> like it's not as universal as you'd like. If I'm interpreting the
> chart correctly, it only translates Pro Tools sessions between
> versions of Pro Tools. I suppose that's useful for some things, but
> it's hardly universal.
>
And, not at all surprising, except that I really don't understand the
mindset of a company that would require an external app to exchange the data
between versions of its own application.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Les Cargill wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And this is what I find so alarming. 30 years ago, it was very
>>>> common for studios to have completely custom mixing consoles,
>>>> because they wanted something very specific to do one exact job.
>>>> Why aren't people homebrewing DAW system software like that today?
>>>>
>>> Some people do just that. But, how can studios afford to work that
>>> way in a world where their clients are going to come in with 99
>>> pre-recorded tracks in a dozen different proprietary formats? The
>>> transition to this mode of production probably began in the analog
>>> world, when clients brought their 4 and 8 pre-recorded tracks on
>>> 1/4" tape to the studio.
>>
>> We already have that problem. It would be nice to see a rosetta
>> stone package that could convert between different DAW internal
>> formats, or at least translate to and from Pro Tools.
>>
>> Pro Tools has become the 2" 24-track of the new millennium. But
>> sometimes people need to fly in tracks recorded elsewhere...
>> --scott
>>
>>
>
> My understanding is that *tracks* export/import to/from .wav
> and other PCM formats just fine.
>
> So there ya go. If it's broadcast .wav, you
> don't even lose the time offset.
>
But, you *do* lose the editing information. That's the proprietary part, and
what would be useful for taking sessions between studios.
--
best regards,

Neil

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> My impression is that you want us all to know that you know how to
>> write manuals and, essentially, no one else does. Is that your
>> point?
>
> As it seems you want a rude response to a rude inquiry, I'll give it
> to you.
>
> Yes.

Yet again, you're wrong. More evidence that when you
claim to be always right, your head is up your asshole
so far you can see your back teeth. That's the whole
point of your tirades, isn't it? To show what an asshole
you are? You never seem to be able to back up your
****stains with any facts. I wonder how many people
refuse to hire you based on your inability to work with
other people, and how many simply google you and
discover that you're an insufferable asshole who never
admits that he's wrong.

Obviously, pretending that your always right is more
important to you than actually being right, and it's also
more important than your own reputation. I like how you
sneered about rudeness, after a long history of self-
aggrandizement, which is rude in itself.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> My impression is that you want us all to know that you know
>> how to write manuals and, essentially, no one else does.
>> Is that your point?

> As it seems you want a rude response to a rude inquiry,
> I'll give it to you.
> Yes.


> Yet again, you're wrong. More evidence that when you
> claim to be always right, your head is up your asshole
> so far you can see your back teeth.

Why do you lie? I have never, ever said I was always right. I've repeatedly
said I am almost always right.


> That's the whole point of your tirades, isn't it? To show what
> an asshole you are? You never seem to be able to back up your
> **** stains with any facts.

About what in particular? If you know nothing, and an explanation I give based
on what I consider generally understood principles makes no sense to you,
whose fault is it that you don't understand?


> I wonder how many people
> refuse to hire you based on your inability to work with
> other people, and how many simply Google you and
> discover that you're an insufferable asshole who never
> admits that he's wrong.

> Obviously, pretending that your always right is more
> important to you than actually being right, and it's also
> more important than your own reputation. I like how you
> sneered about rudeness, after a long history of self-
> aggrandizement, which is rude in itself.

Proverbs 26:5

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/24/2013 1:52 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

> My understanding is that *tracks* export/import to/from .wav
> and other PCM formats just fine.

That will get you the music as recorded, or if you render the tracks
before exporting them as WAV files, you'll get the edits and any
processing applied. But if the person receiving the track decides that
the compression is way too obvious and wants to try something else, he's
stuck. Or if he doesn't like an edit, he'll have to start from the raw
recordings and do it his way.

If he had the whole session file he could un-do anything he wanted to
change without starting from scratch.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/24/2013 1:59 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

> It really does need to be in the public domain. At least it needs to
> exist independent of whatever corporate entity owns all of ProTools
> IP. What happens if a well-placed comet hits the right building?

Same thing as if you have a disk crash. You do it over.

> That people don't scream for this dumbfounds me. That corporations think
> proprietary formats are a competitive edge dumbfounds me even more.

So use Ardour.

> This is not rocket surgery. There very nearly cannot be *anything*
> in there that cannot be understood by someone practiced in
> the art.

I can't argue with that because I don't write software of any kind. I
also don't see how it's such a big deal to have exactly the same fade
curve as someone else used, or the same equalizer or compressor. But
some people consider those things sacred once they've made what they
consider to be the final mix.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/24/2013 5:11 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

> Hmm. Apparently, I don't understand the HDR24/96 very well. Do you do a lot
> of editing with it, or just lay down tracks that get transferred to a DAW
> for editing?

It's about the most natural editor I've ever used. When I describe it
(which I won't) people tell me "Pro Tools works like that" - but it
doesn't. You can edit, do fades, repeats, and draw volume envelopes.
About the only thing you can't do that what's considered a "standard"
DAW can is run plug-ins.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Gray_Wolf]

On 20 Jun 2013 07:46:19 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


>Your job as an experienced user of cameras but a first-time user of this
>model is to figure out how to shut ALL the crap off and set it manually.
>You look at the scene, you can guess the exposure and where the shadows
>fall with respect to the highlights, you now just need to make the camera
>obey you.
>
>There should be a whole section in the front of the manual telling you how
>to set it up this way. Then, once you get the hang of doing that, then maybe
>later you can investigate the automated modes.


Somebody made the remark that we put up with all this auto crap just
to avoid learning about shutter speed, aperture and film speed?

[Gray_Wolf]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:26:12 +1000, "Trevor" > wrote:

>If you were happy with 110 at 48", or even 8x10" prints you can't be too
>bloody fussy! Any digital camera these days should beat that. Perhaps you
>mean 120?
>6x6cm slides certainly had quality IME :-)
>Never bought a 6x6 slide projector actually, but they printed well on
>Cibachrome, and I could cut them to fit 4x4cm supersize slide mounts to suit
>a 35mm projector when necessary.
>
>Trevor.

I cut my teeth on 120 film. I was at a camera show and at one point
they had a Hasselblad slide projector in use. Mind blowing image
quality. I was sure it had burned a hole in the wall.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> Like with recording equipment, and computers, and guns, and barbecue
> grills, the vast majority of the users are not professional or commercial
> users. But the problem with those users is that they think that if they
> have all the features the pros do, they can do professional-like work. So
> the cameras sold to the mass market have all the bells and whistles. It's
> up to the user to learn how to use them, and most don't bother. For them,
> there really should be a mode that just lets them take snapshots.

And which camera's don't have that these days?
The problem is simply the idiots don't know what to do when the auto mode is
not the best option, and blame the camera of course.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
>>> When I record with a DAW, I record just like it was
>>> tape. A tape with a blindingly fast rewind.
>>
>> And less noise, less ditortion, less wow, less flutter, less media cost,
>> less maintenance cost....... and the ability to edit easily IF you want
>> to
>> later.
>
> Some of those are arguable, so I'll argue.
>
> There's almost always less THD but digital systems bring forms of
> distortion that analog systems don't have, some of which can be annoying.

Go on, name them then?
(not for a 30 YO broken system though)


> It's hard to compare maintenance costs because both need maintenance.
> There's a difference in the knowledge, skills, and tools required for each
> one. People always talk about needing to align a tape deck before each
> session (you really don't have to but you can't ignore it either) but it
> really doesn't take long. Once you know how to do it and have the proper
> tools, it's a repeatable process. When something breaks, test equipment
> and a schematic can take you to the source of the problem pretty quickly.
> There's no repeatable process for troubleshooting a computer software
> problem, however, except perhaps to "do a complete re-install" and you
> can't easily test a disk drive or graphics card other than to replace it.

And how many users can repair a Studer/Ampex to component level? Not many
I'll wager! The big difference is you can completely replace a computer
system a dozen times over and still have plenty of change compared to the
Studer/Ampex. That's *before* you factor in alignment cost. And you CAN
replace that disk drive or graphics card for less cost than the cost of the
simplest repair on a Studer/Ampex etc. And let's not talk about head wear!


> Media cost isn't easy to compare, either. For one thing, because we
> believe that media cost is so low, we tend to save much more than we did
> with tape, and then we have to sort it out.

If you think not saving is a bonus, then DON'T!


>And to make a dollar comparison, a 1 terabyte USB hard drive costs about
>twice as much as a reel of 2" tape today.

Where the hell do you get a 2" reel of tape for under $25? It cost me more
than that 30 years ago!


>Comparing a 2013 project on a DAW with a 1985 project on tape (at 1985's
>cost), media cost is a lot closer.

Not from where I sit. I can put many projects on a 1TB hard drive for less
than the cost of 1 reel of 2" tape.


>Sure, you have hundreds of re-takes on that hard drive that would have been
>erased with tape, but then you need to manage that.

So scrap them if you want a fair comparison!


> How much does it cost to make a copy on another drive, and them maybe have
> (and maintain and constantly back up) a server to store your recordings?
> Compare that to handing your client his tape and say "here, it's yours."

Multiple backups are so inexpensive for me these days, and I simply hand the
client a CD master and say here it's yours. And knowing the number of
artists who never got posession of their master tapes, and how many were
lost with only poor quality tape copies remaining (or even just poor quality
vinyl pressings remaining), the artists are in a far better position these
days getting perfect copies of all their data if they want them (and are
entitled to them), and the studio and record label also getting perfect
copies.
I have one client who even threw the 2" master tape for a 100,000+ album
down the tip because he didn't want to pay storage costs, and said he had no
use for it now it was transferred to CD. Tell me again how he was better off
with tape?


> Of course for a casual hobbyist, media cost today is indeed neglilgable.

As it is for everyone compared to tape, despite your unsubstantiated claims.


> I'll grant you the ease of editing, but temper that with the temptation to
> do a lot more editing because it's easier. Are projects finished any
> quicker? Doubtful.

That is simply a choice you get now that you didn't have previously.
Personally I'm all for choice if there is no downside when doing it the old
way, and there isn't any I have found.


> I'm not arguing that we're worse off today than we used to be.

Glad to hear it, but all the above sure sounds like you are :-)


> It's just different.

Right, it's different and better. Thankfully technology usually moves
forward.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"polymod" > wrote in message
...
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
> Trevor wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Tried an Android tablet yet? No manuals and little consistency
>>> between the
>>> basic functions of apps make it a "poke and stroke" environment
>>
>> Shouldn't that be poke and hope?
>>
>>> ("why would a user want or need to exit an app???"). 8-D
>>
>> Sadly many such concepts are completely unknown by most users. And
>> nobody seems to know or care what personal information they are
>> freely giving away. Most Android apps make Google, Facebook etc. seem
>> like bastions of privacy. Hell they even beat most malware on the PC,
>> but unlike the PC you only get two choices, accept it or don't use
>> one :-(
>>
> The intrusive nature of these apps and social media sites, along with
> cloud
> computing, and other involuntary "donations" of private information make
> all
> the ignorant hoopla about NSA collecting phone numbers a sad commentary on
> our level of awareness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Couldn't have said it better Neil.

+1

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Jeff Henig" > wrote in message
...
> I've a good friend who is also a pro photographer (local university PR
> dept.) who does a lot of good hobby stuff with his iPhone. He says that
> the
> best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it.

I've often heard that said, but personally I can't stand looking at what
might have been if only I'd had a decent camera. :-(
Each to their own of course.


> I've learned a lot from him about photography, and one thing I decided to
> do is to learn as much as I can about proper composition, natural
> lighting,
> etc. with a very simple camera: my iPhone. It's great for learning that
> stuff without having all the technology getting in the way.

Sure, if that's how you want to learn. Serious students usually start with a
completely manual SLR, or simply set any DSLR to manual mode. Far better
than trying to learn with inappropriate equipment.


>Kind of like
> starting to learn how to record audio with my old PortaStudio 4-track
> before getting behind a real desk.

And you'd be silly to learn on a porta studio these days instead of a PC and
soundcard.


> I'm sure that sometime soon I'll want to buy a real camera--in fact, I
> kind
> of want one now--but I'm gonna' hold off a bit and learn some more about
> the art before I get into the technology.

For me the equipment and art go hand in hand when talking about photography
rather than painting.


> Back in the day, I used to really enjoy my Canon A1 35mm SLR, but things
> have really changed since then and I'm way out of practice.

I started long before they were ever invented, and understanding the basic
concepts of photography hasn't changed, nor has artistic vision, just the
equipment and implementations. Since you've used an SLR in the past, I
suggest getting a DSLR and forgetting about the iPhone except for
emergencies.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/25/2013 12:56 AM, Trevor wrote:

> And how many users can repair a Studer/Ampex to component level? Not many
> I'll wager!

I figured you'd bet on that, but let's make it a fairer bet. Don't
compare the number of people recording today with the number who can
repair a tape deck, compare the number of people using tape decks when
that was the common way of recording. And don't count the hobbyists with
their Webcors and TEACs who didn't have any idea that maintenance was
necessary.

If you could do such a study, I think you'll find that most people using
analog tape recorders as a working tool was at least aware of basic
maintenance and could perform it. I submit that most people using a
computer as a working recording tool have no concept of maintenance
other than replacement, which always affects something else besides
what's broken.

> The big difference is you can completely replace a computer
> system a dozen times over and still have plenty of change compared to the
> Studer/Ampex.

I can't dispute that, but is that really the best way to fix a computer
problem? How many other things will you have to fix as a result of
replacing a computer? And how can you really be sure that you fixed what
you were after? This may be your way of messing around but it's not my
way of doing business.

>> And to make a dollar comparison, a 1 terabyte USB hard drive costs about
>> twice as much as a reel of 2" tape today.
>
> Where the hell do you get a 2" reel of tape for under $25? It cost me more
> than that 30 years ago!

Where do you get a USB hard drive for under $25? I'm not talking about
finding a drive pulled from a leased computer cheap on the 'net and
putting it in a case that you've had for long enough so you forgot how
much it cost. I'm thinking about your typical Office Depot disk drive
for about $80-$90. When I was buying media for my Mackie HDR24/96, the
first couple of 20 GB drives (45 minutes of 24 tracks) I bought cost
about $60 and 2" tape (30 minutes) was going for about $50. But as time
went on, disk drives became cheaper. I have a few 120 GB Western Digital
drives that were on sale, brand new, at Staples, I tihnk, for $20 after
a rebate, far cheaper than 2" tape.

> Not from where I sit. I can put many projects on a 1TB hard drive for less
> than the cost of 1 reel of 2" tape.

So can I. But I never had to own tape other than to have some in stock.
The customer always paid for it. When was the last time you charged a
paying customer for disk space or asked him to buy the drive you were
using for his project? Or maybe first I should ask when the last time
you had a paying customer was? If you're your only customer, then cost
accounting is however you see it. I'd take advantage of cost saving,
too. But remember, we're comparing not only technology, but business
practice, separated by 30 or 40 years.

>> Sure, you have hundreds of re-takes on that hard drive that would have been
>> erased with tape, but then you need to manage that.
>
> So scrap them if you want a fair comparison!

Again, you're looking at this as if you were your only customer. Sure
you can delete takes or not, but the business is different today. The
client doesn't want to scrap anything, just in case.

> I have one client who even threw the 2" master tape for a 100,000+ album
> down the tip because he didn't want to pay storage costs, and said he had no
> use for it now it was transferred to CD. Tell me again how he was better off
> with tape?

There's no accounting for people.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[High Plains Thumper[_2_]]

Gray_Wolf wrote:

> Somebody made the remark that we put up with all this auto crap just
> to avoid learning about shutter speed, aperture and film speed?

All that auto stuff hinders creativity. Picture composition is important
but there's more to add excitement, selecting the right focal length
lens, depth of field through aperture settings to throw a distracting
background out of focus, use of flash off the camera and diffusers
located judiciously to add a sense of modeling, selecting right film
speed or neutral density filters to get the right aperture settings, use
of film grain for special effects or fine grain for decent enlargements,
filter selection, etc.

The sky is the limit.

--
George Hostler

[Scott Dorsey]

Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>On 20 Jun 2013 07:46:19 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>There should be a whole section in the front of the manual telling you how
>>to set it up this way. Then, once you get the hang of doing that, then maybe
>>later you can investigate the automated modes.
>
>Somebody made the remark that we put up with all this auto crap just
>to avoid learning about shutter speed, aperture and film speed?

Most people, it seems. Not that the automation isn't useful for people
doing sports photography and other work where there's hardly enough time to
compose let alone set exposure properly, but I think those applications are
very much in the minority.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
Gray_Wolf > wrote:

>> Somebody made the remark that we put up with all this auto crap just
>> to avoid learning about shutter speed, aperture and film speed?

> Most people, it seems. Not that the automation isn't useful for people
> doing sports photography and other work where there's hardly enough
> time to compose let alone set exposure properly, but I think those
> applications are very much in the minority.

It depends on the kind of photography you're doing. Sports and nature
photographers make heavy use of predictive autofocus, and expect cameras to
have many autofocus points. I rarely shoot such subjects, and wonder why such
features are so important to them. (Yes, I understand what predictive
autofocus does.)

Whereas film cameras //without// electronic controls are more alike than
different, "modern" cameras vary quite a bit in the number, function, and
layout of their controls. It appears that no one has ever done a study to
determine whether there's an optimum configuration (there might not be), or
simply what the majority of photographers prefer.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Gray_Wolf > wrote:
> >On 20 Jun 2013 07:46:19 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> >>There should be a whole section in the front of the manual telling you
> >>how to set it up this way. Then, once you get the hang of doing that,
> >>then maybe later you can investigate the automated modes.
> >
> >Somebody made the remark that we put up with all this auto crap just to
> >avoid learning about shutter speed, aperture and film speed?
>
> Most people, it seems. Not that the automation isn't useful for people
> doing sports photography and other work where there's hardly enough time
> to compose let alone set exposure properly, but I think those applications
> are very much in the minority. --scott

Erik Weber is a friend and valley neighbor. He has photo chops. He's
been teaching kids photography. He's an old guy who came up via analog
photography as a professional and then retired, only to take an interest
in digital photography and jump back into it. He has become a Photoshop
whiz as well.

He thinks it's interesting and not necessarily a bad thing that he now
starts by teaching composition. The automated action will take decent
care of basics, better than a beginner with a light meter and a handful
of specs for shutter, aperture and film, and that the youngsters who
take to it move beyond composition basics to learning about the
traditional manual controls, what to do with them, and when and why.

http://www.desart.com/

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
> Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>
>>> Somebody made the remark that we put up with all this auto crap just
>>> to avoid learning about shutter speed, aperture and film speed?
>
>> Most people, it seems. Not that the automation isn't useful for people
>> doing sports photography and other work where there's hardly enough
>> time to compose let alone set exposure properly, but I think those
>> applications are very much in the minority.
>
> It depends on the kind of photography you're doing. Sports and nature
> photographers make heavy use of predictive autofocus, and expect cameras
> to have many autofocus points. I rarely shoot such subjects, and wonder
> why such features are so important to them. (Yes, I understand what
> predictive autofocus does.)
>
> Whereas film cameras //without// electronic controls are more alike than
> different, "modern" cameras vary quite a bit in the number, function,
> and layout of their controls. It appears that no one has ever done a
> study to determine whether there's an optimum configuration (there might
> not be), or simply what the majority of photographers prefer.


Auto mode on my wife's camera probably does better than I could with a
slide rule and a whiteboard to calculate everything out. i maintain a
warm sense of rational ignorance about what it's doing, I get mostly
what I like and am happy with it.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:14:12 -0500, Les Cargill
> wrote:

>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>> Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>>
>>>> Somebody made the remark that we put up with all this auto crap just
>>>> to avoid learning about shutter speed, aperture and film speed?
>>
>>> Most people, it seems. Not that the automation isn't useful for people
>>> doing sports photography and other work where there's hardly enough
>>> time to compose let alone set exposure properly, but I think those
>>> applications are very much in the minority.
>>
>> It depends on the kind of photography you're doing. Sports and nature
>> photographers make heavy use of predictive autofocus, and expect cameras
>> to have many autofocus points. I rarely shoot such subjects, and wonder
>> why such features are so important to them. (Yes, I understand what
>> predictive autofocus does.)
>>
>> Whereas film cameras //without// electronic controls are more alike than
>> different, "modern" cameras vary quite a bit in the number, function,
>> and layout of their controls. It appears that no one has ever done a
>> study to determine whether there's an optimum configuration (there might
>> not be), or simply what the majority of photographers prefer.
>
>
>Auto mode on my wife's camera probably does better than I could with a
>slide rule and a whiteboard to calculate everything out. i maintain a
>warm sense of rational ignorance about what it's doing, I get mostly
>what I like and am happy with it.

I've done the experiment a few times with my Canon. Manual mode - get
all the settings perfect and take a picture. Set it to auto - what do
you know? - near as dammit the identical bunch of settings. For 90% of
situations, auto is actually very good. It's only when lighting is
tricky that you really need to go manual.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

> I've done the experiment a few times with my Canon. Manual mode
> -- get all the settings perfect and take a picture. Set it to auto -- what
> do you know? -- near as dammit the identical bunch of settings. For
> 90% of situations, auto is actually very good. It's only when lighting is
> tricky that you really need to go manual.

True, but the "real" problem is rather different.

These cameras have a huge range of features, most of which are poorly
documented, or not documented at all. Some settings that could possibly screw
up your pictures are turned on by default.

I want to feel that I'm in control of the camera, and it is not doing some
arcane thing that I don't want it to be doing.

Options aren't bad, but one is sometimes left wondering which should be used,
and under what conditions, and which should be ignored. This wouldn't be so
bad if the documentation clearly explained the camera's basic operation. For
example, does anyone out there truly /understand/ how their camera handles
backlit situations (both with and without flash)? Are you /sure/? I've read
the manuals several times, and I'm still not sure.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:53:09 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>
>> I've done the experiment a few times with my Canon. Manual mode
>> -- get all the settings perfect and take a picture. Set it to auto -- what
>> do you know? -- near as dammit the identical bunch of settings. For
>> 90% of situations, auto is actually very good. It's only when lighting is
>> tricky that you really need to go manual.
>
>True, but the "real" problem is rather different.
>
>These cameras have a huge range of features, most of which are poorly
>documented, or not documented at all. Some settings that could possibly screw
>up your pictures are turned on by default.
>
>I want to feel that I'm in control of the camera, and it is not doing some
>arcane thing that I don't want it to be doing.
>
>Options aren't bad, but one is sometimes left wondering which should be used,
>and under what conditions, and which should be ignored. This wouldn't be so
>bad if the documentation clearly explained the camera's basic operation. For
>example, does anyone out there truly /understand/ how their camera handles
>backlit situations (both with and without flash)? Are you /sure/? I've read
>the manuals several times, and I'm still not sure.

If you are in no hurry, set up the shot manually, using all the
knowledge you have - it is really pretty much the same for film or a
digital sensor. They both have a dynamic range you need to understand.
If waiting for the shot is not an option, just go full auto. Chances
are you will get a perfectly usable result.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

>> Options aren't bad, but one is sometimes left wondering which should
>> be used, and under what conditions, and which should be ignored. This
>> wouldn't be so bad if the documentation clearly explained the camera's
>> basic operation. For example, does anyone out there truly /understand/
>> how their camera handles backlit situations (both with and without flash)?
>> Are you /sure/? I've read the manuals several times, and I'm still not
>> sure.

> If you are in no hurry, set up the shot manually, using all the
> knowledge you have -- it is really pretty much the same for film
> or a digital sensor. They both have a dynamic range you need to
> understand. If waiting for the shot is not an option, just go full auto.
> Chances are you will get a perfectly usable result.

Experimentation should be necessary only to fine-tune results. No one should
have to experiment to understand a feature's basic operation. (Please reread
that, and think about it, before you respond.)

There is /no excuse/ for a user manual (especially one for an expensive DSLR)
not telling you "If you do thus-and-such, these are the results you can
expect". None of my Olympus or Canon manuals provides a systematic explanation
of the flash system.

The Japanese live in a society where everyone knows their place. They are
accustomed to being told what to do without explanation. 'mur'cans ain't like
thet.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> I want to feel that I'm in control of the camera, and it is not doing some
> arcane thing that I don't want it to be doing.

"RTFM"

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/25/2013 10:21 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
> Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>
>>> Somebody made the remark that we put up with all this auto crap just
>>> to avoid learning about shutter speed, aperture and film speed?
>
>> Most people, it seems. Not that the automation isn't useful for people
>> doing sports photography and other work where there's hardly enough
>> time to compose let alone set exposure properly, but I think those
>> applications are very much in the minority.
>
> It depends on the kind of photography you're doing. Sports and nature
> photographers make heavy use of predictive autofocus, and expect cameras
> to have many autofocus points. I rarely shoot such subjects, and wonder
> why such features are so important to them. (Yes, I understand what
> predictive autofocus does.)
>
> Whereas film cameras //without// electronic controls are more alike than
> different, "modern" cameras vary quite a bit in the number, function,
> and layout of their controls. It appears that no one has ever done a
> study to determine whether there's an optimum configuration (there might
> not be), or simply what the majority of photographers prefer.

Getting back to sound stuff, is the default state of digital sound boards
optimal? Can a noob jump on a digital sound board and get an acceptable
mix in the same way that digital cameras enable noob acceptable photos?

Put another way, are digital boards easier to get up and running that the
old school boards they replace?

Then too, digital seems to beat analog in post. Photoshop is a lot easier
to master than darkroom wet chemistry and such, and DAWs beat razor
blades and tape (etc.) for editing.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/25/2013 4:51 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Options aren't bad, but one is sometimes left wondering which should
>>> be used, and under what conditions, and which should be ignored. This
>>> wouldn't be so bad if the documentation clearly explained the camera's
>>> basic operation. For example, does anyone out there truly /understand/
>>> how their camera handles backlit situations (both with and without
>>> flash)?
>>> Are you /sure/? I've read the manuals several times, and I'm still
>>> not sure.
>
>> If you are in no hurry, set up the shot manually, using all the
>> knowledge you have -- it is really pretty much the same for film
>> or a digital sensor. They both have a dynamic range you need to
>> understand. If waiting for the shot is not an option, just go full auto.
>> Chances are you will get a perfectly usable result.
>
> Experimentation should be necessary only to fine-tune results. No one
> should have to experiment to understand a feature's basic operation.
> (Please reread that, and think about it, before you respond.)
>
> There is /no excuse/ for a user manual (especially one for an expensive
> DSLR) not telling you "If you do thus-and-such, these are the results
> you can expect". None of my Olympus or Canon manuals provides a
> systematic explanation of the flash system.
>
> The Japanese live in a society where everyone knows their place. They
> are accustomed to being told what to do without explanation. 'mur'cans
> ain't like thet.
>
>

Soon after I got my camera I tried to check the noise floor
of the sensor. Damn thing wouldn't snap a picture with the
lens cap on. After some hunting I found a way around that
/feature/. I don't believe that /feature/ is fully explained
anywhere in the manual.

That automatic built in flash also isn't explained very well,
and there's almost nothing technical about the hot shoe
or external flash connections.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:51:30 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>
>>> Options aren't bad, but one is sometimes left wondering which should
>>> be used, and under what conditions, and which should be ignored. This
>>> wouldn't be so bad if the documentation clearly explained the camera's
>>> basic operation. For example, does anyone out there truly /understand/
>>> how their camera handles backlit situations (both with and without flash)?
>>> Are you /sure/? I've read the manuals several times, and I'm still not
>>> sure.
>
>> If you are in no hurry, set up the shot manually, using all the
>> knowledge you have -- it is really pretty much the same for film
>> or a digital sensor. They both have a dynamic range you need to
>> understand. If waiting for the shot is not an option, just go full auto.
>> Chances are you will get a perfectly usable result.
>
>Experimentation should be necessary only to fine-tune results. No one should
>have to experiment to understand a feature's basic operation. (Please reread
>that, and think about it, before you respond.)
>

No, not to understand its basic operation, but to explore its
capabilities.

>There is /no excuse/ for a user manual (especially one for an expensive DSLR)
>not telling you "If you do thus-and-such, these are the results you can
>expect". None of my Olympus or Canon manuals provides a systematic explanation
>of the flash system.
>

A user manual can never win. Whatever your standard of expertise, it
will be pitched somewhere else.

>The Japanese live in a society where everyone knows their place. They are
>accustomed to being told what to do without explanation. 'mur'cans ain't like
>thet.
>

Nobody is like that apart from the Japanese.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> I want to feel that I'm in control of the camera, and it is not doing
>> some arcane thing that I don't want it to be doing.

> "RTFM"

YOU try reading the manual. Manuals often omit important information.

I've turned off every feature I don't need or don't understand. But I'm still
not certain things are going on the manual doesn't tell me about.

What you don't understand is that the Japanese have no respect for the user's
wishes. Users are expected to blindly follow the instructions without
questioning them. It doesn't help that the authors of these manuals know
little about photography.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

> Soon after I got my camera I tried to check the noise floor
> of the sensor. Damn thing wouldn't snap a picture with the
> lens cap on. After some hunting I found a way around that
> /feature/. I don't believe that /feature/ is fully explained
> anywhere in the manual.

> That automatic built in flash also isn't explained very well,
> and there's almost nothing technical about the hot shoe
> or external flash connections.

Thank you.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

>> Experimentation should be necessary only to fine-tune results. No one
>> should have to experiment to understand a feature's basic operation.
>> (Please reread that, and think about it, before you respond.)

> No, not to understand its basic operation, but to explore its
> capabilities.

The capabilities should be described in the manual. It is not the owner's
obligation to figure out what they are.


>> There is /no excuse/ for a user manual (especially one for an expensive
>> DSLR) not telling you "If you do thus-and-such, these are the results you
>> can expect". None of my Olympus or Canon manuals provides a systematic
>> explanation of the flash system.

> A user manual can never win. Whatever your standard of expertise, it
> will be pitched somewhere else.

Not so. You're assuming at least some users understand the arcana of the
camera's operation. That is never a safe assumption.

Some years ago I called Olympus to complain about the awful E-500 manual. I
was told by some snot-nose SOB (probably young enough to be my grandchild)
that as the E-500 was a "professional" camera, experienced users would
automatically know everything they needed to know, and this need not be
provided in the manual.

The question of who the audience for a manual is comes up often. There is one
and only one correct answer -- someone who doesn't understand how to work the
product. Writing for that audience covers /everyone/ who will read the manual.

[david gourley[_2_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > said...news:kqda6c$fdg$1
@dont-email.me:

> "hank alrich" wrote in message
> ...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>>> I want to feel that I'm in control of the camera, and it is not doing
>>> some arcane thing that I don't want it to be doing.
>
>> "RTFM"
>
> YOU try reading the manual. Manuals often omit important information.
>
> I've turned off every feature I don't need or don't understand. But I'm
still
> not certain things are going on the manual doesn't tell me about.
>
> What you don't understand is that the Japanese have no respect for the
user's
> wishes. Users are expected to blindly follow the instructions without
> questioning them. It doesn't help that the authors of these manuals know
> little about photography.
>

Not sure what companies you're referring to, but my Nikon 300 manual is
excellent. Same for my Canon camcorder.

david

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/25/2013 7:53 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Ron C" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Soon after I got my camera I tried to check the noise floor
>> of the sensor. Damn thing wouldn't snap a picture with the
>> lens cap on. After some hunting I found a way around that
>> /feature/. I don't believe that /feature/ is fully explained
>> anywhere in the manual.
>
>> That automatic built in flash also isn't explained very well,
>> and there's almost nothing technical about the hot shoe
>> or external flash connections.
>
> Thank you.

I'll throw another one out. Anyone know the spectral
sensitivity of their DSLR ...from the manual?

Does your camera have an IR cut filter? If so,
what's the cutoff wavelength? [From the manual,
not some Google (etc.) search.]

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

> Not sure what companies you're referring to, but my Nikon 300
> manual is excellent. Same for my Canon camcorder.

I'm thinking of Canon, Olympus, Pioneer. I hope your manuals are good. But I
remember when Japanese manuals were written by the American importer -- and
they were far better.

[William Sommerwerck]

Addendum... My Yaesu Amateur equipment has importer-written manuals.

They're not perfect (whatever "perfection" might comprise for such complex
products), but they are readable and reasonably well-organized.

The Japanese do not understand the concept of top-documentation. Their manuals
tend to focus on details, and rarely supply necessary context.

[hank alrich]

Jeff Henig > wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> > Addendum... My Yaesu Amateur equipment has importer-written manuals.
> >
> > They're not perfect (whatever "perfection" might comprise for such
> > complex products), but they are readable and reasonably well-organized.
> >
> > The Japanese do not understand the concept of top-documentation. Their
> > manuals tend to focus on details, and rarely supply necessary context.
>
> Well, William, you've been hanging out on this newsgroup long enough that
> reading stuff that's been taken out of context should no longer bother you.
>
> <rimshot>

<!>

Context used to be everything, except in real estate. Now it's nothing.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/25/2013 12:56 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> And how many users can repair a Studer/Ampex to component level? Not many
>> I'll wager!
>
> I figured you'd bet on that, but let's make it a fairer bet. Don't compare
> the number of people recording today with the number who can repair a tape
> deck, compare the number of people using tape decks when that was the
> common way of recording. And don't count the hobbyists with their Webcors
> and TEACs who didn't have any idea that maintenance was necessary.

Right the big studios had their own technicians then, so the same
technicians can easily provide computer support, except many studios now
save money because they don't need full time support staff! Having a
complete spare computer ready to go costs a pittance, and *really* reduces
downtime for me, and the interfaces themselves rarely give trouble, actually
never for me so far :-)


> If you could do such a study, I think you'll find that most people using
> analog tape recorders as a working tool was at least aware of basic
> maintenance and could perform it.

We are not talking basic maintenance because there is none for digital
recorders.


>I submit that most people using a computer as a working recording tool have
>no concept of maintenance other than replacement, which always affects
>something else besides what's broken.

I submit you are full of ****. That some people use the same computer for
internet, accounting, word processing etc and run into problems beyond their
ability, is hardly comparable to analog tape recorders. Just try using a
Studer/Ampex to access the internet, write documents, or do your accounting
and see what I mean!
I hardly ever have problems with dedicated computers, and when I do they are
usually very simple fixes at minimal cost.


> > The big difference is you can completely replace a computer
>> system a dozen times over and still have plenty of change compared to the
>> Studer/Ampex.
>
> I can't dispute that, but is that really the best way to fix a computer
> problem?

Ok then, how about : You can pay for a hundred computer tech service calls
and still have change! :-)


>How many other things will you have to fix as a result of replacing a
>computer? And how can you really be sure that you fixed what you were
>after? This may be your way of messing around but it's not my way of doing
>business.

Nor mine, but I really love that I can fix computer problems far more
cheaply and easily than I could a 2" tape machine!


>>> And to make a dollar comparison, a 1 terabyte USB hard drive costs about
>>> twice as much as a reel of 2" tape today.
>>
>> Where the hell do you get a 2" reel of tape for under $25? It cost me
>> more
>> than that 30 years ago!
>
> Where do you get a USB hard drive for under $25?

Geez re-read what you said, "a 1 terabyte USB hard drive costs about twice
as much as a reel of 2" tape today".
I *CAN* get a new 1TB USB for $50, I bet you can too if you try.


>I'm not talking about finding a drive pulled from a leased computer cheap
>on the 'net and putting it in a case that you've had for long enough so you
>forgot how much it cost. I'm thinking about your typical Office Depot disk
>drive for about $80-$90. When I was buying media for my Mackie HDR24/96,
>the first couple of 20 GB drives (45 minutes of 24 tracks) I bought cost
>about $60 and 2" tape (30 minutes) was going for about $50. But as time
>went on, disk drives became cheaper. I have a few 120 GB Western Digital
>drives that were on sale, brand new, at Staples, I tihnk, for $20 after a
>rebate, far cheaper than 2" tape.

I *CAN* get a brand NEW 1TB USB hard drive in a case with power supply for
$50 now.
I doubt they are much dearer where you are.


>> Not from where I sit. I can put many projects on a 1TB hard drive for
>> less
>> than the cost of 1 reel of 2" tape.
>
> So can I. But I never had to own tape other than to have some in stock.
> The customer always paid for it.

So they pay for the hard drives if they want them. Nothings changed there.


>When was the last time you charged a paying customer for disk space or
>asked him to buy the drive you were using for his project?

Everytime they want it!


>Or maybe first I should ask when the last time you had a paying customer
>was? If you're your only customer, then cost accounting is however you see
>it. I'd take advantage of cost saving, too. But remember, we're comparing
>not only technology, but business practice, separated by 30 or 40 years.
>
>>> Sure, you have hundreds of re-takes on that hard drive that would have
>>> been
>>> erased with tape, but then you need to manage that.
>>
>> So scrap them if you want a fair comparison!
>
> Again, you're looking at this as if you were your only customer.

Nope, I simply do what the customer asks, and charge them for it
appropriately. Easier to get customers when the costs I have to pass on are
so much less these days though.


>Sure you can delete takes or not, but the business is different today. The
>client doesn't want to scrap anything, just in case.

Their money, their choice. No problem for me either way.
And once again, you do what you want, no need to bull**** it is actually
better in any way. Or are you still trying to convince yourself?

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:02:26 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>
>>> Experimentation should be necessary only to fine-tune results. No one
>>> should have to experiment to understand a feature's basic operation.
>>> (Please reread that, and think about it, before you respond.)
>
>> No, not to understand its basic operation, but to explore its
>> capabilities.
>
>The capabilities should be described in the manual. It is not the owner's
>obligation to figure out what they are.
>

I disagree - particularly for the type of manual you are advocating
here. It describes what the function is, and what buttons you must
push to achieve it. The nature of the envelope of operation is for the
user to explore. A manual can never describe it.
>
>>> There is /no excuse/ for a user manual (especially one for an expensive
>>> DSLR) not telling you "If you do thus-and-such, these are the results you
>>> can expect". None of my Olympus or Canon manuals provides a systematic
>>> explanation of the flash system.
>
>> A user manual can never win. Whatever your standard of expertise, it
>> will be pitched somewhere else.
>
>Not so. You're assuming at least some users understand the arcana of the
>camera's operation. That is never a safe assumption.
>
I make no such assumption. A manual must start with an assumption. A
novice photographer needs a very different kind of manual to the
experienced one who has just switched model.

>Some years ago I called Olympus to complain about the awful E-500 manual. I
>was told by some snot-nose SOB (probably young enough to be my grandchild)
>that as the E-500 was a "professional" camera, experienced users would
>automatically know everything they needed to know, and this need not be
>provided in the manual.
>
>The question of who the audience for a manual is comes up often. There is one
>and only one correct answer -- someone who doesn't understand how to work the
>product. Writing for that audience covers /everyone/ who will read the manual.

You present a false dichotomy, so the answer must necessarily be
wrong. The alternatives are not a complete expert and a total novice.
Every shade of grey between those extremes will be looking for
something different in a manual.

d

[Trevor]

"Ron C" > wrote in message
...
> I'll throw another one out. Anyone know the spectral
> sensitivity of their DSLR ...from the manual?

Just like most film doesn't come with that data either, you have to search
for it if you are in the minority who wants it.
Fact is that many cameras don't, and never did come with all data every
person might conceivably want. Sometimes you can get it from the
manufacturer, sometimes you can't.
Most people don't even read the data that *does* come with the camera
though. :-(

Trevor.

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
> [...] That some people use the same computer
> for internet, accounting, word processing etc and run into problems
> beyond their ability, is hardly comparable to analog tape recorders.
> Just try using a Studer/Ampex to access the internet, write
> documents, or do your accounting and see what I mean!
> I hardly ever have problems with dedicated computers, and when I do
> they are usually very simple fixes at minimal cost.
>
+1
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

The following might sound "personally" argumentative, but I don't mean it that
way. Unless Don has written user documentation, he probably doesn't understand
what I've been trying to get at. Which I will repeat...

"There is one, and only one, audience for user documentation -- someone who
doesn't know how to use the product. If the reader knew, there would no need
to read the manual! Therefore, you leave nothing out."

Writers err when they assume readers know certain things or /don't need/ to
know certain things. One should not open a manual to discover that some
feature is described in vague terms that tell the user little or nothing.

When I worked at Microsoft, I was repeatedly told that you do not tell the
reader that there are preferred ways of doing certain things. This was
apparently considered an insult to the readers' intelligence! I studiously
ignored this command, because being told how to do something is precisely
/why/ the user is reading the manual. Duh.

How can anyone purchase a $2500 professional camera body and tolerate a manual
that's written for a sixth-grader?


>> The capabilities should be described in the manual. It is
>> not the owner's obligation to figure out what they are.

> I disagree -- particularly for the type of manual you are advocating
> here. It describes what the function is, and what buttons you must
> push to achieve it. The nature of the envelope of operation is for the
> user to explore. A manual can never describe it.

Oh, but it can. That's what words and pictures are for!

It should be obvious that a user manual must tell the readers what they need
to know /about that particular product/. * Failure to do so is wrong.

Here is Canon's description of the Auto Lighting Optimizer, a feature of the
5D2, a $2500 /professional/ camera:

"In the fully-automatic modes , the Auto Lighting Optimizer will adjust the image automatically
to obtain the optimum [by whose standards?] brightness and contrast. In the P
/ Tv / Av modes, the Auto Lighting Optimizer is enabled by default." (p47)

A reader paying even minimal attention will note that this description leaves
a few obvious questions unanswered. Fortunately (?), there's more on p177:

"If the images [sic] comes out dark, or the contrast is low, the brightness
and contrast are corrected automatically.
For RAW images, the content of the settings in the camera can be applied when
processed Digital Photo Professional (bundled software).
0: Standard
1: Low
2: Strong
3: Disabled"

Where shall we start?

One can understand why such "modifications" would be applied in
fully-automatic mode, which is presumably used by novices, or in situations
where you have to shoot quickly. But why is it enabled by default in modes
where the photographer /thinks/ he's in control of the camera?

By what standard does the camera decide an image is "too dark" or too low in
contrast? What if the scene is inherently low in contrast, or you deliberately
want to underexpose? (I've tried, and ALO won't let you underexpose.)

I don't understand what Canon means about "applying" the ALO settings to RAW
images. (The Digital Photo Professional help explains that the ALO settings
are automatically applied when the image is loaded in DPP, but you can change
them or shut them off.)

Most-important of all... Why aren't there photos showing /how/ ALO "corrects"
real-world scenes? Because I have no idea what ALO actually does, I've shut it
off.

Here's how Canon's ALO description /should/ begin...

"Neither film nor sensors can capture an infinite range of light and dark.
Scenes can have such a wide brightness range that highlights are burned out,
or shadow detail lost -- or both. These problems can often be fixed with
image-editing software.

"If you don't have time for editing, the Automatic Lighting Optimizer (ALO)
can improve the image. It does this by [explain, in general, what it does],
etc, etc, etc."

There's a great deal more to explain, of course, but these few sentences
explain why ALO might be useful, and provide a context for the rest of the
description.

* A manual for Amateur equipment won't waste time explaining electronics,
because it's assumed the reader has at least a basic knowledge. Similarly,
camera manuals generally don't explain photographic basics (except perhaps
incidentally) because these are also assumed. The only camera manual I've seen
that /did/ attempt to instruct the user in basic photography was for the Canon
AE-1. The apparent reason was that the AE-1 was Canon's (indeed, anybody's)
first modestly priced mass-market SLR. Canon knew many buyers would be
stepping up from point 'n shoot cameras, and needed assistance.


> A novice photographer needs a very different kind of manual
> to the experienced one who has just switched model.

This is generally not true (though see my preceding remarks about the AE-1).
Thoroughly explaining the product the customer has bought should be
sufficient. Of course, how many manuals do?

[i]
>> Some years ago I called Olympus to complain about the awful E-500 manual. I
>> was told by some snot-nose SOB (probably young enough to be my grandchild)
>> that as the E-500 was a "professional" camera, experienced users would
>> automatically know everything they needed to know, and this need not be
>> provided in the manual.

>> The question of who the audience for a manual is comes up often. There is
>> one
>> and only one correct answer -- someone who doesn't understand how to work
>> the
>> product. Writing for that audience covers /everyone/ who will read the
>> manual.

> You present a false dichotomy, so the answer must necessarily be
> wrong. The alternatives are not a complete expert and a total novice.
> Every shade of grey between those extremes will be looking for
> something different in a manual.

No, every user is looking for the same thing -- information on how to operate
and properly use an unfamiliar product. It is the failure of writers to
understand this that results in lousy documentation.

If the product is fully described, every user will find what they need.

[Tobiah]

>> Proverbs 26:5
>
> Proverbs 26:4
>
> (X^D
>

Woah, a contradiction in the Bible! My life is changed.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:12:35 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>
>The following might sound "personally" argumentative, but I don't mean it that
>way. Unless Don has written user documentation, he probably doesn't understand
>what I've been trying to get at. Which I will repeat...
>
>"There is one, and only one, audience for user documentation -- someone who
>doesn't know how to use the product. If the reader knew, there would no need
>to read the manual! Therefore, you leave nothing out."
>
>Writers err when they assume readers know certain things or /don't need/ to
>know certain things. One should not open a manual to discover that some
>feature is described in vague terms that tell the user little or nothing.
>
>When I worked at Microsoft, I was repeatedly told that you do not tell the
>reader that there are preferred ways of doing certain things. This was
>apparently considered an insult to the readers' intelligence! I studiously
>ignored this command, because being told how to do something is precisely
>/why/ the user is reading the manual. Duh.
>
>How can anyone purchase a $2500 professional camera body and tolerate a manual
>that's written for a sixth-grader?
>
>
>>> The capabilities should be described in the manual. It is
>>> not the owner's obligation to figure out what they are.
>
>> I disagree -- particularly for the type of manual you are advocating
>> here. It describes what the function is, and what buttons you must
>> push to achieve it. The nature of the envelope of operation is for the
>> user to explore. A manual can never describe it.
>
>Oh, but it can. That's what words and pictures are for!
>
>It should be obvious that a user manual must tell the readers what they need
>to know /about that particular product/. * Failure to do so is wrong.
>
>Here is Canon's description of the Auto Lighting Optimizer, a feature of the
>5D2, a $2500 /professional/ camera:
>
>"In the fully-automatic modes , the Auto Lighting Optimizer will adjust the image automatically
>to obtain the optimum [by whose standards?] brightness and contrast. In the P
>/ Tv / Av modes, the Auto Lighting Optimizer is enabled by default." (p47)
>
>A reader paying even minimal attention will note that this description leaves
>a few obvious questions unanswered. Fortunately (?), there's more on p177:
>
>"If the images [sic] comes out dark, or the contrast is low, the brightness
>and contrast are corrected automatically.
>For RAW images, the content of the settings in the camera can be applied when
>processed Digital Photo Professional (bundled software).
>0: Standard
>1: Low
>2: Strong
>3: Disabled"
>
>Where shall we start?
>
>One can understand why such "modifications" would be applied in
>fully-automatic mode, which is presumably used by novices, or in situations
>where you have to shoot quickly. But why is it enabled by default in modes
>where the photographer /thinks/ he's in control of the camera?
>
>By what standard does the camera decide an image is "too dark" or too low in
>contrast? What if the scene is inherently low in contrast, or you deliberately
>want to underexpose? (I've tried, and ALO won't let you underexpose.)
>
>I don't understand what Canon means about "applying" the ALO settings to RAW
>images. (The Digital Photo Professional help explains that the ALO settings
>are automatically applied when the image is loaded in DPP, but you can change
>them or shut them off.)
>
>Most-important of all... Why aren't there photos showing /how/ ALO "corrects"
>real-world scenes? Because I have no idea what ALO actually does, I've shut it
>off.
>
>Here's how Canon's ALO description /should/ begin...
>
>"Neither film nor sensors can capture an infinite range of light and dark.
>Scenes can have such a wide brightness range that highlights are burned out,
>or shadow detail lost -- or both. These problems can often be fixed with
>image-editing software.
>
>"If you don't have time for editing, the Automatic Lighting Optimizer (ALO)
>can improve the image. It does this by [explain, in general, what it does],
>etc, etc, etc."
>
>There's a great deal more to explain, of course, but these few sentences
>explain why ALO might be useful, and provide a context for the rest of the
>description.
>
>* A manual for Amateur equipment won't waste time explaining electronics,
>because it's assumed the reader has at least a basic knowledge. Similarly,
>camera manuals generally don't explain photographic basics (except perhaps
>incidentally) because these are also assumed. The only camera manual I've seen
>that /did/ attempt to instruct the user in basic photography was for the Canon
>AE-1. The apparent reason was that the AE-1 was Canon's (indeed, anybody's)
>first modestly priced mass-market SLR. Canon knew many buyers would be
>stepping up from point 'n shoot cameras, and needed assistance.
>
>
>> A novice photographer needs a very different kind of manual
>> to the experienced one who has just switched model.
>
>This is generally not true (though see my preceding remarks about the AE-1).
>Thoroughly explaining the product the customer has bought should be
>sufficient. Of course, how many manuals do?
>
>[i]
>>> Some years ago I called Olympus to complain about the awful E-500 manual. I
>>> was told by some snot-nose SOB (probably young enough to be my grandchild)
>>> that as the E-500 was a "professional" camera, experienced users would
>>> automatically know everything they needed to know, and this need not be
>>> provided in the manual.
>
>>> The question of who the audience for a manual is comes up often. There is
>>> one
>>> and only one correct answer -- someone who doesn't understand how to work
>>> the
>>> product. Writing for that audience covers /everyone/ who will read the
>>> manual.
>
>> You present a false dichotomy, so the answer must necessarily be
>> wrong. The alternatives are not a complete expert and a total novice.
>> Every shade of grey between those extremes will be looking for
>> something different in a manual.
>
>No, every user is looking for the same thing -- information on how to operate
>and properly use an unfamiliar product. It is the failure of writers to
>understand this that results in lousy documentation.
>
>If the product is fully described, every user will find what they need.

You are showing distinct signs of autism. You describe what you want
from a manual and insist that this is what every user wants. It
appears that you are unable to see any other point of view. Suffice it
to say that you are wrong and you don't understand why and how.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Ron C > wrote:
>
>Getting back to sound stuff, is the default state of digital sound boards
>optimal? Can a noob jump on a digital sound board and get an acceptable
>mix in the same way that digital cameras enable noob acceptable photos?

It depends a lot on the console. Some of them, like the Presonus, are very
good in that regard. Some of them will require spending hours trying to find
the menu that has the routing on it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Ron C > wrote:
>
>I'll throw another one out. Anyone know the spectral
>sensitivity of their DSLR ...from the manual?

It's in the Nikon D5 manual.

>Does your camera have an IR cut filter? If so,
>what's the cutoff wavelength? [From the manual,
>not some Google (etc.) search.]

My camera is a Crown Graphic and it cuts off pretty low....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Ron C" > wrote in message
...
>> I'll throw another one out. Anyone know the spectral
>> sensitivity of their DSLR ...from the manual?
>
>Just like most film doesn't come with that data either, you have to search
>for it if you are in the minority who wants it.

Umm... every film datasheet will have spectral sensitivity listed. It is
next to the sample characteristic curve(s) and the modulation transfer function.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

>> If the product is fully described, every user will find what they need.

> You are showing distinct signs of autism. You describe what you want
> from a manual and insist that this is what every user wants. It
> appears that you are unable to see any other point of view. Suffice it
> to say that you are wrong and you don't understand why and how.

If you owned expensive products with utterly useless manuals -- such as a
Pioneer 151 plasma display -- you would feel differently.

YOU DO NOT ASSUME THAT A USER ALREADY UNDERSTANDS HOW A PRODUCT WORKS AND/OR
DOESN'T NEED TO KNOW. Is that not patently obvious?

I have sometimes been complimented by users -- and reviewers -- for the
quality of my documentation. This is not an accident. It is due to paying
attention to this sort of detail.

If anyone out there manufactures or distributes a product that they need
high-quality documentation for, contact me, and for a suitable fee, I will
show you how such documents are written. This does not take "genius" -- merely
the ability to recognize the user's needs, and deliver suitable instruction.

[William Sommerwerck]

Here are some reasonable questions for Mr Pearce. I assume he knows enough
about photography to justify owning a Canon 5D2 (or similar camera).

Give the following description of Canon's Auto Lighting Optimizer...

"In the fully-automatic modes [ie, those in which the camera sets
/everything/], the Auto Lighting Optimizer will adjust the image automatically
to obtain the optimum [by whose standards?] brightness and contrast. In the P
/ Tv / Av modes, the Auto Lighting Optimizer is enabled by default." (p47)

A reader paying even minimal attention will note that this description leaves
a few obvious questions unanswered. Fortunately (?), there's more on p177:

"If the images [sic] comes out dark, or the contrast is low, the brightness
and contrast are corrected automatically.
For RAW images, the content of the settings in the camera can be applied when
processed Digital Photo Professional (bundled software).
0: Standard
1: Low
2: Strong
3: Disabled"

....here are some pertinent questions. (Brief answers are fine.)

1. Where would you set the ALO without having tested it?

2. How would you go about testing it?

3. How much testing do you estimate would be required to get a good knowledge
of how ALO worked, and its limitations as well as assets?

This basic information could be provided with perhaps a dozen photos and a
page or two of writing, which could be absorbed in a few minutes.

I value the user's time. It's my obligation to make things as easy as possible
for him. And if it means extra work on my part -- well, that's my job.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:48:09 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>
>>> If the product is fully described, every user will find what they need.
>
>> You are showing distinct signs of autism. You describe what you want
>> from a manual and insist that this is what every user wants. It
>> appears that you are unable to see any other point of view. Suffice it
>> to say that you are wrong and you don't understand why and how.
>
>If you owned expensive products with utterly useless manuals -- such as a
>Pioneer 151 plasma display -- you would feel differently.
>
>YOU DO NOT ASSUME THAT A USER ALREADY UNDERSTANDS HOW A PRODUCT WORKS AND/OR
>DOESN'T NEED TO KNOW. Is that not patently obvious?
>
How are you managing to misread what I write so thoroughly. My point
is that every existing manual necessarily starts from some assumption
about the user's knowledge. It may be pitched at the person who has
never encountered such a device in his life, or maybe at one who
understands the principles, but not the specifics of the product. It
may assume knowledge of both of those, and dip more thoroughly into
the theory of the subject.

Which of those assumptions is made is at the choice of the
manufacturer. For a professional level camera, I would assume that the
user understands photography, but just needs some guidance on the
specific operation and features of the camera. I would expect the
manual to be couched at a reasonably technical level. For an
entry-level camera the level of instruction would necessarily be much
simpler.

>I have sometimes been complimented by users -- and reviewers -- for the
>quality of my documentation. This is not an accident. It is due to paying
>attention to this sort of detail.
>

You are getting no compliments for the documents you are writing here.
Your understanding of differing needs of different users is woeful.

>If anyone out there manufactures or distributes a product that they need
>high-quality documentation for, contact me, and for a suitable fee, I will
>show you how such documents are written. This does not take "genius" -- merely
>the ability to recognize the user's needs, and deliver suitable instruction.

"The user". there you have it. You have already decided in your head
who that user is, and what he needs. As I said at the start, manuals
always mange to be pitched at just the wrong level for the information
I want. Your lack of understanding of this simple fact perhaps
explains why manuals are generally so poor.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:05:54 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>Here are some reasonable questions for Mr Pearce. I assume he knows enough
>about photography to justify owning a Canon 5D2 (or similar camera).
>
>Give the following description of Canon's Auto Lighting Optimizer...
>
>"In the fully-automatic modes [ie, those in which the camera sets
>/everything/], the Auto Lighting Optimizer will adjust the image automatically
>to obtain the optimum [by whose standards?] brightness and contrast. In the P
>/ Tv / Av modes, the Auto Lighting Optimizer is enabled by default." (p47)
>
>A reader paying even minimal attention will note that this description leaves
>a few obvious questions unanswered. Fortunately (?), there's more on p177:
>
>"If the images [sic] comes out dark, or the contrast is low, the brightness
>and contrast are corrected automatically.
>For RAW images, the content of the settings in the camera can be applied when
>processed Digital Photo Professional (bundled software).
>0: Standard
>1: Low
>2: Strong
>3: Disabled"
>
>...here are some pertinent questions. (Brief answers are fine.)
>
>1. Where would you set the ALO without having tested it?
>

I don't use it. I shoot in RAW only and adjust everything in post.

On the few occasions when I do make use of the automatic systems, I am
using the camera as a glorified point and squirt, and I have no great
interest in turing the snapshot into a high quality image.

>2. How would you go about testing it?
>

Lots of pictures of well-chosen subjects in different lighting
conditions. Then study and decide. But I would never expend the effort
on a feature that doesn't interest me.

>3. How much testing do you estimate would be required to get a good knowledge
>of how ALO worked, and its limitations as well as assets?
>

A week, a month, a year? No idea. Name a figure.

>This basic information could be provided with perhaps a dozen photos and a
>page or two of writing, which could be absorbed in a few minutes.
>

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the pictures and the writing. Even
having read, I would still not consider my knowledge worthwhile until
I had made my own tests. Having read, I know. Having done it, I
understand.

>I value the user's time. It's my obligation to make things as easy as possible
>for him. And if it means extra work on my part -- well, that's my job.

This is the problem. I regard manuals as training tools. I've never
been interested in training. Education is what I seek.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

> How are you managing to misread what I write so thoroughly. My point
> is that every existing manual necessarily starts from some assumption
> about the user's knowledge. It may be pitched at the person who has
> never encountered such a device in his life, or maybe at one who
> understands the principles, but not the specifics of the product. It
> may assume knowledge of both of those, and dip more thoroughly into
> the theory of the subject.

I am in no way misreading what you wrote. It is precisely /that/ that I am
objecting to. You do not pitch user documentation to people with specific
backgrounds.


> You are getting no compliments for the documents you are writing here.
> Your understanding of differing needs of different users is woeful.

> "The user". there you have it. You have already decided in your head
> who that user is, and what he needs.

You could not have it more bass-ackwards. It is precisely because writers
target manuals toward specific users (usually the mythical "already knows
everything" user) that manuals are so bad.

I have repeatedly explained my philosophy of documentation. How difficult is
it to understand? You write for the person who doesn't understand how to use
the product. Any other approach results in a poor manual, because it doesn't
address the /actual/ needs of /real/ users.


> As I said at the start, manuals always mange to be pitched at just the
> wrong level for the information I want. Your lack of understanding of
> this simple fact perhaps explains why manuals are generally so poor.

You have obviously never read one of my manuals. You would find they have
exactly what you -- or any other reader -- needs.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

>> I value the user's time. It's my obligation to make things as easy as
>> possible
>> for him. And if it means extra work on my part -- well, that's my job.

> This is the problem. I regard manuals as training tools. I've never
> been interested in training. Education is what I seek.

I don't understand your distinction between training and education. Do you
mean "training" as simply factual information, whereas "education" is
understanding the principles involved? Though the latter is preferable, the
former can give a big "leg up" to the latter.

[William Sommerwerck]

I do not understand why you adamantly insist on rejecting a technical writer's
help. Why do you insist on making things hard for yourself?

Why would an EE reject Laplace transforms and spend hours at a test bench,
trying to figure out the rules that govern RLC circuits?

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/26/2013 7:34 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> How are you managing to misread what I write so thoroughly. My point
>> is that every existing manual necessarily starts from some assumption
>> about the user's knowledge. It may be pitched at the person who has
>> never encountered such a device in his life, or maybe at one who
>> understands the principles, but not the specifics of the product. It
>> may assume knowledge of both of those, and dip more thoroughly into
>> the theory of the subject.
>
> I am in no way misreading what you wrote. It is precisely /that/ that I
> am objecting to. You do not pitch user documentation to people with
> specific backgrounds.
>
It would seem that what and to whom things are pitched would
be a marketing decision ....even including user manual contents.
[YMMV]

> <<< ...BIG snip... >>>

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/26/2013 3:00 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Ron C > wrote:
>>
>> I'll throw another one out. Anyone know the spectral
>> sensitivity of their DSLR ...from the manual?
>
> It's in the Nikon D5 manual.
>
>> Does your camera have an IR cut filter? If so,
>> what's the cutoff wavelength? [From the manual,
>> not some Google (etc.) search.]
>
> My camera is a Crown Graphic and it cuts off pretty low....
> --scott
>
Thanks. Glad to hear that some do.
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:34:55 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article >):

> I have to disagree. Manuals are sometimes missing important information. Even

> if it's there, manuals are almost always badly written and poorly organized.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

The Yamaha manuals are actually pretty good. I taught myself how to use a
Yamaha 02R mixer back in 1997-1998, just by sitting with the manual for a day
and going through all the menus. It's not rocket science. All the Yamaha
mixers share many similar design philosophies, to the point where when you
learn one, you've got 75% of the gist of all of them. I had no problem
switching to the 03D when our facility gradually went to that one, and later
to the DM1000 -- all three essentially the same. And I also bought and used
an 01V for some time, and it was like the "toy" version of the big mixers.

I agree that there were (and still are) bad manuals out there, but there's
also still ways to learn on your own if you're willing to open up your eyes,
ask for help, and look for the resources out there. It's 1000 times easier
now, particularly with YouTube. I think just about every major modern piece
of recording equipment and software is demoed and explained up there already
(for example).

--MFW

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/25/2013 10:08 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> The Japanese do not understand the concept of top-documentation. Their
> manuals tend to focus on details, and rarely supply necessary context.

I'm trying to track down a problem with my Revox A-700 recorder and the
applicable section of the service manual reads like it was translated
from Swiss to English by a native Japanese speaker.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/25/2013 11:42 PM, Trevor wrote:

> Right the big studios had their own technicians then, so the same
> technicians can easily provide computer support,

Remember that when Studer, Ampex, Otari, and MCI (and don't forget Neve
and API) were in vogue, _all_ studios were "big studios." Other than
rich boy studios, there was no point in being anything else.

> except many studios now
> save money because they don't need full time support staff! Having a
> complete spare computer ready to go costs a pittance, and *really* reduces
> downtime for me,

Do you have an exact duplicate of your working computer and synchronize
it every day? Do they both have the same hardware and have the same
software (with the same updates) installed? That's the only way you can
have a complete spare computer that's truly ready to go, taking no more
time to swap out than a console module or plug-in circuit card in a tape
deck.

> We are not talking basic maintenance because there is none for digital
> recorders.

And therein lies the problem. When something _does_ go wrong, you don't
know what you're starting with, so you just throw it away and start over
again. Maybe that suits you, but I don't think that approach makes
everyone comfortable, if for no other reason that they can't afford to
maintain a backup computer. And by "maintain" I mean keeping it
identical to the working computer so you don't find something missing or
working differently when yo swap it out.

> That some people use the same computer for
> internet, accounting, word processing etc and run into problems beyond their
> ability, is hardly comparable to analog tape recorders. Just try using a
> Studer/Ampex to access the internet

That's what makes real troubleshooting and maintenance so much easier
with a tape deck than a computer. You just don't want to do any
maintenance at all so you choose a route that allows that.

> I hardly ever have problems with dedicated computers, and when I do they are
> usually very simple fixes at minimal cost.

True, costs are minimal, but I have run into some computer problems that
aren't very simple fixes. Or maybe I just don't notice the simple fixes
and maintenance actions (like clearing the web browser cache) because
they're just part of regular operation.

> Ok then, how about : You can pay for a hundred computer tech service calls
> and still have change! :-)

Do you have any idea what a competent computer tech service call costs?
I doubt it because you either fix or throw away all of your troublesome
computers.

> I really love that I can fix computer problems far more
> cheaply and easily than I could a 2" tape machine!

And I really love that when I fix a tape machine, I know exactly what
the problem was and I can confirm that it's really fixed.

> I *CAN* get a brand NEW 1TB USB hard drive in a case with power supply for
> $50 now.

They don't sell 'em that way any more, at least not where most "no
maintenance" computer people shop. I have a couple of USB and/or
Firewire cases with an external power supply that I can put a drive in
(in fact that's what i've done) but today most people are looking for
modern low power SATA drives that can be powered from a USB port.

This looks something like what you're describing - $90
http://www.staples.com/product-nr_912602

This is probably what most "non professionals" buy for this sort of
applcation - $100
http://www.staples.com/product-nr_901973

This is the sort of thing that "professionals" (the ones who used to buy
tape) use - $185
http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/GPT50-1TB/

> So they pay for the hard drives if they want them. Nothings changed there.

And if they don't, do you re-format it and use it for the next project?
Or do you feel guilty about that and hang on to it, maybe put some other
projects on it, and eventually delete that project that you've kept on
it for 8 years and figure the client will never come back asking about it?


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Frank Stearns]

"William Sommerwerck" > writes:

>> As I said at the start, manuals always mange to be pitched at just the
>> wrong level for the information I want. Your lack of understanding of
>> this simple fact perhaps explains why manuals are generally so poor.

>You have obviously never read one of my manuals. You would find they have
>exactly what you -- or any other reader -- needs.

Hmmm. Are they "one size/one format fits all"?

Even within a defined field, user needs and their abilities vary widely.

I've always written in a multi-part format that supports users jumping around
however/wherever they want, or reading cover to cover:

- compact but comprehensive and punchy intro, with razor clear headings and
subheadings, conceptually threading things together so that as best possible the
"story arc" of the product is visible (not necessarily its history, but its
integrated use). This even pulls in general info that fits the field of interest,
but might not be specifically in this product.

- reference section (if the product fits well with that). Describes all the nuts and
bolts, one nut and one bolt at a time, usually in a unified format for each
description.

- "cookbook" section. You bought this cool thing to do a cool thing or things; here
is what to push, pull, click, tap, slap, et al, in the right order, to get those
cool things to happen. There will be enough "recipes" so that not only will the user
see how to do things most folks want to do, they'll also get the hang of how the
thing works and can figure out their own recipes -- particularly after they've been
in and out of the reference section a few times.

Supporting info includes a really good index (not just a lame concordance), figures,
tables, listings of those items (and ancillary listings if they'll make it easier to
find info about the product), cross references, external references, etc.

Some assumptions are made, and when that occurs the reader is advised about what
they generally ought to know before coming into this thing. Otherwise, in the absurd
logical conclusion of making sure the reader knows everthing, you're teaching a 1st
grade reading class.

Unfortunately, this format is largely unused. Not so much for budgets (but that is a
factor), but because more and more folks these days, weaned on TV, want to passively
watch a 5 minute video that will make them expertly proficient, and then get ****ed
off when that doesn't happen. Sigh.

YMMV.
Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...
On 6/26/2013 7:34 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
> ...

>>> How are you managing to misread what I write so thoroughly. My point
>>> is that every existing manual necessarily starts from some assumption
>>> about the user's knowledge. It may be pitched at the person who has
>>> never encountered such a device in his life, or maybe at one who
>>> understands the principles, but not the specifics of the product. It
>>> may assume knowledge of both of those, and dip more thoroughly into
>>> the theory of the subject.

>> I am in no way misreading what you wrote. It is precisely /that/ that I
>> am objecting to. You do not pitch user documentation to people with
>> specific backgrounds.

> It would seem that what and to whom things are pitched would
> be a marketing decision ....even including user manual contents.
> [YMMV]

On the assumption that this misunderstanding is due to my failure to explain
things in excruciating detail, I will do so.

One of the basic rules of technical writing is "know who your audience is". I
have long felt that doing so results in poor manuals. This rule is not only
useless, but can be pernicious. It encourages writers -- especially
programmers and product developers (who we know often write terrible
documentation) -- to assume the reader does similar work (which is often
true), and therefore implicitly understands the product. Wrong. ERROR, ERROR,
ERROR, WILL ROBINSON!

The correct question to asked is "Why is someone reading the manual?" The
obvious answer is... There's something they need to know, and are looking for
the answer to. ** This is the principle that drives the design of good
manuals.

The writer does not make decisions about what the user does or does not need
to know. That is the user's decision. The writer provides product information
in sufficient detail so that the user does not have to experiment to clearly
understand a feature's basic operation.

Is there a dividing line between what the writer needs to describe, and what
he can ignore? Yes. It is usually the "base knowledge" a reader can reasonably
be expected to bring to the table. When I worked at Microsoft, I wrote an
"introduction to programming" section for QuickBasic 4, because (as with the
Canon AE-1) it was assumed buyers would have little or no programming
experience. But you would never put such material in the documentation for
Microsoft's .NET development system.

The next time you can't find the information you need, blame the writer. It is
his fault, because he failed to look at the product from the user's
perspective.

One other point... For the last 20 years it has been possible to create
searchable and hot-linked documents that can be distributed for little or no
cost. There is no excuse (other than American managers being fired by their
Japanese slave masters) for not producing well-written and well-organized
manuals that answer just about any question a user might ask.

** A manager at Microsoft told me that developers generally read documentation
only when they had problems.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
.. .

"William Sommerwerck" > writes:

>> As I said at the start, manuals always mange to be pitched at just the
>> wrong level for the information I want. Your lack of understanding of
>> this simple fact perhaps explains why manuals are generally so poor.

>> You have obviously never read one of my manuals. You would
>> find they have exactly what you -- or any other reader -- needs.

> Hmmm. Are they "one size/one format fits all"?

No. Exactly the opposite.


> Even within a defined field, user needs and abilities vary widely.

Absolutely. That is exactly what I'm talking about. "Tell the users what they
need to know about the product". Don't hide anything, or give shallow,
hand-waving explanations.

This is what most documentation /does not/ do.


--------------------------------------------------------------
I've always written in a multi-part format that supports users jumping around
however/wherever they want, or reading cover to cover:

- compact but comprehensive and punchy intro, with razor clear headings and
subheadings, conceptually threading things together so that as best possible
the
"story arc" of the product is visible (not necessarily its history, but its
integrated use). This even pulls in general info that fits the field of
interest,
but might not be specifically in this product.

- reference section (if the product fits well with that). Describes all the
nuts and
bolts, one nut and one bolt at a time, usually in a unified format for each
description.

- "cookbook" section. You bought this cool thing to do a cool thing or things;
here
is what to push, pull, click, tap, slap, et al, in the right order, to get
those
cool things to happen. There will be enough "recipes" so that not only will
the user
see how to do things most folks want to do, they'll also get the hang of how
the
thing works and can figure out their own recipes -- particularly after they've
been
in and out of the reference section a few times.
--------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like you know what you're doing! Could you e-mail me one of your
manuals? I might learn something.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting info includes a really good index (not just a lame concordance),
figures,
tables, listings of those items (and ancillary listings if they'll make it
easier to
find info about the product), cross references, external references, etc.

Some assumptions are made, and when that occurs the reader is advised about
what
they generally ought to know before coming into this thing. Otherwise, in the
absurd
logical conclusion of making sure the reader knows everything, you're teaching
a 1st
grade reading class.

Unfortunately, this format is largely unused. Not so much for budgets (but
that is a
factor), but because more and more folks these days, weaned on TV, want to
passively
watch a 5 minute video that will make them expertly proficient, and then get
****ed
off when that doesn't happen. Sigh.
--------------------------------------------------------------
No argument. Such a format takes time and money.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
.com...
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:34:55 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article >):

> I have to disagree. Manuals are sometimes missing important information.
> Even
> if it's there, manuals are almost always badly written and poorly organized.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

> The Yamaha manuals are actually pretty good.

This isn't altogether surprising. The DSP-3000 manual is startlingly good, far
superior to the average Japanese manual. (I've owned two other Yamaha
products, but don't remember the manuals.)

> I agree that there were (and still are) bad manuals out there, but there's
> also still ways to learn on your own if you're willing to open up your eyes,
> ask for help, and look for the resources out there. It's 1000 times easier
> now, particularly with YouTube. I think just about every major modern piece
> of recording equipment and software is demoed and explained up there already
> (for example).

It's true that you can't learn something (in any depth) without actually using
it. But the writer has the obligation to make it as painless as possible.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/25/2013 11:42 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> except many studios now
>> save money because they don't need full time support staff! Having a
>> complete spare computer ready to go costs a pittance, and *really*
>> reduces downtime for me,
>
> Do you have an exact duplicate of your working computer and
> synchronize it every day? Do they both have the same hardware and
> have the same software (with the same updates) installed?
>
With dedicated computers, daily synchronization is unnecessary because they
only change state when you update the apps. At that point, both the working
and backup machines should be updated. In a commercial environment, one
shouldn't be storing variable data such as recorded tracks and edits
internally anyway, so swapping out the DAW can be very quick and easy.

>> I hardly ever have problems with dedicated computers, and when I do
>> they are usually very simple fixes at minimal cost.
>
> True, costs are minimal, but I have run into some computer problems
> that aren't very simple fixes. Or maybe I just don't notice the
> simple fixes and maintenance actions (like clearing the web browser
> cache) because they're just part of regular operation.
>
Web browser cache? In audio?!? My DAW has no web browser, no way to get to
the web, no word processing apps, no spreadsheets, etc. It is *dedicated* to
the task of being a DAW, and it would be no problem to have an exact
duplicate of it as a backup if I were to "go commercial" again. I have no
sympathy for folks who think that a general-purpose computer is appropriate
in a professional audio environment.
--
best regards,

Neil