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]

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
news:eb554755-3739-4864...@googlegroups.com...

> 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 news:kpo1e7$clb$1...@dont-email.me...

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
news:c29e6cc7-1b7c-4e17...@googlegroups.com...

>> 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" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpo99e$ecv$1...@dont-email.me...

> "PStamler" wrote in message
> news:c29e6cc7-1b7c-4e17...@googlegroups.com...
>
>>> 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 horseshit.

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]

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.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kpnji8$sb5$1...@dont-email.me...

> 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 news:kpoahh$j8l$1...@dont-email.me...

> 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]

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" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kpof79$7gn$1...@dont-email.me...

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]

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 news:kpofge$8hq$1...@dont-email.me...

> 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]

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]

100% agreed.

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

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

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kpohq6$guq$1...@dont-email.me...

LOL! "Calling you out". What a fucking 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]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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?

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kpo3lo$muo$1...@dont-email.me...
/

> 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" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:kpo3lo$muo$1...@dont-email.me...
> /
>> 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 news:%ISvt.38557$oh2....@fx36.am4...

> 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
news:ScOdnTUMJ_ON2l3M...@giganews.com...

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpo3lo$muo$1...@dont-email.me...

>> 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
news:HZednZQuBOSkUiLM...@earthlink.com...

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpohq6$guq$1...@dont-email.me...

> LOL! "Calling you out". What a fucking 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 news:kppccj$umu$1...@dont-email.me...

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
news:VfWdnZibea-QUCLM...@giganews.com...

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]

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?"

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:kppu9p$20a$1...@dont-email.me...

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 <mm1...@yahoo.com> 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]

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.

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/18/2013 12:57 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:

> 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).

I'm always suspicious of an business name that begins with a lower case
"i." Is there any money in it? Or is it one of those on-line things? I
self-published The Last Mackie Hard Disk Recorder Manual through Cafe
Press and in the 9 years or so that it's been out, I've probably made a
couple of thousand bucks. I still get a check for $30-$60 every couple
of months when somebody buys one. It was a good deal for me because I
didn't have to put up any money in advance, but then I didn't get any
money in advance either.

I'd rather go with an outfit like Focal Press that has a whole line of
audio-related books.

[S. King]

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

> "Ron C" wrote in message
> news:VfWdnZibea-QUCLM...@giganews.com...
> On 6/17/2013 10:41 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Paul" wrote in message news:kpofge$8hq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>>> 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

[Les Cargill]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "PStamler" wrote in message
> news:c29e6cc7-1b7c-4e17...@googlegroups.com...

>
>>> 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]

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.

[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]

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" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kpq1id$m8e$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> 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 shit, especially not if they have to pay
for it.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kpq604$gf6$1...@dont-email.me...

> 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
fuck 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 fuck about facts, despite your persistent denial.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kppo0m$ttd$1...@dont-email.me...

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

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kppo7f$uus$1...@dont-email.me...

> "None" wrote in message
> news:HZednZQuBOSkUiLM...@earthlink.com...
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:kpohq6$guq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> LOL! "Calling you out". What a fucking 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 shit. No wonder you can't get work.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kppoc2$vo3$1...@dont-email.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.

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" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kpq6mg$kb0$1...@dont-email.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
>
>> 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 news:kpql3k$33f$1...@dont-email.me...

> 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
news:K9qdnURHVOpwQV3M...@earthlink.com...

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" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:kpqrgi$60q$1...@dont-email.me...

> 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 <grizzle...@comcast.net> 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" <mm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kppu9p$20a$1...@dont-email.me...

> 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
news:a3579e5a-a11f-469b...@googlegroups.com...

> 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 news:kprvh5$2lh$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

"Mike Rivers" <mm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kppu9p$20a$1...@dont-email.me...

>> 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]

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.

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" <mm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:kps4cs$j75$2...@dont-email.me...

> 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]

"PStamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:23cc661b-4efb-4626...@googlegroups.com...

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

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers <mm1...@yahoo.com> 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.

[hank alrich]

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

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:58:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@wowway.com>
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.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:51c1d76e....@news.eternal-september.org...

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]

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.

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" <mm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:kpsn77$2c2$1...@dont-email.me...

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]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:24:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@wowway.com>

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]

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.

[Neil Gould]

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

[Don Pearce]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:48-dnS4xVOMoeVzM...@giganews.com...

> 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 news:kpsn9r$2c2$2...@dont-email.me...

>> 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.

[Ron C]

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]

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.

[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
news:TKidnc_sr7wzg1_M...@giganews.com...

> 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 <r.c...@verizon.net> 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]

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 <r.c...@verizon.net> 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]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kpt401$i74$1...@dont-email.me...

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.

[Neil Gould]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:kpuq2b$38j$1...@panix2.panix.com...

Ron C <r.c...@verizon.net> 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

news:j-idnfdA1bw6YF_M...@giganews.com...

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> 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.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:kpv5kc$fiv$1...@panix2.panix.com...

> 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.

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> 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

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Ron C]

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

[Don Pearce]

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

news:-M2dnUZSdpTqtl7M...@giganews.com...

> 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 news:kpv9g6$nvb$1...@dont-email.me...

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.

[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.