BS filter ... was HPF
in [Live Sound]
|
From: Denny Strauser on 17 Jul 2008 00:37 Geesh! Need I say more? -Denny
From: Eeyore on 17 Jul 2008 10:24 Denny Strauser wrote: > Geesh! > > Need I say more? Do we need to adopt a new 'standard' whereby 'filters' only 'cut' abeit possibly with some pre-ripple and EQ covers whole gamut of tone shaping ? Graham
From: Denny Strauser on 19 Jul 2008 00:28 Eeyore wrote: > Denny Strauser wrote: >> Geesh! > Do we need to adopt a new 'standard' whereby 'filters' only 'cut' abeit > possibly with some pre-ripple and EQ covers whole gamut of tone shaping > ? It's an unmoderated NG, & I guess everyone takes advantage of it ... for better or worse ... All I was saying, -Denny
From: Eeyore on 19 Jul 2008 04:02 Denny Strauser wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Denny Strauser wrote: > >> Geesh! > > Do we need to adopt a new 'standard' whereby 'filters' only 'cut' abeit > > possibly with some pre-ripple and EQ covers whole gamut of tone shaping ? > > It's an unmoderated NG, & I guess everyone takes advantage of it ... for > better or worse ... > > All I was saying, Well, what I had in mind is that current terminology in the audio world is to refer to a filter as a 'cutting' device only and EQ as one that can go either plus or minus. Whilst the distinction is electrically artificial, it might help reduce misunderstandings to refer to them separately in those ways Just an idea. Graham
From: Denny Strauser on 20 Jul 2008 01:36
Eeyore wrote: > Denny Strauser wrote: >> It's an unmoderated NG, & I guess everyone takes advantage of it ... for >> better or worse ... >> All I was saying, > > Well, what I had in mind is that current terminology in the audio world is to > refer to a filter as a 'cutting' device only and EQ as one that can go either > plus or minus. > > Whilst the distinction is electrically artificial, it might help reduce > misunderstandings to refer to them separately in those ways Understood ... but, semantics. What I was implying (and this is in general - not you specifically) is that what aapls needs is a BS filter. I'm not suggesting a moderator, but that the regulars filter their own posts to minimize the flaming noise that masks any intelligent dialog signal. There have been many posts in the last few days, but after reading so much BS in the threads, I'm discouraged from reading this NG AT ALL. I've been visiting this NG for a decade. Can you imagine how a newbie (amateur or pro) perceives this NG. Maybe some of the regulars have too much time on their hands, & humor themselves by one-upping each others' insults. It might be entertaining to themselves, but not to many others. And, like I said, it's contagious. After getting some fine advice from Phil while being insulted by him, I made one less than positive comment about him & lost what little respect he had for me. I'm likely to stay on aapls as a lurker, but I'll likely go elsewhere for advice; or contact aapls people by personal email, if they use a valid email address. So, any intelligent dialog, in that case, will not be shared by all. It's sad. In the past, I suggested that we all refrain from responding to the flamers, but 90+% of the posts are by flamers. Maybe we should leave them to themselves to duke it out, & go elsewhere for intelligent discussions. Discouraged, -Denny |