[sdiy] Language bending, was:Alternating dead current voltage??

[Magnus Danielson]

From: Ingo Debus <debus at cityweb.de>
Subject: [sdiy] Language bending, was:Alternating dead current voltage??
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:36:52 +0100
Message-ID: <4578EECC-5669-11D9-8410-000A9571C136 at cityweb.de>

Ingo,

> 
> Am Freitag, 24.12.04 um 18:18 Uhr schrieb TIm Daugard:
> 
> > The biggest language mistake I hate. In inverting and non-inverting 
> > inputs to
> > opamps.
> >
> > Why should we define something as the non- version of the oposite 
> > version of the
> > normal. I have taken to using normal and inverting to descirbe opamp 
> > inputs.
> >
> 
> I'm always bothered by the fact that there isn't a "correct" term for 
> musical instruments that are not electronic. Usually these are refered 
> to as "acoustic" instruments, but since "acoustic" in the strict sense 
> means "dealing with sound" this would imply our synthesizers do not 
> produce sound. Huh?

Rather, the fundamental synthesis method common to these are the acoustical
soundwave in various mediums and various methods by which these soundwaves is
generated. The violin for instance is a complex instrument in which the
acoustical wave in the string(s), the resonance of the top and bottom lids
and the standing wave resonance in the air inside the violin form a big part of
it. The bow as it is frictioned against the strings, the fingers as they
terminate the strings is another aspect. Regardless of material for the
acoustical wave, it is acoustical waves. The same goes for drums, organ pipes,
trumpets, piccolo flutes, etc. etc. They are all acoustical instruments, since
the fundamental design principle is dealing with acoustical waves in a varity
of materials. In electronic instruments you rarely notice any acoustical waves
but electromagentical waves is however, the large range of nonlinearities allow
for amplifications which allows for types of synthesis that where not
previously possible. The nonlinear clipping of analogue amplifiers allows for
digital design which by itself allows for a specific subfield of electric
instruments.

So, I don't think acoustic instruments is wrong, it is really spot on detailing
the fundamental method of implementation. Just as we now also say analogue
instruments and digital instruments (being the two classes of electronic
instruments).

> Also, the usage of "acoustic" sometimes sounds a bit high-brow to me, 
> like in "we only play acoustic instruments" (even worse: "we only play 
> real instruments").
> 
> So, why not call a group of instruments whose only common property is 
> that they are not electronic "non-electronic instruments"?
> 
> Any better suggestions?

"acoustical instruments" describes very well most if not all instruments
prior to the introduction of electronics. Lets use this term since it is
correct in relation to how the instruments are designed.

There exists instruments which is neither pure acoustic or pure electronic,
they are infact a combination of them both. These are correctly called
electro-acoustical instruments.

The trouble you seem to have against "acoustical" in "acoustical instruments"
has nothing with the actual mode of operation in those instruments, but rather
with their implied value, which is a cultural aspect.

Cheers,
Magnus