Fw: 1970's again? (was Re: [sdiy] pro EQs)

[Steve Lenham]

I hope my silliness in accidentally sending my earlier message privately 
rather than to the list doesn't detract from the power of my arguments :-(

Original message posted below so you can see what Kenneth was replying to in 
full...



 Dear Kenneth,

 While I respect your opinions (and indeed what little of your work I have
 experienced) I am a little surprised by how judgemental you are prepared to
 be of a body of people of whom a) you are a relative newcomer and b) you
 appear to have so little understanding. Perhaps, like me, you simply enjoy
 the cut-and-thrust of a good debate, but it is so much more pleasant if you
 leave open the possibility that anyone else might have something valid to
 say.

 I actually have some sympathy with the view that there are some things 
where
 it is more effective to buy than DIY - and I think most experienced DIYers
 come to that conclusion eventually - but even so it is up to each 
individual
 to decide how they wish to spend their time, based on what they feel they
 are getting out of the exercise and I would strenuously defend their right
 to do so without their efforts being dismissed as worthless. Like so many
 things in life, it's about the journey, not the destination.

 I would also take issue with some of your other points:

> Buying a CD of music instead of composing and performing new music isn't 
> at
> all an equal analogy here.  And an artist that paints a picture is 
> hopefully
> creating something new.  I was pointing out that going the DIY route to do
> something that's already been done many times seems rather wasteful.
> Especially when done in a more primitive way ei. underpowered 6502
> processors, awful sounding 8 bit DAC's, ROM multiplication lookup tables,
> external RAM, and so forth.  A single cheap chip these days will do all of
> that, better, faster, and easier.

 This would all make sense if it were not for a key misconception you seem 
to
 have about electronics.  The artist you mention may use tools which many
 others have used before (paint, canvas) and may use them to paint the same
 subject that many others have painted before (still life, a particular
 landscape), yet you would still credit them with creating something new
 because of the unique approach of the individual artist.

 In electronics, a designer may use components that many have used before to
 implement a function which others have addressed before, but it would seem
 that you consider it impossible that they bring any new perspective to the
 exercise or achieve results that are in any way unique.

 To me, it is a misconception to believe that there is no creative, or even
 artistic, element involved in technical design. I do not see why one of the
 two situations above should be more creditable than the other.

 Of course, a single cheap camera these days will record any subject better,
 faster and easier than silly old paint ;-)


> I've also always considered being into synthesis meant first and foremost
> people wanted to use synths.  Spending lots of time building yet another
> oscillator because you don't want to buy one takes away from that first
> goal.  That might explain why I've never heard a single composition (or
> sound or note) from most of the DIY community.  Building yet another
> wavetable oscillator may be fun to some, but isn't that supposed to lead 
> to
> actually using it?

 You are taking a single perspective - your own - and being amazed that it 
is
 not universally shared. There simply is no "supposed to" about it, unless
 you believe that your values should be imposed on others.

 Ultimately, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you are arguing that some
 people here should spend less time doing things which they enjoy and spend
 more time doing things which they may enjoy less and be less capable at, 
but
 which YOU consider to be more important.

 I cannot agree.


> On this list is seems like some are digging holes with rakes.  I've never
> known 8 bit digital to be adequate for processing analog audio.

 8-bit digital is not adequate for TRANSPARENTLY processing analogue audio. 
I
 don't think many people here were suggesting that it was. It is, however, 
as
 good a method as any other for distorting and colouring sound in ways that
 may or may not prove musically useful, so is a perfectly sensible subject
 for discussion.

 Think of it as your artist mixing a little dirt into his pure coloured 
paint
 in order to obtain a more subtle and interesting shade ;-)


> I was waiting for some comment like this.  Seeing how Behringer has
> different levels of quality and both analog and digital devices I don't 
> see
> how anyone can catagorize them all the same way.  I have some Behringer
> gear, and it isn't any more noisy than any of my other gear.  I've also
> bought some of it because it does some things not available elsewhere.

 If you could apply the same level of understanding and tolerance to the DIY
 community as you do to the Behringer range, I think we'd all get along a 
bit
 more harmoniously...

 Best regards to all,

 Steve L.