Temperature-compensated resonance ( was Re: [sdiy] RE: [AH]

[cheater cheater]

People have hardwired the first computers in order to avoid the tabs
vs spaces debate.


On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 21:40, David G. Dixon <dixon at interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
> Cheater, do you have a specific point to make, or are you simply arguing for
> the sake of arguing?

There are several points I hoped to have made here; ones that are very
close to my heart and I find them quite important.

One of them is what Olav brings up: that it is often very worthwhile
to challenge 'no one will ever want to', instead of locking yourself
in a box in which you cannot grow. I couldn't have said that better
than Olav.

The second point I was hoping to bring up is that the conversations
here are of different nature than when people are trying to come up
with a production-ripe product they can sell to real-life clients. It
is worth to ask questions about what the perfect filter, vco, eq,
exponential converter, ... would be like.

Another point is that simply rebuking someone's thesis based on your
personal 'twist' on the truth is not the way to lead a conversation
about technology and solutions thereto. Ages past, logic used to be
taught to children as part of 'trivium' from which the word 'trivial',
meaning basic, comes. Logic was so basic. It is not taught in schools
anymore and it is quite apparent that it is lacking. As long as we
have this sort of deficiencies in basic thinking (don't take me wrong,
I'm not calling anyone stupid, but this is really basic) - then I will
feel compelled to get back to basics and point out the things
essential to effective communication and exchange of ideas between
people who are after all thinkers and should be valuing quality of
thought.

> I've been following this thread, trying to glean
> something useful out of it which might help me build better synthesizers,
> but so far I'm coming up empty.

Imagine someone would come in here saying that resistors are a special
type of capacitor ... you would probably feel compelled to straighten
them up. This would not make for a conversation especially informative
to most of us; it would not let most of us know how it might help us
build better synthesizers. But it would be important.

> Yes, we're all fairly certain that Cary has
> not taken the time to finish that double-blind statistical study on the
> preferences of audio recording engineers to temperature-compensated Q (for
> shame, Cary, for shame!).

Then if he did not - why make statements that require this sort of
knowledge? One side to the quality of knowledge contained in a
bulletin, publication, forum or mailing list is what is said. It is
very helpful when true, informative points are made. Another side is
what is *not* said. If an opinion, which is not true (and here I am
abstracting from Cary or anyone else) is stated on a forum of
discussion, and nobody even mentions it might be wrong, then it is
customarily accepted as not untrue; which is detrimental to the
quality of conversation. Without 'straigtening out' problems we see in
our partners of conversation, we allow ourselves to be victims of
indifference, and allow the quality of conversation to drift down
rather than rise. It is below certain standards to accept certain
kinds of argumentation; it is important to make this point; I'm sure
you keep the same kind of discipline in your lecture hall when someone
comes up with bogus statements about material sciences.

> Why are we supposed to care again?

Because without this sort of discipline we are, for one thing, losing
the spirit of diy, which is to try new things, rather than getting
packed into the bag of 'it doesn't matter'. If you are happy with 'it
doesn't matter', then why did you pursue your exponential converter
questions? After all, the exponential converter 'doesn't matter'.. :-)

D.


On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 21:13, Olav Martin Kvern <okvern at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Colleagues--
>
> This is the sort of question that quickly turns into a "religious"
> argument--like most engineering design questions. I've seen mature,
> intelligent people become physically violent over differing opinions on
> correct code indentation--let's try to avoid that!
>
> In software engineering over the last thirty+ years, I've run into a lot of
> limiting design decisions based on questions that start with "Why would
> anyone want to <fill in the blank>?" Why would anyone want to use this
> program after the year 1999? Use more than 8 bits to define a character? Use
> a color space other than RGB? Open multiple documents at once?
>
> You get the idea. Whenever you hear "No one will ever want to..." or "Why
> would anyone...", it's a good idea to question the assumption.
>
> At the same time, making *no* assumptions about the way a product will be
> used can lead to a big problem: the product never ships.
>
> You all already know this, but: The point is to reach a reasonable
> balance--neither making overly-limiting assumptions (like the ones listed
> above), nor spending forever trying to create a design that accounts for
> every possibility. In addition, the issues that tip the balance one way or
> another depends on the audience and the intended use (defined as broadly as
> possible) of the product.
>
> Mr. Wiltshire has already created some of the most interesting DIY projects
> around--I look forward to seeing how he solves the design dilemma.:-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ole
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>