"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,

The world of broadcasting is rather larger than Iain's one...

Indeed. But your particular sector of broadcasting, drama is
considerably smaller, and probably uses simpler techniques
than in music broadcasting, so it is not surprising if you have
little experience of the kind of effects used in popular music
recording.

We would use pre and post delay to describe such a thing.

And that description would be totally incorrect :-)

Normal terms adapted to suit a variety of
applications.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to listen to my
Example04, and tell me how you would describe it
in "your normal terms"

I won't hold my breath:-)

Iain

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:



It is not the word "reverb" that is in contention, but the use of the
word "delay", which can clearly be either verb or a noun, depending on
the context.

"Delay" is a verb in the expression "delay the reverb" but a noun in the
expression "reverb the delay"

Perhaps you will have done so by the time this posting appears.

But as yet I've still not seen you explain:

1) How anyone (not already privy to your jargon) reading your initial
assertion would have known you used the same word for two different
things.

2) What you mean by saying one use is a "noun" and the other is a "verb".

Your earlier explanation seemed to say that in one case you applied a
reverb process, and in the other applied that *and then combined it with
the current input to the reverb process". That does seem to me to be a
clear functional distinction. But I it isn't clear to me how that answers
the above questions.

Both these terms are colloquialisms in
every day use in the studio environment. Every producer, engineer,
student and trainee understands their meaning, and the difference
between them.

That doesn't particularly surprise me. Quite easy for an in-group to adopt
a jargon that make no sense to anyone else. Ambiguities like these are
common enough. e.g. the use of "compression" or "bandwidth" to mean quite
different things which those "in group" would distinguish from context.
But
I'm not clear why you'd expect anyone else to understand your (hidden)
meaning when you simply wrote

"You can delay the reverb or reverb the delay. Totally different".

This issue does interest me as I've lost count of the number of times I've
found both students and 'experts' don't really know what they are doing as
a result of such lazy jagon where the user assumes "people know what this
means" without the need to actually explain or resolve the ambiguity. It
clouds both comminication and the ability to think.

To date, with the exception of yourself, I have met no-one else who
was confused

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


This issue does interest me ......

But not enough it seems that you would take the
time to listen to the examples which I recorded.


Until you do listen, this discussion is going round in
circles.

Cheers
Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I've never ever heard 'reverb the delay' used.

Do you mean you have never heard the effect or
never heard the term?

The parenthesis should give clue.

If you mean the effect, it is one of the most widely used
in popular recording and has been since the 1950s.

Yes, pet. Perhaps you haven't realised I've been around the various types
of echo systems rather longer than you. Since echo *rooms* were the norm.
When the BBC had the King's Theatre in Hammersmith as a temporary LE
studio, one of the gents loos was pressed into service for this.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
In your "Pre and Post Reverb Delay" both reverb and
delay are audible in the resulting signal. These are perhaps
the the effects that Jim suggested would commute, and
perhaps what Don was demonstrating in his clip.

In "delay the reverb" the delay line is used solely feed the
reverb and establish a gap of silence between the main signal
(audible) and the reverb (audible), as in my example. This
is something quite different. My example with 4 secs is of
course extreme:-) but clearly illustrates the application.

Think you need to play with some decent modern digital delay units. That
Rev5 was ok in its day as a low cost solution. But things have moved on.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The world of broadcasting is rather larger than Iain's one...

Indeed. But your particular sector of broadcasting, drama is
considerably smaller, and probably uses simpler techniques
than in music broadcasting, so it is not surprising if you have
little experience of the kind of effects used in popular music
recording.

Lots of 'probables' there, Iain. Don't hypothesise on things you know
little about. Adding and matching acoustics is a major part of drama
dubbing, and a decent suite will have every device known to man...

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:
Sparrows used to be about the most common bird in this part of
London. Then all but disappeared perhaps 10 years ago. And although
they've returned, in nowhere near the same numbers.

What happened to cause a reduction in their numbers?

I dunno. I've searched, but found no definitive answer. They seemed to
disappear near overnight.

I've hear mention of this a number of times. In general with people also
saying they don't know the cause.

Two that have occurred to me are

1) Cats. The little expletives are probably mass murderers.

2) There is an infection that has been found to move from just one species
of bird to another recently, so maybe that has also done for sparras.

Hard for me to tell. But I certainly see far more other types of birds on
our garden. Even wrens which I only started noticing a couple of years ago
as they tend to be so small and shy.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


In your "Pre and Post Reverb Delay" both reverb and delay are audible
in the resulting signal. These are perhaps the the effects that Jim
suggested would commute, and perhaps what Don was demonstrating in his
clip.

Again, due to the lack of clarity in your wording it is hard to say.
However in general *any* processes if applied in order with no feeding or
looping back or added side-paths will commute. Simple a matter of linear
algebra and superposition rules.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Both these terms are colloquialisms in every day use in the studio
environment. Every producer, engineer, student and trainee
understands their meaning, and the difference between them.

That doesn't particularly surprise me. Quite easy for an in-group to
adopt a jargon that make no sense to anyone else. Ambiguities like
these are common enough. e.g. the use of "compression" or "bandwidth"
to mean quite different things which those "in group" would
distinguish from context. But I'm not clear why you'd expect anyone
else to understand your (hidden) meaning when you simply wrote

The world of broadcasting is rather larger than Iain's one and I've
never heard such nonsense as 'reverb the delay'. We would use pre and
post delay to describe such a thing. Normal terms adapted to suit a
variety of applications.

My difficulty is that "jargon " is often only used by small in-groups who
may not be even aware of how self-selected they are. Hence ambiguities and
lack of clarity may not be realised by those 'in group'; if they just learn
the words and phases as labels for what they do without thinking of the
actual underlaying processes. Bit like Feynman's comments about knowing
what a bird is called and being able to recognise it's call actually
telling you nothing much about the bird itself! :-)

Not my wish to criticise Iain for this though. It is common enough in other
areas in my own experience. My concern is the way it fogs communication and
thought. Now combined with the feeling that Iain's lack of dealing with the
questions I put may be a sign that he hasn't understood my actual points
about the *wording* he used and how anyone "not in the know" is supposed
to understand it. Indeed, I now have to increasing feeling that he is
so used to the phrase that he can't see the ambiguity.

In academic areas it is certainly common enough for some people to
use obscure language and assume it means they understand something
that others don't (or can't). Jargon can be very useful as shorthand
*when* those involved have established they all have the same meanings
in mind. But it then often leads to problems when others encounter
the field and are treated as inferior and/or mislead because in the
absence of a clear and unambigous explanation simply it doesn't make
sense.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:



It is not the word "reverb" that is in contention, but the use of the
word "delay", which can clearly be either verb or a noun, depending
on the context.

"Delay" is a verb in the expression "delay the reverb" but a noun in
the expression "reverb the delay"

Perhaps you will have done so by the time this posting appears.

But as yet I've still not seen you explain:

1) How anyone (not already privy to your jargon) reading your initial
assertion would have known you used the same word for two different
things.

2) What you mean by saying one use is a "noun" and the other is a
"verb".

Your earlier explanation seemed to say that in one case you applied a
reverb process, and in the other applied that *and then combined it
with the current input to the reverb process". That does seem to me to
be a clear functional distinction. But I it isn't clear to me how that
answers the above questions.

Both these terms are colloquialisms in every day use in the studio
environment. Every producer, engineer, student and trainee
understands their meaning, and the difference between them.

That doesn't particularly surprise me. Quite easy for an in-group to
adopt a jargon that make no sense to anyone else. Ambiguities like
these are common enough. e.g. the use of "compression" or "bandwidth"
to mean quite different things which those "in group" would
distinguish from context. But I'm not clear why you'd expect anyone
else to understand your (hidden) meaning when you simply wrote

"You can delay the reverb or reverb the delay. Totally different".

This issue does interest me as I've lost count of the number of times
I've found both students and 'experts' don't really know what they are
doing as a result of such lazy jagon where the user assumes "people
know what this means" without the need to actually explain or resolve
the ambiguity. It clouds both comminication and the ability to think.

To date, with the exception of yourself, I have met no-one else who was
confused

But that does not prevent you from actually answering my questions. :-)

Or do you prefer an air of aloof superiority to explanation? ;-

Afraid that thus far I am left feeling that you haven't even understood
that your initial statement *is* ambiguous and that your later "noun"
versus "verb" has done nothing to resolve that.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html