Just a short suggestion: the field at hand has been acknowledged to be
let's say classic (for the sake of decorum) EE "subjects", which at the
time were hard to do, and interesting a integration POV.
Of course I agree that even people, for instance without the luck of
having been born in 1st world countries, without all too much formal
educations should, if necessary with the constitutional help of
government funded activities, be able to enjoy digital technology and
digital media and musical materials, and ways to create those. I mean
I am for the idea that people, also from using the principle of Open
Source (which to decent people means something else than ripping
literature for dog food for your little bunch of "friends", I'd think)
can enjoy digital music synthesis for instance from their computer.
My concern, besides the idea that it is all too simple to take some
(well chosen) keywords and make yourself popular by using them, is that
the academic sport which *did* actually invent these ideas, came to
quite different conclusions about the use of these basic DSP ideas than
people seem to think. I think without betraying them, it is a good idea
that I and other spend some time and attention to make this clear,
besides pointing out that integrating step functions based on
equidistant samples is really NEVER going to converge to any
time-continuous signal worthy of notion, unless you know quite well
what you're doing, what you're limitations are, and have some taste in
musical instruments and monitoring them.
So, at the risk of simply proving that some people are serious
of wanting the crime of betraying the good and replace and sell it by
making bad products, as long as they can happy-ho among eachother and
look interesting for certain "new" movements of people, here's a serious
consideration. When making use of the digital synthesis results, it
can be proven that the typical approximation will give certain
predictable sorts of distortion (you could take my word for it, I'm not
new to this subject, and think I have learned something at university),
that in the first place you can find hard to escape from. But, more
importantly, and more to the point than trading off what these types
of (clearly present, I mean seriously, do you guys listen to your own
works sometimes?) distortion, there are certain, granted: pro-level,
considerations about creating waves in reverberant spaces, and waves
in Disco-like situations, which prevent peoples hearing from getting
damaged, and from people abusing sound for such purposes.
Of course this is not necessarily connected with DSP as a hobby or
innocent profession, but I have the feeling some people might be
deluded into believing that a system "without feedback delay" or
with some fancy-name "prediction integral" can defeat the loudness
control in Public Address systems made in my engineering domain, when
the next "rave controller" wants to abuse yet another crowd and prove
his/her loudness superiority.
Some people fall for that crap, seriously, and that I find not good.
T.V.
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp
links
http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
