On Thursday 10 October 2013 06:42:06 pm Fred Gleason wrote: > On Oct 10, 2013, at 08:50 40, Cowboy wrote: > > > Are we confusing what's a cut and what's a cart ? > > Probably. My original intent in using those words was to convey the idea of > 'tape cartridge' to industry veterans who were familiar with the idea from > cart decks. Today, of course, we have a whole generation of radio folks for > whom the idea draws a complete blank when used in a radio context -- they > think it's something with four wheels that the waiter brings the desserts out > on.
They also have no clue what is the meaning of "The Gay Continental" either. Most all of them think it refers to some kind of homosexuality. Part of the reason I object so strenuously to misuse of words. Words DO mean things. When the same word means more than one thing, then that word has really no meaning at all, which promulgates confusion and lack of communication. > > Through historical legacy usage of the terms, a cart is a movable, > > schedulable, program segment. A cut is not. > > A cart can contain several cuts, but only the cart is movable. > > All of the cuts within that cart absolutely must remain in that cart > > in the order that they were recorded, or spliced. > > I'm not sure that we need to be this pedantically precise. I'm not sure we shouldn't ! ( but I get the implication ) > > In order to not confuse the traditional professional usage of the terms, > > I would vote absolutely NO! > > It should not be possible to place more than one complete sound > > file into a single cut under any circumstances, so that the term cut > > still means what it means. > > FWIW, the original use case that led to this feature was a station running a > Classical format. It's a commonplace in that genre for long-form works to be > distributed broken into several tracks on a CD I see no issue with multiple tracks within a cut. It was always ( OK, not *always* but.... ) possible for me to take a razor to the tape on a 32 track machine and make a cut. That cut would contain all 32 tracks. ( although the likelihood of different programs on different tracks would be exceedingly small ) Therefore I would propose that multiple "program elements" ( tracks ) within a cut would be fine, provided those elements are not sequential in nature. If they are sequential, then they should by rights be separate sequential cuts. This, of course, is user dependent. Any particular user can use anything in as confusing and non-intended a way as they like, ( witness most of my professional broadcasting/engineering career ) but as a matter of "policy" I would propose staying as close to the professional usage context as reasonably possible, would be proper. Part of the reason Micro$oft can be so confusing is the re-use of the same name to mean different things, using different names for the same thing, and repeating the same action to get different results. The very definition of insanity. Otherwise, we might think of the square root of negative one as a real number ! :) -- Cowboy http://cowboy.cwf1.com "Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure _______________________________________________ Rivendell-dev mailing list [email protected] http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
