After my post on how do i measure my loudspeakers to design my crossovers, it seemed obvious that we need a basic introduction to DIY audio section on this site. I was going to suggest we create a wiki, then noticed there was one, then noticed it was empty... Pretty bad really.
It seems a bit silly to have a forum where a lot of the questions asked could be answered by a well written set of documents.
Obviously I'm happy to start working on 'what I know' and add this to the wiki, but is anybody else going to contribute to it and check what I've written is correct?
It seems a bit silly to have a forum where a lot of the questions asked could be answered by a well written set of documents.
Obviously I'm happy to start working on 'what I know' and add this to the wiki, but is anybody else going to contribute to it and check what I've written is correct?
Last edited:
Well, this is the rub.
On one hand "noob" questions gives more advanced participants something to do. On the other hand, a wiki would get very very very big, very very fast, if it really contained the information you want.
In essence it would end up being a very thick fat text book.
Take a look at the John Curl Blowtorch thread, if you have not. It is on its second half, the first half is about as big, and it contains essentially an advanced level textbook that in fact covers aspects of a relatively narrow design path for solid state gear. Fabulous detail in some respects, but it is not "complete".
Otoh, if you want an "introduction" type wiki, the problem is where to draw the line and cease adding detail and ever increasing engineering and mathematical, theoretical concepts and techniques??
The wiki works out to be the search engine, and then your post...
... I think the wiki would be nice, but it might rival Wikipedia in size if it were fully "populated"... and between the time it started and got reasonably well populated, there would be those glaring gaps that would merely send people back to the forum to ask questions.
I don't know how to solve the chicken and egg problem at all.
_-_-
On one hand "noob" questions gives more advanced participants something to do. On the other hand, a wiki would get very very very big, very very fast, if it really contained the information you want.
In essence it would end up being a very thick fat text book.
Take a look at the John Curl Blowtorch thread, if you have not. It is on its second half, the first half is about as big, and it contains essentially an advanced level textbook that in fact covers aspects of a relatively narrow design path for solid state gear. Fabulous detail in some respects, but it is not "complete".
Otoh, if you want an "introduction" type wiki, the problem is where to draw the line and cease adding detail and ever increasing engineering and mathematical, theoretical concepts and techniques??
The wiki works out to be the search engine, and then your post...
... I think the wiki would be nice, but it might rival Wikipedia in size if it were fully "populated"... and between the time it started and got reasonably well populated, there would be those glaring gaps that would merely send people back to the forum to ask questions.
I don't know how to solve the chicken and egg problem at all.
_-_-
Pano - with the site design as it is, the wiki is hard to spot. unless the site design is changed or the google rank of the wiki increases, it won't work.
bear - I completely understand what you're saying, but i think 'where to draw the line' should be pretty easy, we're aiming to cover the 2nd step with the wiki.
i.e. step 1 - no technical information, an overview of how the thing works
step 2 - an overview of how things work on a technical level.
If I wrote a crossover introduction, would anybody be willing to check/edit it for me?
bear - I completely understand what you're saying, but i think 'where to draw the line' should be pretty easy, we're aiming to cover the 2nd step with the wiki.
i.e. step 1 - no technical information, an overview of how the thing works
step 2 - an overview of how things work on a technical level.
If I wrote a crossover introduction, would anybody be willing to check/edit it for me?
As with any other subject, that might depend on whether check/edit means minor improvements to a good article or it means rewrite a rambling incoherent brain-dump containing numerous basic errors. All too often on websites the people most willing to write 'tutorial' articles don't fully understand what they are writing about, having only just (nearly) learnt it themselves.nannoo said:
Yeah, that's definately not what I would want to do, but it would be right to say that I have 'only just learned' a lot of what I know.
I would hope however to keep it a clear and concise introduction with the basic 'get you started' technical knowledge I have learnt, if that seems completely wrong then by all means we can just delete it 🙂
I would hope however to keep it a clear and concise introduction with the basic 'get you started' technical knowledge I have learnt, if that seems completely wrong then by all means we can just delete it 🙂
despite EE being very mature, Audio in particular draws many with "alternative" views, differing educational backgrounds, levels of passion - there is conflict over even basics that if enough cared to participate there could be wiki edit wars
even among those with some EE knowledge - would someone come along and change all occurrences of "VAS" in your article to "TIS", what about "CFA"?
remove "negative feedback" from any discussion of degeneration?
or deny "Doppler" IMD from a moving cone is a real physical effect, gives measurable IMD?
and thats before entering the subjective/perceptual realm...
last I looked wiki inline images aren't easy - but are absolutely needed for technical discussion - I don't like the main forum's apparently random resizing of pictures, I don't want to have to clik to see if an image expands to readable size in a article
but some will likely add uncropped mega pixel camera shots...
what is/wil be the standard math equation rendering means?
even among those with some EE knowledge - would someone come along and change all occurrences of "VAS" in your article to "TIS", what about "CFA"?
remove "negative feedback" from any discussion of degeneration?
or deny "Doppler" IMD from a moving cone is a real physical effect, gives measurable IMD?
and thats before entering the subjective/perceptual realm...
last I looked wiki inline images aren't easy - but are absolutely needed for technical discussion - I don't like the main forum's apparently random resizing of pictures, I don't want to have to clik to see if an image expands to readable size in a article
but some will likely add uncropped mega pixel camera shots...
what is/wil be the standard math equation rendering means?
Last edited:
Yeah there would certainly be a lot of challanges, my hope is always that with enough discussion a 'correct' answer can be given, but as you point out this often isn't achieved. In my head it was mostly due to people reading a basic principle, deciding they like it then sticking ruggedly to it - with or without factual evidence to support there ideas. But I am sure even among the best educated and experienced there would be disagreements, and that gets really hard to solve... plus, as you say there is always the whole subjectivist/objectivist thing.
My hope was to keep it simple, to 'well established good practice' and let people learn on there own from there. But you never know, even if over the next 10 years or so we do end up producing an online go-to textbook for audio design, that should be no bad thing?
As regards the mathematics and pictures... yeah, we would definately need an agreed system. Maybe the site as it is now just can't work with it.
A good practice may be well-established among one group and completely ridiculed by another group. Either or both may be wrong.
These disagreements are quite different in nature from the fruitless 'debates' between people who have some understanding and people who have little or no understanding but misinterpret their lack of knowledge as some form of superior knowledge.
it was to the problem that is described in the quote, when two or more people have different experince, or skill levels
seems like that will always happen, on all 'levels', no matter what
thats why I asked, why is that a problem, and to whom ?
as to the wiki....isnt that long replaced by the blog ?
seems like that will always happen, on all 'levels', no matter what
thats why I asked, why is that a problem, and to whom ?
as to the wiki....isnt that long replaced by the blog ?
I don't understand either.
My point was that disagreements among 'experts' (i.e. people with some understanding) are of a different nature from disagreements between one or more experts vs. one or more non-experts (to be polite). In the former case they may iterate to a correct understanding or at least a closer approximation to the truth; in the latter case what may appear to some to be a 'debate' may actually be a (sometimes failing) attempt to teach some basic understanding to someone who lacks it but doesn't realise this.
My point was that disagreements among 'experts' (i.e. people with some understanding) are of a different nature from disagreements between one or more experts vs. one or more non-experts (to be polite). In the former case they may iterate to a correct understanding or at least a closer approximation to the truth; in the latter case what may appear to some to be a 'debate' may actually be a (sometimes failing) attempt to teach some basic understanding to someone who lacks it but doesn't realise this.
I wish that the wiki would serve as a reference for completed and tested designs including measurements if available. I think its pretty hard to find completed projects with the improvements that people make over the length of a thread after a year or so -yet some of the those projects contain lots of wisdom and insight. the threading format of a forum generally only highlights current discussions and projects whereas a wiki could be the culmination or conclusion of a thread.
that would be an awesome use of a wiki in my opinion and relatively well follow the the intent of a wiki. The wiki could also contain references to the posts made in a thread.
that would be an awesome use of a wiki in my opinion and relatively well follow the the intent of a wiki. The wiki could also contain references to the posts made in a thread.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.