Book: The Art of VA Filter Design 2.1.2

[andy-cytomic]

When people publish things before you they get the credit, that's how it works. You are indeed correct that you should credit bob moog as well, just as Antti did in his paper.

I am glad to hear you independently came up with the non-linear moog algorithm that Antti proposed. I was nowhere near doing that level of analysis when Antti published his paper. I suggest you cite any work you think is relavent to the reader of your work, it is just good manners and shows the appropriate respect to do so.

[Z1202]

When people publish things before you they get the credit, that's how it works. You are indeed correct that you should credit bob moog as well, just as Antti did in his paper.

I am glad to hear you independently came up with the non-linear moog algorithm that Antti proposed. I was nowhere near doing that level of analysis when Antti published his paper. I suggest you cite any work you think is relavent to the reader of your work, it is just good manners and shows the appropriate respect to do so.

I totally agree. My problem is, as I wrote, I'm pretty sure I'm unaware of the absolute majority of the related work which should be credited. And I will need to invest a significant amount of time into finding those works. Probably way more that it took me to write the boook itself (approx 1 week), since not everything is available on WWW. I'm just too lazy to do that ATM I'm aware just of works of Antti, Stilson/Smith, Fontana, Harma (thanks to Martin Eisenberg for pointing out), Simulanalog.org guys. And IIRC, there was some DAFX paper on nonlinear diode ladder. OTOH, I guess there are a number of equally important areas, where I completely miss the sources. So, stating once again, I'd really appreciate if someone could help me with that (e.g. if anyone already happens to have the respective knowledge of the available works). Of course this person then gets a deserved acknowledgement in the book

Edit: oh, yeah, and of course the works of Tim Stinchcombe

Regards,
Vadim

[andy-cytomic]

Hi Vadim,

No one can expect you to cite work you don't know. All you need to do it cite all the work that you do know and have looked at that is relavent to your work. So anything you looked at (eg moog patent) that allowed you to get your work done. For example if you did not derive the diode ladder equations you need to go find that paper that you got them from and cite it in your paper, otherwise you are just being lazy and rude. Please don't pass the buck onto others to do your legwork for you, citations are part of the authoring process and equally important, and sometimes more important that the work itself.

[Z1202]

Hi Vadim,

No one can expect you to cite work you don't know. All you need to do it cite all the work that you do know and have looked at that is relavent to your work. So anything you looked at (eg moog patent) that allowed you to get your work done. For example if you did not derive the diode ladder equations you need to go find that paper that you got them from and cite it in your paper, otherwise you are just being lazy and rude. Please don't pass the buck onto others to do your legwork for you, citations are part of the authoring process and equally important, and sometimes more important that the work itself.

I think there is a large gray zone in regards to what should be cited. As I said I didn't explicitly use any materials while writing the book. On the other hand there is a large variety of sources which I looked at throughout my life. I might not even remember them all. And there's the pioneering work credit, which might be appropriate, even if I didn't read the respective works at all.

I agree, that had I explicitly used any materials in writing, I absolutely should have cited those. But it also would be natural and easy, I wouldn't have needed to invest any time into finding them, since I already was looking at them at the time of the writing. Trying to figure out what was that thing which I quickly looked at 10 years ago is a completely different matter. Saying that I must do that kind of research, otherwise I'm being rude, and that this is more important than the work itself, frankly speaking makes me want to take down my work.

Regards,
Vadim

Edit: in the next revision of the book, I think, I'll mention the list of names I'm curently aware of in the acknowledgements section, as the credit for the pioneering work. This is more or less what I was initially going to do and I think that should be good enough. If the majority of people here also think that it is inappropriate, rude, impolite etc not to find and explicitly cite the works itself, then I'm gonna take my book down. Seriously. I do not have any motivation to invest days and weeks in the respective research. My apologies for sounding harsh.

[andy-cytomic]

Dude, just look at the pdfs on your computer, the books on your shelf, and the papers you may have laying around. Also have a quick check through the citations on the papers you cite since that will be an easy way to do lots of searching for relavent papers quickly. Cite anything you found interesting and that you think your readers may learn something from too. Don't take more than a day on it, you should be able to get around 100 or so citations or more in that time. Anyone else can contact you to add more at a later stage. The people you mentioned like Tim Stinchcombe, Antti Huovilainen and Bob Moog are a great start, but you should know loads more, is it that hard for you to give credit where it is due?

[andy-cytomic]

Edit: in the next revision of the book, I think, I'll mention the list of names I'm curently aware of in the acknowledgements section, as the credit for the pioneering work. This is more or less what I was initially going to do and I think that should be good enough.

Great! Why didn't you just do that in the first place?

If the majority of people here also think that it is inappropriate, rude, impolite etc not to find and explicitly cite the works itself, then I'm gonna take my book down. Seriously. I do not have any motivation to invest days and weeks in the respective research. My apologies for sounding harsh.

You don't have to apologize for just being yourself!

[Richard_Synapse]

It's not an academic paper, and thus doesn't require sources, ihmo. Finding all the relevant sources, especially good ones, is a lot of work, for a free gift that's a bit much asked. Besides I believe there's more useful additions, for instance sound examples to accompany the PDF.

Richard

[mystran]

Considering it's "just a book" I don't understand what the fuzz is. Obviously if one took something from a particular source it's nice to mention the sources (mostly so people reading can search for further details), but it's not like every printed text-book on the planet always cited everything; most of them just cite whatever might be useful for the reader.

I think it's somewhat different from actual research papers or whatever else actually claiming new inventions/methods/etc, because in such a case it would normally be implied that you claimed to have invented whatever you didn't cite, but I don't see such a problem for text-books (and that's what I personally thought this was supposed to be).

[ghettosynth]

It's not an academic paper, and thus doesn't require sources, ihmo. Finding all the relevant sources, especially good ones, is a lot of work, for a free gift that's a bit much asked. Besides I believe there's more useful additions, for instance sound examples to accompany the PDF.

Richard

I agree. Further, arguing that the citations of work targeted at a more sophisticated audience is more important than one of the few works targeted at a narrower scope is a bit too much.

Yes, we should encourage Vadim to include sources, and no, I don't think that it's unreasonable that the community chip in and assist here. Frankly, Vadim has already given us something of significant value. The additional value of citations here is primarily to help the reader with context, and to that end, I see no issue with enlisting the aid of the community in identifying what might be helpful, especially where it is largely the community that is demanding that level of completeness.

The standard for a tutorial style book is not the same as for a journal/ conference paper or a textbook. I've received more than a few sets of lecture notes from my professors without a citation in sight. None of those professors would think of publishing a paper in a journal without citations. (nor would they be able to do so)

Vadim's work is genuinely useful to me, and I expect others, the last thing that I want to see is for him to get discouraged over academic pedantry.

Vadim, thank you so much for putting this, and your previous works on ZDF filters, both the papers and the Reaktor ensembles, together and sharing them with us.

[AdmiralQuality]

Edit: in the next revision of the book, I think, I'll mention the list of names I'm curently aware of in the acknowledgements section, as the credit for the pioneering work. This is more or less what I was initially going to do and I think that should be good enough.

Great! Why didn't you just do that in the first place?

If the majority of people here also think that it is inappropriate, rude, impolite etc not to find and explicitly cite the works itself, then I'm gonna take my book down. Seriously. I do not have any motivation to invest days and weeks in the respective research. My apologies for sounding harsh.

You don't have to apologize for just being yourself!

It's not you who sounds harsh Z1202, it's cytomic.

[stratum]

Great! Why didn't you just do that in the first place?

Yeah right, I have another concern. Why don't we have time to read the book? It's all your fault, you could make it shorter in the first place and also add all the necessary background info summarized in 2 short paragraphs, beginning from the big bang, so that everybody could understand (Just kidding, is this serious? )

[andy-cytomic]

Having a few references to materials used doesn't seem to be too much problem for the following people that also have just written pdf files for the community to share, but these people understand that they didn't get there on their own:

Laurent De Soras' brilliant technical notes have references, eg:
http://ldesoras.free.fr/doc/articles/resampler-en.pdf

Tim Stinchombe's brilliant technical notes also have references eg:
http://www.timstinchcombe.co.uk/synth/MS20_study.pdf

Achim Gratz's brilliant (and self admittedly half finished) technical paper has references:
http://synth.stromeko.net/diy/OTA.pdf

These are all non-formal papers, non-officially published, technical papers, and they all have around 10 references, and I'm sure it didn't take weeks for those to be added, probably only a two hours work to give credit where it is due and show some respect to fellow authors.

[AdmiralQuality]

but these people understand that they didn't get there on their own:

Implying that Z1202 doesn't?

WHAT is up your ass man?

[trimph1]

I'm sure Andy is only trying to help but it does come across like a school ma'arm approach.

I'm also sure that one could...if desired...go and write a bibliography of all the pertinent texts..as if looking for the ur-source of all things DSP here.

[AdmiralQuality]

I'm sure Andy is only trying to help but it does come across like a school ma'arm approach.

I'm also sure that one could...if desired...go and write a bibliography of all the pertinent texts..as if looking for the ur-source of all things DSP here.

He comes across like somebody pissed in his Cheerios.