Definitions of the explanations of other definitions

[VitaminD]

Some of these entries are technical.. such as the one for Distortion..

"nonlinear transfer function" ?

"half-cycles of a signal" ?




technical is a good thing IMO, but understanding whats being said helps..

basically.. I'm not quite sure how many people who do understand this terminology is going to even lookup the definition. so maybe we can have brief definitions on the technical words and phrases too?

[shamann]

Hopefully at some point, all the pertinent technical terms will eventually have their own Wiki entry, so that you can click on it to see what it means.

In some cases though, technical subjects require technical terms. I tried to avoid jargon in the distortion entry, and I did explain what nonlinear meant. But if people don't understand basic properties of sound such as wave cycles and the common notation of +/- half-cycles, then they simply won't understand what half-wave rectification is. You don't want to over-burden entries with too much background information. And you don't want to dumb things down to the point of uselessness (like "distortion really f--ks up your sound good hehehe").

One solution is for people to add extra sections to the entry. Look at the layout of big entries in Wikipedia as an example.

So for distortion, someone could add in a new subsection like "Examples of distortion in use" and give a "this effect made this sound" list of examples. I probably will do that for distortion, but these things take time. Don't know if we can copyright free audio snippets for something like that.

The distortion entry is maybe one of the more technical so far. I did that because I've been searching for good definitions of audio distortion all over the web for a while, and I've never been satisfied with any single source. I think this one has the core definition down better than anything I've seen out there, mostly because I've synthesized most of the best ones into this one. With the core out of the way, there's lots of room to fill up with all useful information.

[shamann]

I should add that I have a bias. I'm a professional writer, so invest a lot of weight in the meaning of every word and the economy of well-constructed sentences.

[VitaminD]

[shamann]

Not much for reading then?

[VitaminD]

reading?? ...what is reading?


You have to realize that a large chunk of your viewerbase at kvr is going to be fresh to the music (production) 'scene'.. thats why they're looking up links on (for instance) distortion!

So highly technical explanations are not ok here (imo) WITHOUT some well explained (low-technical) base terms and an simple summary at the top. Without these you'll leave people more confused than there were initially

OF COURSE I agree that it shouldn't be 'dumbed down' to the point of uselessness - I just feel there is a happy medium between the two. Writing in a technical fashion for the sake of being technical and boasting of their skills to an audience that is, on average, (guessing but confident) not quite too advanced on the technical side of things is just shooting the wiki in the foot.

Yes, wikipedia is my inspiration for my concerns. I love how their entries can trickle down to highly technical all the way down to highly simplistic. This all done by simplying clicking links downward from the main entry to the base terms - Its a beautiful approach.

Take a look at wikipedia's entry for distortion - you'll see its much more well made than the kvr wiki entry.. it has a basic explanation of what distortion is, as well as has some graphs, an audio example, and sub areas for the specific types of distortion - beauitful.

[Rangtangtang]

They just must be starters so you can fill in the gaps later on? VitaminD you could add to that topic from what you found in the wikipedia's entry for distortion.
Is there anything similar about the name wiki in regards to wikipedia - I mean is wikipedia looking for new sources for answers?

[shamann]

Actually I did read the definition on Wikipedia prior to writing, as well as about twenty others (from the Dilettante's Dictionary, from some pages at CCRMA, from the Distortion primer, from the dictionary, from some DSP texts, etc). If you read the section on audio distortion at Wikipedia, it doesn't actually tell you what is happening to the sound (i.e. increased harmonic content), just that its being distorted and here's a picture.

I actually read Wikipedia often. The best entries always start with the complex stuff, then spend the rest of the space going into detail.

But, whatever, it's a Wiki, which means you can add to it as you see fit. None of it is carved in stone.

[shamann]

Okay, I'll adapt a little. How's this?