KVR Audio

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Mon May 17, 2010 1:45 pm

Good for him, but his "vision" is not similar to mine at all.

hopefully everyone is sharing your vision when you use that term. If not, it's yourself that you're not helping.

If you can find a lot of articles that agree with your vision, whatever it is, then if it's a majority I will agree on it too.

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Mon May 17, 2010 1:50 pm

Two thoughts, for what they're worth.

1) Sixth page. Lots of effort going into a meta-meta-subject. I wonder whether some of that effort might be used to... I dunno... write a glossary instead of discussing potential glossaries?

2) So there's no single definition for some common terms. Oh, if only there were something like a glossary but which allowed more than one definition per term.

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Mon May 17, 2010 1:55 pm

The problem with making a dictionary of audio terms is that modern dictionaries base their definitions on usage.

True, these dictionaries will consult 'experts' in chosen fields, but in general these experts are just there for technical terms. Audio engineers would be consulted for terms like 'harmonic distortion', 'crossover' or 'clipping'.

Words like 'phat' are not technical terms, and determining their meaning would have to be based on general usage. It is my belief that the general usage with regard to this word is already hopelessly confused.

But as I said previously, I would certainly be interested in seeing what happened with an audio version of the Urban Dictionary, and would be happy to host such a site.

Let's do it.

debra1rlo · Post by **debra1rlo** » Mon May 17, 2010 1:59 pm

I made you a transparent compressor... but now I cantz find it.

eytanmich123 · Post by **eytanmich123** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:01 pm

Shy

One could think from your words that you are an "audio anarchist"

Wiki "Anarchy" : Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state (state -> political association with effective internal and external supreme, independent authority over a territory) undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.

In audio world, unlike the real world, nothing is COMPELLING. there are set
of AGREED rules. if you don't conform to those agreed rules, nothing will happen
(in the real world - you will be thrown to jail

). but it doesn't help to interacting with other people... (you might not agree with that, too...

)

Anyway... this tread is a train to nowhere...

Gooday

thecontrolcentre · Post by **thecontrolcentre** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:02 pm

debra1rlo wrote:I made you a transparent compressor... but now I cantz find it.

But the big question is "can you hear it?" ...

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:03 pm

Fine, and since Tony thinks I'm "arguing for the sake of arguing" I won't bother you anymore. I'll just leave you with a simple little example that I've received many opinions about, since you're so sure it's so cut and dry and everyone can and must agree on terms that describe qualities of sound. Among the responses I got: "it's fatter", "it's colored", "it's punchier", "it's less punchy", etc. etc. Enjoy, and have fun making your authoritative glossary.

unprocessed | processed

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:12 pm

herodotus wrote:But as I said previously, I would certainly be interested in seeing what happened with an audio version of the Urban Dictionary, and would be happy to host such a site.

Let's do it.

I suppose each term could have multiple examples, so that there'd be less disagreement over how valid each audio definition would be, and it would illustrate that there's at least some elasticity to these terms.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:22 pm

Anyone knows if wikipedia could be technically used for this kind of thing?
I mean I know it can for individual terms, but what about a page gathering them all?
I can surely contribute to discuss definitions, but I shouldn't mess more with what's not my first language.

I suppose each term could have multiple examples,

they certainly will, like in a normal dictionary.

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:27 pm

There's the KVRwiki.

authoritative

That looks like a straw man. I don't think anyone suggested such a thing could / would / should be authoritative. It could, however, be helpful without being the absolute last word.

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:37 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:I can surely contribute to discuss definitions, but I shouldn't mess more with what's not my first language.

You're doing better than some who can't use that reason.

eytanmich123 · Post by **eytanmich123** » Mon May 17, 2010 3:35 pm

Meffy wrote:That looks like a straw man. I don't think anyone suggested such a thing could / would / should be authoritative. It could, however, be helpful without being the absolute last word.

No, you missed my point.

If I hurt someone by referring to the word "Anarchy" and "Anarchist" - then I'm sorry

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Mon May 17, 2010 3:48 pm

eytanmich123 wrote:No, you missed my point.

No, I didn't. I wasn't replying to you. "Authoritative" and "anarchy" aren't the same word. [edit: In case you want to discuss anarchism and such, Hyde Park Corner forum is the place for that (and you haven't enough posts to get in there yet).]

LOSER · Post by **LOSER** » Mon May 17, 2010 6:44 pm

herodotus wrote: But as I said previously, I would certainly be interested in seeing what happened with an audio version of the Urban Dictionary, and would be happy to host such a site.

An "audio version of the Urban Dictionary" would be the way to go IMO. In case anyone doesn't know what it is; it is basically a user created dictionary where users can upload there own definitions of terms and words (often slang) and then other users can vote on how good/appropriate/correct they find the given definition. For example here the Urban Dictionary for "phat": http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=phat
So in this case people would upload sound examples of e.g. "phat" and it will for sure be interesting to see what the consensus (that is majority) will be

.

Unfortunately I have no interest in webdesign so can't help.

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Mon May 17, 2010 8:20 pm

Just read through all of this.
I for one, would like to have all the fat processed transparent colored phat words, defined in an online glossary of urban sound words posted somewhere.

I'm really against the subjective nature of our true reality, which is incomprehensible to humans, and would like things to have more laws and boundaries for which to keep our brains from drifting into a more incomprehensible world of subjective thought.
Which only helps to break down understanding between each other.

Those in support of words (and everything else) being all subjective are correct of the true nature of things, but incorrect in assuming that community could rely on such an existence without defined lines and boundaries on which to agree on.
Rules defined or chosen by the majority of experts in the field seems to work...most of the time.

Sorry for the colored words for this phat topic.

Phat warm punch (split from transparent compressor thread)