-
Welcome to the General Discussion forum for UAD users! Please note that this forum is user-run, although we're thrilled to have so much contribution from Drew, Will, and other UA folks! Feel free to discuss both UAD and non-UAD related subjects! 1) Please do not post technical issues here. Please use our UAD Support Forums instead. 2) Please do not post complaints here. Use the Unrest Forum instead. They have no place in the the General Discussion forum. Threads posted in the wrong forum will be moved, so if you don't see your thread here anymore, please look in the correct forum. Lastly, please be respectful.
Ask the Doctors: Webzine 8/07
- Thread starter guitarz
- Start date
Indeed.
Dear Drs....
The place for those types of articles are:
1. CMJ
2. AES Quarterly Review
3. IEEE Mag
4. DDJ
5. Low Riders :mrgreen:
...We know you're the big dick swingin' DSP studs. You've got nothing to prove to me, big boy. Don't you already know that, lover?
Write to your audience, please. You know---like you used to.
Dear Drs....
The place for those types of articles are:
1. CMJ
2. AES Quarterly Review
3. IEEE Mag
4. DDJ
5. Low Riders :mrgreen:
...We know you're the big dick swingin' DSP studs. You've got nothing to prove to me, big boy. Don't you already know that, lover?
Write to your audience, please. You know---like you used to.
TheHopiWay
Active Member
Look you guys, the article is really pretty straight forward.
They're smart, we're not.
They're smart, we're not.
Paul Woodlock
Established Member
Well I thought it was interesting.
I didn't understand all of it, but I understoodf some of it.
I didn't understand all of it, but I understoodf some of it.
It's just marketing propaganda.
But that's not my problem with it. My beef is that it's crap propaganda.
They want you to believe that their modelling is inherently superior to their competitors while downplaying the cards' weaknesses.
\"So what it if our cards don't have tons of on-board RAM like those guys who use convolution? Our algorithms are so great, we don't need it (and wouldn't want it if we had it!) Volterra kernels and other grain-state systems? Stuff and nonsense, we say!\"
...and so on.
Every company attempts this sort of marketing ju-jitsu.
Since most people's ears -are- affected by this stuff, FAIR PLAY TO UA!, I say. If we had to rely on only objective tests and our ears, I dare say the entire music tech economy would have died long ago.
I just wish the guys were better writers. For this sort of ad copy, they should hire one of those 'professor' guys on BBC2 and PBS with shows like 'Quarks For Coronation Street Watchers'.
They need to break it down so all us acolytes can get the message out to the people: UAD-2 is worth waiting for! :wink:
---JC
But that's not my problem with it. My beef is that it's crap propaganda.
They want you to believe that their modelling is inherently superior to their competitors while downplaying the cards' weaknesses.
\"So what it if our cards don't have tons of on-board RAM like those guys who use convolution? Our algorithms are so great, we don't need it (and wouldn't want it if we had it!) Volterra kernels and other grain-state systems? Stuff and nonsense, we say!\"
...and so on.
Every company attempts this sort of marketing ju-jitsu.
Since most people's ears -are- affected by this stuff, FAIR PLAY TO UA!, I say. If we had to rely on only objective tests and our ears, I dare say the entire music tech economy would have died long ago.
I just wish the guys were better writers. For this sort of ad copy, they should hire one of those 'professor' guys on BBC2 and PBS with shows like 'Quarks For Coronation Street Watchers'.
They need to break it down so all us acolytes can get the message out to the people: UAD-2 is worth waiting for! :wink:
---JC
Cass Anawaty
Shareholder
I really don't understand this thread. Just this weekend, I was explaining to my 2 year old that we can denote N possible inputs to the system as xn(t) for 1 < n < N, and the corresponding outputs as yn(t). For example, if x1(t) is applied to this system, the output will be y1(t). If the system is LTI, then the output corresponding to input signal (αxn(t+τ1)+βxm(t+τ2)) will be (αyn(t+τ1)+βym(t+τ2)), for any xn(t) and xm(t).
I suppose the argument too all this, will knowing the formulae inside out and being to reverse engineer the calculus will not make a better musician. But in hindsight, how many DSP manufacturers do you know who explain how their stuff works in such detail. Not many, people anyway I digress. Don't eat the yelllow snow.
I thought it was a pretty cool read. Not sure if marketing was the root intention -- if so, somebody should be fired, lol!
It may simply be the unrestrained ramblings an uber-geek, and if so kudos for UA letting them do as they please, even if it flies right over the heads of the average user... Ya ever get an engineer talking within his realm of interest? They love to discuss the details with people; they want you to appreciate the \"art\" behind their science, and I can respect that. there's alot of creativity under them lab coats.
It may simply be the unrestrained ramblings an uber-geek, and if so kudos for UA letting them do as they please, even if it flies right over the heads of the average user... Ya ever get an engineer talking within his realm of interest? They love to discuss the details with people; they want you to appreciate the \"art\" behind their science, and I can respect that. there's alot of creativity under them lab coats.