Talk:Speech Recording

Q: I would be thinking twice about some of those edits. NT

A: When I tidy up my main aim is to remove jargon that a novice may not understand (e.g. unexplained abbreviations), inconsistencies, shortened words here and not elsewhere etc. I also like to add links to external pages where (I think) this may be helpful. I also wanted to get the information to do with computer resources problems in the same place in the page. The only thing I added was the bit about lower sample rates being more acceptable in speech than music. If there is something I said that you think is incorrect, unclear or something you really don't like, please say what it is. I may have changed your meaning somewhere unintentionally, as there were a few places where I was not quite sure.

Thanks for your contributions.

Gale

I understand the aim and appreciate you putting in the work. I just wonder if youve thought some of the changes through, as they do seem to change the meaning significantly at times, and in some cases no longer seem to address the real issues.

I'm not going to argue over it though, life's too short. If you think the current version clearer and more accurate, that's what will stay. I shall take this as a lesson, as I'm a moderator elsewhere.

PS inconsistency of terminology is usually used in wikis to make searches work properly, as well as a simple way to communicate the various terms in use. NT 03:10, 22 October 2007 (PDT)

Hi NT (Do tell us what your real name is!)

I do think the current version clearer in so far as what it actually says at the moment. I most definitely thought the changes through, as in places I was having difficulty understanding your point (so I guess some other people may do so too). However I do want your article to address the real issues as you see them, not my interpretation of what I thought you meant them to be! As the author, you're the expert on this subject.

If you have time, these are the areas that concern me:


 * "In some cases, such as meetings and conference recording, there may also be remote participants who are being heard through a radio or television receiver." I think that's a valid point worth making, but if it is not the main one you were driving at, please say what the real point is.


 * "If using cheap home use microphones, I can recommend condenser type rather than moving coil, as quality is relatively consistent with these, and cost is minimal. Moving coil microphones can be more variable." Again I changed and shortened this to make more sense, but if it is not what you meant, it needs to be changed in a way that is understandable...


 * "If using leftovers on zero budget, avoid crystal microphones! These read open circuit on a multimeter, and distort horribly. Distortion causes intermodulation, which makes it difficult to remove noise effectively in Audacity." I did not change this much, but certainly did not really understand "read open circuit on a multimeter". Can you expand on that? I'd also prefer to explain intermodulation in a link e.g. to this Wikipedia description: "Intermodulation or intermodulation distortion (IMD), or intermod for short, is the result of two or more signals of different frequencies being mixed together, forming additional signals at frequencies that are not, in general, at harmonic frequencies (integer multiples) of either." Or would you want to expand this in another Wiki article of your own?


 * "Many may not even have a computer or MP3 player. So be prepared to make your recordings available on audio CDs for those who don't have computers or a DVD player that can play longer "data CDs". For distribution as a computer audio file, stick to MP3 as it's a universal format that virtually any computer will be able to play irrespective of age or operating system." I certainly did not understand your point here - mine is clear I think, but it may not be your principal point. In one of your references to distribution, were your talking about Linux distributions?

You have a good point about using different words for the same concept. This does increase available search terms and I think it's good style too e.g. don't refer to distortion ten times in a page but call it clipping in places instead as you did (just make it clear by context that you mean the same thing). Also abbreviations like "SNR" are fine as people may search for that as you say, but it *must* be explained the first time it's used in the page e.g "signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)"

I'd be glad if you have a few minutes to clarify the above and try to rewrite the principal points you were trying to get across where you need to. You can do that on the page itself or drop your changes in below.

Thanks

Gale