Yes, my "budget of about $1.99" statement was said tongue-in-cheek and I see your point that a useful set-up can be put together relatively cheaply. I really have to explore whether this is just a passing fancy or whether it's long term, but right now I'm excited by the prospect and itching to get (back) at it. Thanks for the suggestions!
Correction: A booming government-protected cable monopoly. To me, ascribing the term "industry" implies competition and there sure as hell isn't any cable competition Canada. There are 3 major cable companies, each has an exclusive geographic territory and each is a monopoly within that territory. 5 years ago, some small pocket territories were swapped to provide a more geographically consistent picture for these monopolies. Speaking as one who was swapped from the best of the 3 to the worst, I say that the system sucks.
Searching for "windows" won't distinguish the operating system from the glass.
Ahem back... I think that it's apparent in the thread that I have no argument with that.
If you search for "Microsoft" you'll only get 37,600,000 hits
When referring to the o/s, I think that you'd agree that most people use the term "Windows" without "Microsoft". Business analysis could use "Microsoft" with or without "Windows". Maybe what you say just proves that Microsoft is a business, which I think we can all agree has long been in the "QED" category.
By the way - I love the Linux detergent. Inexpensive, works as advertised, gets my clothes clean and doesn't keep threatening to add Digital Shorts* Management.
'windows' is a generic name, while 'linux' is pretty specific
I actually took something to that effect out of my original comment, because for every suggestion that implied bias one way, I could come up with another that implied bias the other way. Your suggestion would drop the weighting of "Windows" the o/s, but one could counter that Linux users are more likely to exploit the Web for "getting the word out", as already suggested above.
By the way, I wish that Google supported case-sensitive searches, and real honest-to-goodness literal searches as options (I know that 'the' is a common word, Google).
Diclaimer: IANASNDIWTBO (I am not a statistician, nor do I want to be one;).
Look at it this way--people who are proficient in computers are more likely to have the time, skillset and inclination to publish content on the web.
Yeah, but it doesn't take much proficiency to post something in a forum like "I use Windows" or "I'm having problems with Windows XP" or "buy Microsoft Windows", etc., etc., etc.
As I suggested, there's no way in hell one could attach any real statistical significance to it - I just found it interesting.
Linux being one of the major drivers for this decade
Just for the hell of it, the other day I typed 'Windows' into Google. I got (about) 57,600,000 results.
Then I typed 'Linux'. I got (about) 53,700,000 results.
Now, one could write a whole book on how unscientific those statistics are, but it was still interesting to see a (damned near) 1:1 ratio. I had anticipated something more like 5:1
That the efforts of spammers are secretly funded by a covert group known only as the "USPS" in an effort to render the e-mail a useless form of communication and force people to resort to slower, antiquated pay models for sending information. Have you heard this rumor?
Thanks for the suggestions. This is just a home/recreational thing and on a budget of about $1.99 . The component that I'm missing is a good guitar amp, which I can't afford right now. So I thought that since I have a good solid state amp and speakers that I run my sound card output through, how about something to simulate various tube amps and effects in real-time.
You're much better off with a nice mixing console and some good microphones.
One of my dreams for many years has been to have a really good equipment set-up and my own (non-virtual) 24-track studio. But I have to work that "first million" before I can do that (and I'm not trying to get rich in the music business - I gave that dream up a long time ago).
Thanks for the info. I've had a look around and I see some options. I couldn't find "stompbox" (there was something with a very similar name for the Mac only), but I've found some other interesting stuff (mostly Windows, of course, but that's OK, I have both Linux and Windows boxes).
I sense that you're trying to tell us something - could it be that you don't care for Jimmy Page?
Personally, I think that Jimmy Page has a lot of talent as a producer and arranger, and also as musician when he's "on". I have to agree that his playing can be terribly sloppy but often wonder whether there weren't substances involved. Led Zeppelin's live album was truly a showcase of sloppiness (the same could be said of Aerosmith's first live album). I often wonder if they weren't terribly embarrassed by it. But I have a tape of a live BBC session that I recorded eons ago off the radio (come and get me Hilary). In that, his guitar work really shines as it does on all of Zeppelin's studio albums.
Jimmy's talents were well recognized in the early to mid-60's when he did session work on literally hundreds of popular recordings. At one time he was the most sought-after session guitarist in England and he is considered to be the most recorded British guitarist of all time.
The real sin that Zeppelin committed IMO, which apparently started when Jimmy was a member of the Yardbirds (initially as a bass player along side Jeff Beck (who had replaced Eric Clapton), later briefly playing guitar beside Beck and ultimately replacing Beck when he left the band), was ripping off and re-spinning numerous old blues tunes and failing to credit and compensate the origianl composers. That is what I was alluding to in my comment. Still, some argue that it was that very blatant borrowing of the blues that led to a large upsurge in the popularity of the form, which ultimately did financially benefit some old blues artists by causing people to go back to the roots of blues and thus old blues artists for more. For me, that is precisely what happened. I do not think that I would be the huge fan of the blues that I am today, had it not been for my exposure to the form through bands like Led Zeppelin.
Again, while his playing could be terribly erratic and self-indulgent, I believe that Jimmy Page made huge contributions to music, music production and the recording process (he was an early pioneer of recording "studio work" outside of studios). But like most creatives, he is an enigma - talented and at times brilliant, but erratic as a performer and peculiar (his obsession with Aleister Crowley, for example). Still, one cannot argue rationally that he did not make large contributions to the advancement of rock music in the 60's-80's.
Thanks. Yes, I can see that there would be little (no noticeable) delay if the card's on-board DSP and other hardware is used to do any processing. But I think that to get some more advanced effects one might have to go off-board, which is bound to result in some delay. I know that how much is going to be very much system hardware, o/s, and code dependant but I'm wondering if anyone has tried/gone this route and whether it's even worth investigating.
do all the digital effects on an actual computer, which will probably generate better sound given the greater amount of processing power
I've been thinking about getting back into playing (at home for recreation). I still have my old and beloved SG and Strat. It's been years and the calluses and some of the dexterity are gone, so it will take a while to get back into it.
I don't have a decent amp any more (or the money to invest in one) and my Rockman died. I've been thinking along the lines using my PC for (real-time) effects and processing. It seems to me that one could run the guitar patch cord (with an adapter, which I have) into a sound card line-in as a start. I'd try it but I don't have a full-duplex sound card and I wonder if there's enough gain anyway. I'm also guessing that there might be an annoying midi-like delay. Has anyone tried this? Can anyone point to some good/free tools?
it goes back to Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page in the 60's......who possibly appropriated the idea from an old impoverished blues artist and never credited him.
Actually, having volume dials that go to 11 (on amplifiers) is an old guitar players' joke that pre-dates Spinal Tap by many years. I can't remember who was first well-known for doing it and I'm tempted to say Eddie Van Halen ca late 70's, but something is nagging me in the back of my brain that says it goes back to Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page in the 60's.
I think that you can use a Fourier transform, but according to Heisenberg, you cannot precisely measure both the data storage capacity and the height of a swimming pool at the same time.
You're certainly entitled to your view, but I emphasize again from first hand experience that implementing designs with FPGA's is hardware design, not the mere programming and capturing of logic constructs and that there is one hell of a lot more to hardware design than logic.
It seems the logic of this thread
Good one.
relies a bit too heavily on strict definitions of software engineers and hardware engineers.
That's a matter of convenience and nothing else. If you'd prefer, you can preface each use of the term with 'people that have the typical skills of'.
Personally, I think that one of the biggest problems that the engineering community has is the "Berlin Wall" approach to software and hardware and that we'd all have much better systems if each had a better understanding of what the people on the other side do, how, and why. Speaking as one who has dodged the bullets and crossed that wall more than once (and sometimes perches on top of it shouting obscenities at each side for their snobbery), I can tell you quite authoritatively that each side consists of good, honest, bright, hard-working people who do vastly different things and generally don't know much about how the people on the other side work, yet think they know it quite well.
What about those of us who think there are two kinds of engineers: those who drive trains, and those with sticks up their asses?
There's a difference between being an elitist and being a realist. Let me assure you that I am the latter, not the former.
Now that's not meant to be a personal attack, just a little joke from someone who comes from a family littered with engineers.
We have something in common.
But it also goes straight to my point which is that FPGAs do begin to move chip functionality into the realm of the hacker. By definition, these are people who tend to flaunt conventions.
Look, I'm the first guy to flaunt conventions and thumb my nose at people who rigorously adhere to them for no good reason. But I'm also very strongly of the opinion that while there are conventions that should and must be challenged, there are others that must not. The convention that all North Americans drive on the right side of the road is one, for example, that is better not to flaunt. The same is true of the conventions that lead to the design of safe and reliable systems.
That's not to say that they might not have impressive technical backgrounds; on the contrary, it's usually one of the defining elements of such an individual. But this is a category of people who are looking for answers to problems that might not even attract the attention of a more rigorous professional engineer. For these people, the FPGA is truly a revolutionary advance. Take OpenCores for instance. Here we see black box IP cores that enable people who have neither hardware nor software design skills to begin tinkering with FPGAs. I know a guy who is a total computer idiot who works downloading video encoders onto FPGAs for video production units. This guy couldn't program a DOS batch file or re-wire a broken lamp, but his job description makes him and FPGA Engineer. Given such realities, I think the assertion that a typical programmer type is somehow dangerous at the controls of an FPGA is a bit of an overreaction.
Context, sir, context. I have no problem about hobbyists and hackers dabbling in their own environs - I actually think that it's a good thing. But one must not make the leap of faith that because he gets a something to "work" on his bench that the "hacker" is capable of and follows the proper design practices required to create products for use in the real world. I can make a steel box, fasten some cable to it, run the cable over some pulleys mounted on a high platform and hook the cable up to a motor. Are you ready to ride my elevator?
Now, if that "hacker" understands that the FGPA does not exist in isolation, but is rather part of a real-world system; understands, has analyzed and has designed for things such as worst case timing, voltage and temperature conditions, noise (and all the other boring considerations that lead to safe and reliable systems); has done proper simulation, prototyping and testing under degraded conditions then we may have some basis for discussion. How many "hackers" or hobbyists or "people who have the skills of Software Engineers" can and do do that?
There is a place for the type of freewheeling experimentation that you describe and indeed it helps to advance technology - I have no argument with that. But that is experimentation, not implementation, and the danger is that many people do not understand the difference which can lead to disastrous results.
I have had to rework designs in the past where the people who implemented them had a very clever logic concept but no idea about hardware design. Such designs would typically work only under ideal lab conditions, but fail or behave erratically once moved to the real world because the 'designer' failed to understand the real-world issues that exist outside of the abstract and ideal world in with which pure logic exists. Therein lies one of the major differences between an Engineer and what I like to call a "Logician".
the guy was relating his experiences as an end user, not as a designer. In fact he seems to agree with you point: design of an fpga is art that needs experts. Indeed he was lamenting was the lack of tools for joe programmer to use these things effectively.
It was not intended to be a rip at him and if it seems that way, I'm sorry.
But I am seriously disturbed by the rate of propagation of the utter falsehood that because FPGA's are programmable, "Joe Programmer" can properly implement a reliable design with them (just as the simple fact that I can type and develop logic does not automatically mean that I have the skills be a great programmer).
Assuming that "Joe Programmer" can is VERY dangerous and indeed in some cases could be a life-threatening assumption. God forbid that you should ever depend on a critical system where any portion of the hardware was based on programmable logic implemented by a programmer because he could program them. There's a hell of a lot more to proper electronics hardware design than implementing logic (and designing with FPGA's is electronics design, not programming). It requires a vastly different set of skills than "Joe Programmer" will have and the solution does not simply boil down to "proper tools" like you suggest. There is a reason why Electrical Engineers study a lot of different courses than Software Engineers.
To be balanced the same applies in the reverse direction. Electrical Engineers do not automatically have the skills to be good Software Engineers. But that is not what is at issue here.
Please read and remember: The fact that FPGA's are "programmable" does not move their development into the domain of software engineers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, my "budget of about $1.99" statement was said tongue-in-cheek and I see your point that a useful set-up can be put together relatively cheaply. I really have to explore whether this is just a passing fancy or whether it's long term, but right now I'm excited by the prospect and itching to get (back) at it. Thanks for the suggestions!
Correction: A booming government-protected cable monopoly. To me, ascribing the term "industry" implies competition and there sure as hell isn't any cable competition Canada. There are 3 major cable companies, each has an exclusive geographic territory and each is a monopoly within that territory. 5 years ago, some small pocket territories were swapped to provide a more geographically consistent picture for these monopolies. Speaking as one who was swapped from the best of the 3 to the worst, I say that the system sucks.
Only in former Soviet Russia.
The needs of the Microsoft outweigh the needs of the many.
And AllTheWeb has a more flexible advanced search, IMO. I still go to Google first, but AllTheWeb is my backup ferret.
Bucks urgently required. Please post formula.
Ahem back... I think that it's apparent in the thread that I have no argument with that.
If you search for "Microsoft" you'll only get 37,600,000 hits
When referring to the o/s, I think that you'd agree that most people use the term "Windows" without "Microsoft". Business analysis could use "Microsoft" with or without "Windows". Maybe what you say just proves that Microsoft is a business, which I think we can all agree has long been in the "QED" category.
It must get under Bill's skin, though.
By the way - I love the Linux detergent. Inexpensive, works as advertised, gets my clothes clean and doesn't keep threatening to add Digital Shorts* Management.
* English slang for mens' Unterhosen.
I actually took something to that effect out of my original comment, because for every suggestion that implied bias one way, I could come up with another that implied bias the other way. Your suggestion would drop the weighting of "Windows" the o/s, but one could counter that Linux users are more likely to exploit the Web for "getting the word out", as already suggested above.
By the way, I wish that Google supported case-sensitive searches, and real honest-to-goodness literal searches as options (I know that 'the' is a common word, Google).
Diclaimer: IANASNDIWTBO (I am not a statistician, nor do I want to be one ;).
Yeah, but it doesn't take much proficiency to post something in a forum like "I use Windows" or "I'm having problems with Windows XP" or "buy Microsoft Windows", etc., etc., etc.
As I suggested, there's no way in hell one could attach any real statistical significance to it - I just found it interesting.
Just for the hell of it, the other day I typed 'Windows' into Google. I got (about) 57,600,000 results.
Then I typed 'Linux'. I got (about) 53,700,000 results.
Now, one could write a whole book on how unscientific those statistics are, but it was still interesting to see a (damned near) 1:1 ratio. I had anticipated something more like 5:1
Funny - moderate as Funny, do not moderate as Flamebait
Offtopic - moderate as Offtopic, do not moderate as Flamebait
Seem obvious, doesn't it?
That the efforts of spammers are secretly funded by a covert group known only as the "USPS" in an effort to render the e-mail a useless form of communication and force people to resort to slower, antiquated pay models for sending information. Have you heard this rumor?
Thanks for the suggestions. This is just a home/recreational thing and on a budget of about $1.99 . The component that I'm missing is a good guitar amp, which I can't afford right now. So I thought that since I have a good solid state amp and speakers that I run my sound card output through, how about something to simulate various tube amps and effects in real-time.
You're much better off with a nice mixing console and some good microphones.
One of my dreams for many years has been to have a really good equipment set-up and my own (non-virtual) 24-track studio. But I have to work that "first million" before I can do that (and I'm not trying to get rich in the music business - I gave that dream up a long time ago).
Thanks for the info. I've had a look around and I see some options. I couldn't find "stompbox" (there was something with a very similar name for the Mac only), but I've found some other interesting stuff (mostly Windows, of course, but that's OK, I have both Linux and Windows boxes).
Personally, I think that Jimmy Page has a lot of talent as a producer and arranger, and also as musician when he's "on". I have to agree that his playing can be terribly sloppy but often wonder whether there weren't substances involved. Led Zeppelin's live album was truly a showcase of sloppiness (the same could be said of Aerosmith's first live album). I often wonder if they weren't terribly embarrassed by it. But I have a tape of a live BBC session that I recorded eons ago off the radio (come and get me Hilary). In that, his guitar work really shines as it does on all of Zeppelin's studio albums.
Jimmy's talents were well recognized in the early to mid-60's when he did session work on literally hundreds of popular recordings. At one time he was the most sought-after session guitarist in England and he is considered to be the most recorded British guitarist of all time.
The real sin that Zeppelin committed IMO, which apparently started when Jimmy was a member of the Yardbirds (initially as a bass player along side Jeff Beck (who had replaced Eric Clapton), later briefly playing guitar beside Beck and ultimately replacing Beck when he left the band), was ripping off and re-spinning numerous old blues tunes and failing to credit and compensate the origianl composers. That is what I was alluding to in my comment. Still, some argue that it was that very blatant borrowing of the blues that led to a large upsurge in the popularity of the form, which ultimately did financially benefit some old blues artists by causing people to go back to the roots of blues and thus old blues artists for more. For me, that is precisely what happened. I do not think that I would be the huge fan of the blues that I am today, had it not been for my exposure to the form through bands like Led Zeppelin.
Again, while his playing could be terribly erratic and self-indulgent, I believe that Jimmy Page made huge contributions to music, music production and the recording process (he was an early pioneer of recording "studio work" outside of studios). But like most creatives, he is an enigma - talented and at times brilliant, but erratic as a performer and peculiar (his obsession with Aleister Crowley, for example). Still, one cannot argue rationally that he did not make large contributions to the advancement of rock music in the 60's-80's.
Thanks. Yes, I can see that there would be little (no noticeable) delay if the card's on-board DSP and other hardware is used to do any processing. But I think that to get some more advanced effects one might have to go off-board, which is bound to result in some delay. I know that how much is going to be very much system hardware, o/s, and code dependant but I'm wondering if anyone has tried/gone this route and whether it's even worth investigating.
I've been thinking about getting back into playing (at home for recreation). I still have my old and beloved SG and Strat. It's been years and the calluses and some of the dexterity are gone, so it will take a while to get back into it.
I don't have a decent amp any more (or the money to invest in one) and my Rockman died. I've been thinking along the lines using my PC for (real-time) effects and processing. It seems to me that one could run the guitar patch cord (with an adapter, which I have) into a sound card line-in as a start. I'd try it but I don't have a full-duplex sound card and I wonder if there's enough gain anyway. I'm also guessing that there might be an annoying midi-like delay. Has anyone tried this? Can anyone point to some good/free tools?
it goes back to Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page in the 60's... ...who possibly appropriated the idea from an old impoverished blues artist and never credited him.
Actually, having volume dials that go to 11 (on amplifiers) is an old guitar players' joke that pre-dates Spinal Tap by many years. I can't remember who was first well-known for doing it and I'm tempted to say Eddie Van Halen ca late 70's, but something is nagging me in the back of my brain that says it goes back to Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page in the 60's.
I think that you can use a Fourier transform, but according to Heisenberg, you cannot precisely measure both the data storage capacity and the height of a swimming pool at the same time.
It seems the logic of this thread
Good one.
relies a bit too heavily on strict definitions of software engineers and hardware engineers.
That's a matter of convenience and nothing else. If you'd prefer, you can preface each use of the term with 'people that have the typical skills of'.
Personally, I think that one of the biggest problems that the engineering community has is the "Berlin Wall" approach to software and hardware and that we'd all have much better systems if each had a better understanding of what the people on the other side do, how, and why. Speaking as one who has dodged the bullets and crossed that wall more than once (and sometimes perches on top of it shouting obscenities at each side for their snobbery), I can tell you quite authoritatively that each side consists of good, honest, bright, hard-working people who do vastly different things and generally don't know much about how the people on the other side work, yet think they know it quite well.
What about those of us who think there are two kinds of engineers: those who drive trains, and those with sticks up their asses?
There's a difference between being an elitist and being a realist. Let me assure you that I am the latter, not the former.
Now that's not meant to be a personal attack, just a little joke from someone who comes from a family littered with engineers.
We have something in common.
But it also goes straight to my point which is that FPGAs do begin to move chip functionality into the realm of the hacker. By definition, these are people who tend to flaunt conventions.
Look, I'm the first guy to flaunt conventions and thumb my nose at people who rigorously adhere to them for no good reason. But I'm also very strongly of the opinion that while there are conventions that should and must be challenged, there are others that must not. The convention that all North Americans drive on the right side of the road is one, for example, that is better not to flaunt. The same is true of the conventions that lead to the design of safe and reliable systems.
That's not to say that they might not have impressive technical backgrounds; on the contrary, it's usually one of the defining elements of such an individual. But this is a category of people who are looking for answers to problems that might not even attract the attention of a more rigorous professional engineer. For these people, the FPGA is truly a revolutionary advance. Take OpenCores for instance. Here we see black box IP cores that enable people who have neither hardware nor software design skills to begin tinkering with FPGAs. I know a guy who is a total computer idiot who works downloading video encoders onto FPGAs for video production units. This guy couldn't program a DOS batch file or re-wire a broken lamp, but his job description makes him and FPGA Engineer. Given such realities, I think the assertion that a typical programmer type is somehow dangerous at the controls of an FPGA is a bit of an overreaction.
Context, sir, context. I have no problem about hobbyists and hackers dabbling in their own environs - I actually think that it's a good thing. But one must not make the leap of faith that because he gets a something to "work" on his bench that the "hacker" is capable of and follows the proper design practices required to create products for use in the real world. I can make a steel box, fasten some cable to it, run the cable over some pulleys mounted on a high platform and hook the cable up to a motor. Are you ready to ride my elevator?
Now, if that "hacker" understands that the FGPA does not exist in isolation, but is rather part of a real-world system; understands, has analyzed and has designed for things such as worst case timing, voltage and temperature conditions, noise (and all the other boring considerations that lead to safe and reliable systems); has done proper simulation, prototyping and testing under degraded conditions then we may have some basis for discussion. How many "hackers" or hobbyists or "people who have the skills of Software Engineers" can and do do that?
There is a place for the type of freewheeling experimentation that you describe and indeed it helps to advance technology - I have no argument with that. But that is experimentation, not implementation, and the danger is that many people do not understand the difference which can lead to disastrous results.
I have had to rework designs in the past where the people who implemented them had a very clever logic concept but no idea about hardware design. Such designs would typically work only under ideal lab conditions, but fail or behave erratically once moved to the real world because the 'designer' failed to understand the real-world issues that exist outside of the abstract and ideal world in with which pure logic exists. Therein lies one of the major differences between an Engineer and what I like to call a "Logician".
It was not intended to be a rip at him and if it seems that way, I'm sorry.
But I am seriously disturbed by the rate of propagation of the utter falsehood that because FPGA's are programmable, "Joe Programmer" can properly implement a reliable design with them (just as the simple fact that I can type and develop logic does not automatically mean that I have the skills be a great programmer).
Assuming that "Joe Programmer" can is VERY dangerous and indeed in some cases could be a life-threatening assumption. God forbid that you should ever depend on a critical system where any portion of the hardware was based on programmable logic implemented by a programmer because he could program them. There's a hell of a lot more to proper electronics hardware design than implementing logic (and designing with FPGA's is electronics design, not programming). It requires a vastly different set of skills than "Joe Programmer" will have and the solution does not simply boil down to "proper tools" like you suggest. There is a reason why Electrical Engineers study a lot of different courses than Software Engineers.
To be balanced the same applies in the reverse direction. Electrical Engineers do not automatically have the skills to be good Software Engineers. But that is not what is at issue here.
Please read and remember: The fact that FPGA's are "programmable" does not move their development into the domain of software engineers.
CNN might be tempted to sue them for copyright infringement.