Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uoregon!markv
From: markv@uoregon.uoregon.edu (Mark VandeWettering)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Sound tracing (Academic Snooty-ness) (LONG)
Keywords: Ray tracing, sound tracing
Message-ID: <3435@uoregon.uoregon.edu>
Date: 30 Dec 88 19:28:01 GMT
References: <239@raunvis.UUCP> <413@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> <7488@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: markv@drizzle.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering)
Organization: University of Oregon, Computer Science, Eugene OR
Lines: 69

In article <7488@watcgl.waterloo.edu> ksbooth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Kelly Booth) writes:
>We are being flooded by a lot of amateur postings about ray tracing for
>sound.  This is not a new idea and it is not a new topic.  Most of the
>postings appear to be quite naive approaches.  There are commercial
>companies that have applied computer techniques to problems in
>acoustics for many years.  There are big bucks to be made in this
>field.  It is highly unlikely that a couple of hackers thinking about
>the problem for a few minutes will generate startling break throughs
>(possible, but not likely).

	Well, I have a couple of minor criticisms about the above
	statements.

	First of all, before every "breakthrough" in computer science,
	there is a long period of developing the background necessary to
	talk reasonably about the subject.  For some people, this is
	most profitably spent reading articles about the subject.
	Indeed, I would agree that this is probably the most valuable
	part of "research".

	Yet another method of developing background is to talk to people
	who perhaps know more (there are lots accessible from news) or
	have done research in the area.  I have benefitted tremendously
	by receiving the enthusiastic responses of several people in the
	field of computer graphics, many of whom I have never met face
	to face.

	Much of my "research" is actually spent in understanding ideas
	that have come before, and trying to push them in new ways,
	categorize them in ways that might make tenuous connections more
	clear, and coalesce fuzzy ideas into clear concepts.  The net is
	a great medium for doing this, because it allows you to converse
	with lots of people who are doing the same.

	Second, the "amateur" quality of the postings may be clear to
	you, but they aren't clear to me.  I have found them interesting
	and thought provoking, which questions about "point-in-polygon"
	or "color pallette optimization" have failed to do.  Yesterday I
	spent in a thought experiment about the possibilities of trying
	to do sound tracing with several of my collegues (posting to
	follow soon) which I thought had some interesting (and probably
	pretty obvious) insights.  It also is relatively clear that it
	will work, and would be cheap in terms of hardware to implement.

	Third, your posting is itself noise.  You offered none of the
	"classic" references.  You offered no criticisms of proposed
	computational models.  You shared no personal insights.  You
	tossed a bucket of water on people who are anxious to learn.
	Shame on you!


>It would be nice to see just a few postings with references to the
>classical references in the field.  After these have been explored, the
>net is a good place to make comments and to further discuss nuances not
>covered in standard books or journals.
	
	I agree, but I think if we confine ourselves to doing that,
	beginners won't catch on to the excitement and interesting ideas
	that are all through computer science.   Let's keep the
	excitement of discovery in computer science, and recognize
	individual discovery as a valid form of research and academic
	pursuit.

	I am finding this line of conversation profitable and exciting.
	I urge everyone to keep thinking, keep posting, keep
	criticizing, and keep researching.  And look for my probably
	amateur posting about sound tracing....

Mark VandeWettering