Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watcgl!ksbooth
From: ksbooth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Kelly Booth)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Sound tracing (Academic Snooty-ness)
Keywords: Ray tracing, sound tracing
Message-ID: <7550@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 89 18:07:41 GMT
References: <239@raunvis.UUCP> <413@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> <7488@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <3435@uoregon.uoregon.edu> <572@epicb.UUCP> <7103@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Reply-To: ksbooth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Kelly Booth)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 20

What can I say.  This is precisely what I was complaining about in my
original posting (which was not, by the way, aimed at the the first
posting on sound tracing, but at the follow up postings):

>>  Is appaling!  Sound processing is CENTURIES behind image processing.
>>		If we were to apply even a few of our common algorithms
>>		to the audio spectrum, it would revolutionize the
>>		synthizer world.  These people are living in the stone
>>		age (with the exception of a few such as Kuerdswell [sp]).

The above quoted posting is what we see in comp.graphics all the time.
If it isn't graphics, it must not be good and of course we can do
better.  My point (which I guess I stated pretty badly) was "Before you
respond to a posting such as the sound tracing one with the first thing
that comes out of your head in the way of a neat idea, why not take a
little time to look through the available literature in the field if
you are not familiar with it already.  And once you have done this, why
not include some references to it in your postings so the rest of us
who might be interested are spared the trouble of searching out the
references -- we can just go straight to the good sources you found."