User talk:Rapisu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Rapisu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! FrankFlanagan (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011[edit]

Compact Cassette[edit]

You appear to have altered the tape speed in this article. The original speed was referenced to a source which appears not to be avalable at present, but other reasonable sources I have looked at use the original speed, which you have replaced. Do you have an alternative source you could quote?

Thanks FrankFlanagan (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

Reel-to-reel audio tape recording[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Reel-to-reel audio tape recording. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. You continue to change the metric equivalents of tape speeds in this and other articles. I believe that you are using an incorrect conversion factor from inches to cm. The correct factor is to multiply by 2.54 (see Metre#Equivalents in other units or any reliable source). This is starting to affect a significant number of articles. It is difficult to continue to assume good faith where you have not replied to my previous comment. FrankFlanagan (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This issue has now been responded to by email and I believe it is essentially closed.
FrankFlanagan (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nakamichi and A.B.L.E.[edit]

In wikipedia email you wrote

I write equal because I do not want to confuse it with equalization. I know 
Nakamichi didn't write it but I do not want to get people confused.

The function being performed is adjustment of equalization (along with adjustment of azimuth, bias, and level). Therefore leaving the word in the article as "equalization" is not confusing. Rather, changing it to "equal" would be confusing.

Edit - added -- to cliarfy: What A.B.L.E. did re. EQ was to tweak the EQ in the record path to achieve the best playback response, as measured with the deck's own playback EQ. The record EQ setting determined by A.B.L.E. was like a fine tuning adjustment on the 120/70 usec EQ switch, but only for the record path. The deck's EQ switch determined the playback EQ (both for the measurement and for normal playback) and also the "center point" of the recording EQ adjustment range provided by A.B.L.E. Playback EQ was not changed from the standard value determined by the switch, either during ABLE's measurements or for actual tape playback. Jeh (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, do you have sources for all the other changes you have been making lately? These various articles on recording are currently very poorly referenced, and if you are in fact drawing your info from reliable sources it would be very good if you would add the citations. Jeh (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Remember as well that I said 'Equal' because equalization have many meanings. 
For example, tone control, graphic equalizer, parametric equalizer and so on.

(the above comment was added to my talk page by Rapisu; I moved it here)

That makes no sense to me. In the context of setting up a tape deck to optimize it for a particular tape, the term "equalization" has just one meaning, particularly when it's right next to "azimuth," "bias", and "level." If you think it requires further qualification the way to do it would be to add clarification, not introduce a word that is never used in this context (except perhaps as an abbreviation on front panel control legends). Have you ever in your life seen an English language tape deck service manual or adjustment procedure that calls it "equal?" Will you also insist on making up a different word for "level" because people might think the machine has servo-controlled leveling jacks that are adjusted by the computer, or for "azimuth" since it might refer to rotating the machine in the horizontal plane?

In any case, Nak refers to it as "equalization" in their description of the "auto calibrate" function and WP must follow its sources. If you are writing for your own blog you can call it anything you like... but not here.

btw please see the notice at the top of my talk page - I started this thread here, please reply here. I am watching this page and will see when you reply. Jeh (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And in WP email (I wish you wouldn't do that, please continue the discussion here), you wrote:

Remember that the Equalization is different for all cassette decks. For example, 
if you compare a 70's and a 90's deck, the Equalization is different. 
The 120/70 is Equalization.

I wouldn't say "different for all cassette decks". The last change to the IEC curve for Type I tape happened in 1974, and for types II and IV in 1970! (See http://www.iasa-web.org/tc04/magnetic-tapes-replay-equalisation) IEC Publication 60094-1 (1981) further codified these. However there turned out to be an error in the very widely distributed BASF calibration tapes, and an "Annex" to IEC 60094-2 was eventually published. See http://richardhess.com/notes/2006/05/17/cassette-equalization-the-4-db-ambiguity-at-16-khz/ . So you could encounter decks built and calibrated to any of three different "standard" test tapes: those made by BASF before the amendments (these tapes resulted in a +4 dB rise at 16 kHz); cal. tapes made by Nakamichi and STL that corrected this error (presumably Nak's decks were all calibrated to that standard); and cal. tapes made to the specs from the "Annex", which more or less was a compromise between the preceding two. This isn't a different standard for every make and model of deck or even for every year, but it does allow for some variation, and of course there are going to be sample variations and aging effects too. I have no idea whether Nak's decks made post-"Annex" comply with the "Annex" (or if at this point they even care; they are a very different company than in the 80s).

In any case, I don't see how this is relevant to the question of which word to use. ABLE is without question performing fine adjustments on the record equalization (as measured against the deck's own playback equalization), and substituting the word "equal" is neither informative nor supported by sources. Jeh (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

June 2012[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to RIAA equalization, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Jeh (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Rapisu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)