The rules

Post and discuss acoustic topics, Studio design, construction, and soundproofing here

The rules

Postby Dan Nelson » Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:30 pm

This is a non commercial scientific forum for small room acoustics as applied in studios and listening rooms. Anyone who has an interest in room acoustics may join and post in this forum. However there are  a few rules.

1 No Spam - if post you anything that is not related to acoustics here one of three things will happen depending on the level of the offense. Joining the forum with the sole purpose of creating links to raise search engine rating is not allowed.
a) you will be warned not to do it again
b) you will be banned from the forum
c) legal measures will be taken againist you

2 You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions.

3 You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered above being stored in a database. ON topic dicussions have never been closed or removed here and the only edits have beeen in the achives mostly headers and footers and removing layers of "reply to" quotation. Think before you post, what you say is part of the permanent archive.

4 While manufacturers and professionals in the acoustics are welcome and an important part of this forum, this is not the place to sell products and services. It is as welcome here as would be at an AES or ASA meeting.

5 Repect Copyrights and understand fair use, it is legal to quote others works for the purpose of discussion, however you should state the source when you are quoting and limit the quotation as much as possible. Here is a link to part of Stanford Unversity's "Fair Use Guidelines" if you are unfamiliar with fair use http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... 9-a.html#1 If you violate this Eric will lecture you on it.
Attempts to restrict fair use will only cause me to give you and your lawyers a long lecture on fair use and copyright law. Trust me I can go on for days.

6) Since the purpose of the this forum is to further the understanding of small room acoustics, "unsubstantiated preconceptions" are not acceptable. If you are developing a new "theory", standard scientific method is what is expected in this group if your hypothesis fails, go back to step one do not continue to push your "theory" until you revise your hypothesis or you can prove a test had errors. Here are a few links if you don't know what  scientific method is
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixE.html
http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Education/EDF600/Mod3/

7) Attachments:
More about this topic:
http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?p=3471#3471
    7.a - You want the pictures to be visible in the message itself:
    In order to prevent scrambling the Forum Layout please limit pictures to a maximum size of 660 pixels as well for the width (Landscape view) as the Height (portrait view).
    Using a width BETWEEN 660 and 800 pixels included. is only allowed when the content of the picture (e.g. data tables, etc.) prevails over readability of the messages and layout of the forum.
    7.b - You need larger pictures in order to show finer details:
    Make the pictures 810 or more pixels wide. In this case the pictures will be shown as a download. When pressing the related download link the picture will be shown in a newly opened window. (It is still useful/gentle to take users of a 1024 x 768 screen resolution, minus spare for edges, into acount)

    For pictures linked from a site a maximum of 680 x 680 is allowed (gives 20 pixels spare)
Last edited by Dan Nelson on Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:57 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Dan Nelson
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:52 am

Postby Dan Nelson » Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:32 pm

Any changes, additions, or subtractions anyone can think of?

Dan
Dan Nelson
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:52 am

Postby Howler » Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:59 am

Does this mean the "11-wall-theory" is kaput?

How about the Japanese "72-layer-rice-paper system"?

Wow... you are tough!
Howler
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:17 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA

Postby Eric.Desart » Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:35 pm

Dan,

I love you for this .............
My respect

Stephen, you're the only exception as off topic guy :):)

Really thanks,
Eric
Eric.Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Postby giles » Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:55 pm

Dan,
don't offensive remarks about China or any other country come under rule 2?
G
giles
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: belgium

Postby Bob » Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:36 pm

Dan:

6) ... do not continue to push your "theory" until you ... can prove a test had errors

Am I interpreting this sentence incorrectly?
My interpretation of that is that if person A espouses a theory with a test, and accredited person B proves the test has errors, that person A must now push the theory (i.e. because it's erroneous it's now proven correct).
It seems to me that the scientific method recommends the other way, that if the 'proving' test has errors, it would be better to set asside the theory at least until a test without errors can be done.

BTW, I like your scientific method links. In high school I learned that the scientific method was:
a) state hypothosis to be investigated (not 'proven'). This can either be a question that one is paid to investigate, or a summary of a conclusion one made about an accidental yet repeatable observation.
b) list apparatus, and then method (in sufficient detail that it can be replicated, and then modified/enhanced). The point of this step is so that peers can review, and if fault is found then the remaining can be ignored. It's also a great help in understanding the context of the conclusion, and interpreting meaning and scope of the words stated in the conclusion. Pictures help a lot.
c) perform experiment, record and list observations without comment or conceilment. Raw data and summary graphs.
d) state *your* conclusions about the observations. (This is of course the part where peers really go to town!) Strong Note: stating conclusions without including step (b) is a great way to waste everyone's time.
e) optional nice to have: cite similar studies or relevent references (either supporting or contradicting or incomplete).
Regards
Bob Golds
"The only thing we regret in life is the love we failed to give."
"Be a rapturist -- the backward of a terrorist. Commit random acts of senseless kindness, whenever possible" - Jake Stonebender
Bob
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:37 am
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Postby Dan Nelson » Mon Jun 07, 2004 11:07 pm

I need to find a better way to say it, needs to be made more clear. If person A has a hypothesis and person B runs a test that disproves the hypothesis, Person A must prove the person B had an error in the test, or person A needs revise their hypothesis. rinse repeat

Dan
Dan Nelson
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:52 am

Postby Youn » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:56 pm

I've a question about Rule #5....

Let's say I copied and pasted some of a topics contents into a Word document and later offered it to anyone who might be interested. I've done no editing to the material, other then omitting some posts which I felt were not on-topic. In other words, it's a much easier read, much more printable and accessible. Would offering this to other forum members be in violation of this rule and should I expect to be removed from the forum by doing so?
Youn
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:31 am

Postby Eric.Desart » Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:05 pm

You can do this with the explicit consent of the Author.
You cannot publish or distribute whatever from somebody after editing it and redistribute it as an improved edition.

The only thing that you can do with this thread outside strict personal use, are things which are explicit agreed with Paul.

But the event in discussion goes much further than that and does NOT belong in this topic.
Image
divinely-inspired
Eric.Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Postby Youn » Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:15 pm

Thank you for your patience, I understand completely, except this...

But the event in discussion goes much further than that and does NOT belong in this topic.
Youn
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:31 am

Postby Eric.Desart » Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:53 pm

Youn,

I correct my previous reply.
Also Paul has NOT the right to give allowance to publish or distribute his own thread without him having consent of the other distributors.

Paul can make something from his thread, but he only has copyright on his own contributions.
As such Paul himself can not just copy and distribute this complete thread without consent.
Paul is the most logical person to make something from this thread taking Fair Use into account.
Image
divinely-inspired
Eric.Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am
Location: Antwerp, Belgium


Return to Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests

cron