[CAUT] Semantics

[Delwin D Fandrich]

As related to the topic under discussion, i.e., the transfer of energy from a
vibrating string to either a plate or a soundboard:
	1) Nothing is being made larger or more powerful.
	2) Nothing is being added to or made complete by way of illustration.
	3) Nothing is being exaggerated.
	4) Nothing is being electronically amplified. 

When discussing a technical subject and a technical phenomenon it seems to me
that using the technical definition of a word is always best. Neither piano
soundboards nor piano plates "amplify" anything in the technical sense. And yet
they, especially the soundboard, are often given this power by folks who should
know better. Namely piano technicians, piano sales and marketing personnel and
piano manufacturing personnel. 

One problem arises when one party to a discussion used a term in one way-as a
colloquial word or phrase-but it is taken and applied as a technical by another.
This usage can be intended to mislead when one party uses the word in a
colloquial sense and then implies something in the technical sense that is not
true. In the piano world the most common example of this is to imply that
because my soundboard/amplifier is bigger than your soundboard/amplifier my
piano will be louder and more powerful and is, therefore, inherently superior.
We know this must be true because "large" amplifiers create more sound volume
than "small" amplifiers and so large soundboards must be able to produce more
sound than small soundboards.

A classic example of this took place back in the latter days of Wurlitzer. The
company had for many years been advertising and promoting its soundboard size
and shape as being larger than that found in any of its competitors. It was,
therefore, a superior design and was capable of producing more and better sound
than any of its competitors. My old friend Lew Herwig (who was at the time
working for the company as their one and only scale designer) designed a new
soundboard system that proved to be (in a series of blind tests) clearly
superior to their existing soundboard system. The problem was that it had less
radiating area-it was a smaller amplifier-and it was, therefore, unacceptable to
the company's management. 

ddf  

| -----Original Message-----
| From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On 
| Behalf Of Jeff Tanner
| Sent: May 08, 2009 1:15 PM
| To: caut at ptg.org
| Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics
| 
| I apologize for using the word "amplify" incorrectly, as 
| those of you understand it.  Here's how I and the rest of the 
| world previously understood the meaning of "amplify":
| 
| Amplify: 1. To make larger or more powerful; increase. 2. To 
| add to, as by illustration and make complete. 3. Exaggerate. 
| 4. Electronics. to produce amplification of.  verb: to write 
| or discourse at length; expatiate.
| 
| Source: American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition.
| 
| So, who has the correct definition? Physicists or the rest of 
| the world?
| 
| Is it soccer or football?
| 
| Semantics.
| Jeff Tanner
| (I have never in 42 years and seriously doubt I will ever use 
| the word "transduce".  Nobody else will know what it means.)
| 
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Ron Nossaman" <rnossaman at cox.net>
| To: <caut at ptg.org>
| Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 7:47 AM
| Subject: Re: [CAUT] AcuJust and grunting fish bait
| 
| 
| > David Love wrote:
| >> Sorry to disagree but I think in this case it is a 
| semantic issue and the 
| >> original question has been lost on this tangent.
| >
| > I disagree. It's not a semantic issue. The terms are 
| clearly defined, 
| > regardless of colloquial usage. It's the continued use and 
| tolerance of 
| > fuzzy ill defined concepts that make these discussions 
| nearly useless, and 
| > doomed to repeat endlessly.
| >
| > Ron N
| >
| > 
| 
| 
| 
|