[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: Zipper , an example (software testing)
Charles Zwicky wrote:
>
>
> Andy,
> I think this assesment is too cynical.
sure, :-) fit's the facts though.
Where are the bug free DSP devices?
( other than simple ones )
> I have done beta testing with
> several pro audio manufaturers (I am a professional recording engineer)
> and the reality is that the "programmer " is often a part of a team of
> developers and programmers, and in DSP driven products, there are
> programmers dedicated to user interface, DSP coding, algorhythm design
> API integration (if it's software) etc.
Right, and that would be the case with Roland.
Actually I don't think Roland have a lot of bugs in their gear.
I'd be fairly certain they have guys to systematically test their products.
( but who wouldn't conceive what LDers would want to do with it)
> As a beta tester, I was perhaps
> the only member of the 'team' who dealt extensively and exclusivly with
> the end product.
> The basic reality is that the alpha and beta devices
> are broken and malfunctioning and need sombody with excellent
> troubleshooting -and particularly communication - skills to sus them
> out.
wanna job ? :-)
> At some point, there is a 'drop dead' date and the thing gets
> released, warts and all.
Well, I'd agree with that.
That's why the LP-1 thing works so well.
There's no cut off date.
The buyer is a tester, and possibly a contributor.
...and generally buyers end up happy.
The same model works for software loopers.
andy butler
>
> -CZ
>
>> Charles Zwicky wrote:
>>>
>>> It really falls on the Beta testers. If they don't use the devices
>>> the way that us on the cutting edge might then these things slip past
>>> them.
>>
>> Roland knew about some of the RC-50 issues already.
>> Don't think they have much of a clue really, apart from being top
>> notch at profits.
>>
>> Complex loop devices really need something more than to rely on the
>> poor old "Beta Tester", as in someone who plays their music in the way
>> they like to see if it works out on the new device.
>>
>> Indeed, it's highly desirable to have a beta tester like Andre Lafosse
>> who'll push the technology to it's limit, but how realistic is that
>> hope?
>>
>> As cpr hints, it's either down to the programmer to ensure that
>> there's no way to crash the device for any possible sequence of button
>> presses, or they should get someone else to do it. Typically, the
>> programmer isn't the best tester of their own product, as they already
>> "know to use it".
>> As looping devices increase in capability, there's 2 ways I can see
>> this going.
>>
>> 1) Actually pay someone to test, it's a skilled job.
>> 2) Make it known that purchasers/users are "testers" right from the
>> beginning, and have good provision for dealing with that.
>>
>>> This is why the RC-50 gets complaints here but the LP-1 and 2880
>>> don't...and vice versa in the mainstream press.
>>
>> The reason the LP-1 doesn't get complaints here is that these are
>> dealt with on the LP-1 forum.
>> There's not that many LP-1's in the world, so users get their answers
>> direct from Bob Amstadt.
>> Probably the 2880 is just too simple to have a lot of problems.
>>
>>
>> Isn't the RC-50 the first looper by a major company to have these sort
>> of problems?
>> It's a lot easier to create bug free software if all the features are
>> known before programming starts, and I'm guessing that's how the
>> majors do it. The independent loop developers are usually open to
>> change their product on the fly, which is no bad thing, but eventually
>> tends to create difficulties and complications in the software.
>>
>> If we want to be on the "cutting edge" as loopers, I think we're going
>> to be testers :-)
>>
>> andy butler
>>
>
>