There doesnâ€™t seem to be definitive consensus on the matter of the proper way to use the terms height (H), width (W), depth (D), and length (L) when describing the dimensions of things. Usually we are left to sort out which dimension each term is describing on a per object basis. This is stupid.
A Real World Problem
I need cases for my studio monitors. Touring is not very friendly to delicate reference speakers, so proper cases are kind of important. Since the manufacturer of these particular monitors does not make cases, I had to look to other manufacturers for appropriately sized cases. In the specifications for the monitors the manufacturer lists their product in H x W X D dimensions. Thatâ€™s fine, but one case manufacturer lists their product in H x L x W. Another manufacturer lists their cases in H x L x D. That makes immediate identification of a properly sized case a bit difficult. The fact that some manufacturers list their products in imperial measures while others use the metric system complicates things too, but Iâ€™ll save that for another day.
Isnâ€™t it funny that we donâ€™t have standardized language for something as common as measuring the size of things? To be clear, this isnâ€™t necessarily a science problem, but a linguistic problem. Science has created a variety of coordinate systems to make sure we send rockets in the right direction, but for every day use we donâ€™t have a standard system of common words. I love the English language, but it is rife with deficiencies. Donâ€™t get me started on the lack of a â€œgrammatically correctâ€ gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. Grammarians, if youâ€™re reading this, stop complaining about the misuse of â€œtheyâ€ and SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
Back to dimensions.
A Plan of Action
In most cases, an objectâ€™s dimensions can be described using Cartesian, cylindrical, or spherical coordinate systems with words we already know and love. If an object is roughly boxâ€“shaped, orient the object so youâ€™re looking directly at itâ€™s forward-facing orientation and describe it as if youâ€™re looking at it from the â€œfront.â€ This means youâ€™ll have to determine which side is the front. Most things have one. If your object doesnâ€™t, then itâ€™s probably not useful and should be recycled. (Kidding.) For example, studio monitors are useful because their front side houses speakers which emit sound.
H x W x D
Using Height, Width, and Depth (in that order), make your measurements. Roughly 3 out of 4 objects in this world can be described this way.
Width = X-axis (left to right) derived from wide
Height* = Y-axis (bottom to top) derived from high
Depth = Z-axis (front to back) derived from deep
H x W x L
If an object is really long in one dimension but still boxy (e.g. lumber, french fries), use Length (L) instead of Depth. The word â€œlengthâ€ comes from the word â€œlong.â€
Length = the long side of an object
D/R/C x L
If an object is long but round instead of boxy (e.g. guitar cable, baseball bat, spaghetti), use Diameter (D), Radius (R), or Circumference (C) (usually in that order of preference) and Length. If itâ€™s something like a drinking glass or flag pole, use H x D/R/C.
Diameter = the width of the widest distance across a circle
Radius = distance from the center to the edge of a circle
Circumference = the length of the edge of a circle if it was stretched out into a straight line
The Ball Method
If an object doesnâ€™t have any boxy sides and is mostly round like a ball, use the Ball Method. Describe your object by choosing a ball thatâ€™s roughly the same size. Hail and cancer are the most common things to be measured this way, but itâ€™s used for all sorts of things. They are good because they are self-explanatory. Here are some of the most common sizes. Pick one.
The tip of a ballpoint pen
A pencil eraser
No bigger than the tip of your pinky finger
A golf ball
A medicine ball
One of those cages they do motorcycle stunts in
The shiny silver thing in Chicago that looks like the ship from Flight of the Navigator
That space ball ride at Epcot
Now for the sake of progress, can we all agree on this and get back to doing whatever it was we were doing before we had to sort this out? Good. Glad we worked through it.
* The Word Nazis tell us that the word â€˜heightâ€™ doesnâ€™t have a -th on the end of it, but it should, if we follow logical convention. Can we at least downgrade it from grammatical sin? From now on, if you say, â€œheighth,â€ I say, â€œHow high?â€
Because of a recurring communication problem I encounter, I want to draw attention to the difference between denotation and connotation. Definitions deÂ·noÂ·taÂ·tion noun \dÄ“-nÅ-ËˆtÄ-shÉ™n\ The most specific or direct meaning of a word, in contrast to its figurative or associated meanings. conÂ·noÂ·taÂ·tion noun \kÃ¤-nÉ™-ËˆtÄ-shÉ™n\ The set of associations implied by a word in addition to […]
Because of a recurring communication problem I encounter, I want to draw attention to the difference between denotation and connotation.
The most specific or direct meaning of a word, in contrast to its figurative or associated meanings.
The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.
When attempting to articulate an idea, carry on a conversation, or express a nuanced thought, I often find others mistaking the meanings of the words that I use. Sometimes the listener becomes upset, indignant or angry for what they believe they have just heard me say. In response, I often become frustrated because the words I used to express myself were carefully chosen based on their definitions or denotations, yet the listener has heard me say something else (sometimes something completely antithetical to my intent) because of unknown associations or connotations they have attached to those words.
Letâ€™s say Iâ€™m speaking with nice fellow who loves his connotations and I use the words â€˜completely ignorantâ€™ to describe myself in regards to something like… carburetor intake valves. This might elicit a sour face from the listener and a comment like, â€œYouâ€™re not dumb! Donâ€™t be so hard on yourself.â€ I then have to spend the next ten minutes, trying to use only words with no more than five letters in them, explaining how, though I may not be an idiot, indeed, I am completely ignorant about carburetors and wouldnâ€™t know one if I saw one. Unfortunately, the listener has made two errors.
He thought that I was beating myself up because he misunderstood my use of the word â€˜ignorant,â€™ meaning â€˜unknowledgeable or uneducated.â€™
He then responded by misusing the word â€˜dumb,â€™ meaning â€˜lacking the ability to speakâ€™ when what he really meant was something like â€˜stupidâ€™ or â€˜foolish.â€™
Use Your Words
This form of miscommunication is very common. It happens with all sorts of words, for all sorts of reasons. I have witnessed breakdowns of this nature so many times, that I am beginning to believe it is one of our fundamental human struggles. Misuse and misunderstanding of the denotation of words is often the primary cause of our frustrations with others and ourselves. At the heart of understanding each other is the necessity for all of us to use proper words that mean what we intend to express ourselves and similarly for all of us to understand the words that others use to express themselves. In short, we should say what we mean, mean what we say, and hope for others to do the same. Though we shouldnâ€™t be surprised when they donâ€™t.
When you get a chance, pick up a dictionary and peruse through the thousands of words it contains. You might be thinking, â€œWho does that?â€ Right. Well, I do and have done so ever since I can I remember. I also obsessively read the encyclopedia (an addiction now fed by Wikipedia) and can recite all sorts of facts that probably arenâ€™t useful on a practical level. So, I may sound like a geek (I’ll own that), but we have a rich linguistic history full of words developed by our ancestors that they have passed on to us. We now have the chance to use these powerful tools to communicate with each other and future generations.
Isnâ€™t that exciting?! Go ahead and roll your eyes, then let me know if you agree or disagree in the comments. Do you have a good anecdote involving miscommunication and word meanings? Please share so we all can enjoy an lol together. Remember: No grunting! Use your words.
How about Led Zeppelin performing â€œCommunication Breakdownâ€ live in 1970 for your viewing and listening pleasure?
…at least not in a permanently defined state. It is always changing depending on context. Thereâ€™s not a one-size-fits-all solution for guitar tone and the guy who is showing you exactly how to get â€œperfectâ€ tone is either demonstrating his idea of a good sound for a very particular context or selling you something. Let the buyer beware!
Iâ€™ve seen a zildjillion YouTube videos and magazine articles in which an â€œexpertâ€ outlines in very fine detail the â€œpreferredâ€ gear or â€œprofessionalâ€ way to play/mic/mix. They have shown me how to dial in that Clapton tone, place ribbon mics like Eno, mix a hit song like the Lord-Alge brothers, mod my guitar and amp like SRV, and even dress like a rockstar. In each circumstance I think, â€œYes, that might just work. I could sound like that, if I do everything else exactly the same way as Mr. Famous Rockstarpants.â€
They have it right. It truly is the small stuff that matters. In fact, all these tiny details matter so much and there is such a vast quantity of them, that replicating such performances is nearly inconceivable. Every part of the signal chain plays a role â€“Â from player to instrument to amp to room to microphone to preamp and all the cables, power supplies, recording/storage media, surfaces, and recording/mixing/mastering engineers in between. Even weather, location, and moods can make a difference.
Needless to say, itâ€™s nearly impossible to replicate that one sound by that one artist on that one record. So many factors are involved in the making of a sound, that in many cases the original artist that recorded it might not be able to make that precise sound again, even when given identical circumstances. (Iâ€™d like to point out that perhaps the very reason we enjoy certain sounds is because a beautiful moment was captured â€“ something unique that will never happen again – and trying to recreate it verbatim would somehow make it less amazing. Frankensteinâ€™s monster wasnâ€™t very pretty, was he? I digress.)
â€œWe all have idols. Play like anyone you care about, but try to be yourself while youâ€™re doing so.â€ – quote attributed to B. B. King
And The Good News
Proper tone (the right tone at the right time) can be bought. You can pay for it with practice and critical listening. Good equipment is nice, but not necessary, as Jack White demonstrates so well in It Might Get Loud.