This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Audio engineer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Sound Operator page were merged into Audio engineer. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2013-01-25) |
An Engineer is one who has a degree in engineering, and in my opinion, those licensed to practice engineering in the state or country in which they reside (in the United States, the Professional Engineer (P.E.) for instance or P.Eng in Canada). Audio "Engineers" of the type that operate the equipment required to mix and record sound on records, TV, radio, movies, etc. are not engineers. Audio technicians (what this article refers to as audio "engineering") operate the equipment and mix the sound. While that is definitely a skilled trade or craft, it is not engineering. Engineers DESIGN the equipment that is used in those fields. Designing the equipment from the transistor and discrete electronic component level requires knowledge and training far and above operating the finished product. There is a big difference. Engineers spend a minimum of four years studying hard sciences and the specific technical disciplines needed to design. You cannot compare an engineering curriculum to the schools teaching audio "engineering". Also keep in mind that in many locales (including every state in the USA and every province in Canada) it is illegal to hold oneself out as an "Engineer" unless a holder of a P.E. license (which again, in every state requires an undergraduate engineering degree from a school accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology). >
<--You'd be surprised at the amount of ingenuity and creativity required to make supposedly well-designed gear work appropriately in the concert touring environment. I've seen quite audible evidence of mistakes made by so-called design engineers and I've had to adjust other parts of the system to work around such weaknesses and faults in electronic gear. The live and studio sound folks deserve some credit for making the hodge-podge into a system. Technically, it's the creative application of studio electronics and acoustics combined with a knowledge of music that gives a greater-than-technician status to recording engineers. It's working at the intersection of room acoustics, loudspeaker characteristics, microphone behavior, music production, data processing and electronic signal flow that gives the live audio engineer a greater-than-technician status. I have no problem with our observing that the word 'engineer' is common usage in such cases. I do have a problem with any attempt to excise the word 'engineer' from this article. I expect this article to accurately represent current usage. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<--I don't doubt that ingenuity and creativity is required. I never disputed that. One of the prerequisites for engineering is use of quantitative science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, economics, etc.) as they apply to engineering design. I don't think that sound crafting (perhaps that is a good term to use) involves much if any quantitative analysis so by definition it is not engineering. Designing the acoustics of a concert hall for example would, and that would be beyond your scope for instance. Designing loudspeakers and microphones of any reasonable performance involves advanced mathematics and physics. The conversion of electrical signals to mechanical signals (sound) or vice-versa is an extremely complex process that can be modeled only with differential equations. Practically all of the renowned high fidelity speakers for example such as the Bose 901 (Dr. Amar G. Bose), original Acoustic Research (acoustic suspension invented by Edgar Villchur), were designed by engineers applying quantitative electrical and acoustic engineering methods to their design. Had they been designed by people with no formal engineering training undoubtedly they would have performed poorly and not been commercial and critical successes. The current usage, or misusage of the term engineer in connection with audio production is simply wrong, regardless of whatever historical or de facto usage one industry may have used.
Also consider this - if one can do audio "engineering" work without a degree, some sort of independent test of one's qualifications to do the work (such as in engineering a PE license for example), professional experience, etc. - or as the article points out, with no training whatsoever (autodidactic), why should the public at large respect this type of work as significant at all? Don't get me wrong, I love music and respect the creative effort required to produce a pleasing sound on a recording. I suppose within the narrow context of the recording industry, only to people working in that industry, you may consider yourselves "engineers" but let me assure you in the realm of real engineers (at least the four-year ABET-accredited degree and preferably graduate study and licensure) you are not.
I'm an recording engineer with engineering degree in acoustics and audio technology so by your logic I can call myself an sound engineer, right? There are sound engineers out there who know far more about the technical side of all the gear than me but don't have an engineering degree. As sound engineers we use our technical knowledge of acoustics, electronics and psychoacoustics to engineer the sound and i think that's where the confusion is because you are used to engineers engineering physical things like machinery and electronics where as we engineer something a lot less tangible. (i also have a degree in mechanical engineering but that's kinda irrelevant here) - Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.192.142 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well this may vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but around here (Quebec) "Sound engineers" have the educational equivalent of an engineering technology. "Sound engineers" (as well as technologists) are NOT members of the professional body that regulates engineers (OIQ in Quebec), and by law, the only persons allowed to sign their name with P. Eng ("ing.") or stamp documents are registered members of the OIQ. Even a graduate with a B.Eng. is not a registered engineer, and there is a certain stigma about anyone calling themselves an engineer unless they are registered with the OIQ. The reason being that the engineering professional body is in place to protect the public. It's this social responsibility that legally distinguishes Engineers from technologists. Since, "sound engineers" operate in the entertainment industry, there is no reason for them to be registered in order to protect the public. The term "sound engineer" is still tolerated (if that makes them feel more important), as long as the legal distinction and responsibility is implied and understood. --DMZ (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the gist of the argument is "tradition" instead of updating the name, or correcting the mistakes of the past, we in the US would rather stay conservative and wait until we are the only country left with the "tradition". It should be stated that "engineer" is a misnomer. ~bcoste1 on 2014 Oct 03 Fri 19:00 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcoste1 (talk • contribs)
Engineer definition: a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works. An audio engineer: produces a recording or a live performance, balancing and adjusting sound sources using equalization, dynamics processing and audio effects, mixing, reproduction, and reinforcement of sound. In a nutshell, they design and build a sound(song) from the ground up, while maintaining the equipment used to create/design the music. Only difference is its required to have schooling to hold the title of PE license etc. Yet there's a lot of audio engineers that have degrees in a field that's related to the music industry, but it's not required to have one.
Audio engineers design music, recording engineer, mixing engineer, mastering engineer. They create and design a song from scratch. They're still engineers just in a different field of work. They also design acoustic rooms for sound recording, or live recording room studios, etc... etc... There's alot about the music industry that you have zero knowledge of. Educated Marine OIF OEF (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly desagree to this opinion.
1-Diploma is made by a Man and those holding those diplomas are not the best. 2-Holding a Diploma in a musical field does not mean and it never meant doing a good job. 3-Most sound Engineers are people who are Scientists, physicians, chemists, biologists, computer scientists, Musicologists etc. So they don't need a super school or Science again to afford this task of processing sounds as Engineers. 4-An audio and a sound are nearly the same thing but here the author even misuses the two terms and inverses them. So it's really the Man who processes sounds in the Studio that is the sound Engineer. Whether he is from a school or not, if he produces the result needed and has the full compréhensive background of the profession, so he is the sound Engineer. 5-Working in a musical Studio on producing music is with no discussion a sound Engineering since you cannot have such a skill in one year and it's not a fact of Diploma to be there. So people liking Diploma will excuse us. They have Diplomas in some fields of Sciences but making a good Music as a Technician who masters all in that field is an Engineering.
An Engineer is one who has a degree in engineering, and in my opinion, those licensed to practice engineering.
6-If they didn't know or they have not yet integrated it in their lives and institutions, to build music for a Recording Studio is a very complex job that requires years of trainings and experiences.
a-You must know about music far well (Musical genres and the Science of Music somehow - Musicology).
b-You have to learn how to hook (to cable) those appliances.
c-You have to learn the Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)and master at least 70% of those plugins.
This doesn't take one year, you can ask to real sound Engineers who did it and how many years they passed to be good at producing good Music.
IN CONCLUSION,
What we have to know by now is that, someone who work in a Recording Studio as the main Technician to produce good Music with everything else that goes with, is a sound Engineer for these simple reasons:
1-He designs the skeleton of the Music he produces.
2-He can prepare the Music for the commercial sake.
3-He manages everything in the Studio that is a professional industry and sometimes with other personnels for the company to work well.
4-He is the main Technician and knows how everything works and this is what we require to Engineers. An Engineer is a designer and a Technician just what a musical producer in the Studio does.
STOP THINKING THAT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO IS NOT TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO DIPLOMA, IT'S NOT EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS DIPLOMA TO PRODUCE A GOOD RESULT.
AND SPECIALLY IN THE MUSIC PRODUCTION UNIVERSE, IT'S NOT THE DIPLOMA THAT WILL MAKE SOMEONE GOOD ENGINEER, IT'S A NATURAL SKILL WITH THE ACADEMIC SCIENCE THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THOUGHT IN SCHOOL.
MUSIC PRODUCER IN THE RECORDING COMPANIES ARE SUPER ENGINEERS.
Iya Ephrem Paulin -Musicologist, -Sound Engineer (Self Enterprise) -Expert in Guitar and Inventor of the Guitar Perfect Tuning Eph-Set-GBEbGBEb. -Degree in Animal Biology. -Artist Musician. -Language teacher English-French (1DTW-1JDM - YouTube) Iya Ephrem Paulin (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, let's resolve some issues in the next week or so to get all the tags off this page. It look so parochial right now. I'll be around, the neutrality should be an easy place to start. --drmartini 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
*I apologize in advance for the 'randomness' of what follows. I'm just not currently in a state to do it the 'right way', and I think for all purposes related to this article, this will suffice*
Not sure why the title of this discussion page includes: "We don't have an article called "Audio engineering"" Guess that's wikipedia's friendly error message when no discussion topics yet exist. Anyway..........
Please stop moving your current/favorite school to the top of the list. I made it alphabetical, and I think it looks good. If you think I am somehow favoring one place over another, find another system of organization (e.g. alphabetical by state; by year founded; etc.), but don't just continue to move one particular school to the top of the list. Also, please try to post a direct link to the homepage of the PROGRAM, not just the school (e.g. www.ais.edu).
One last thought, at this point, with places like "Full Sail" and other giant campuses just for this area of training, shouldn't there be a seperate article soley for either audio engineering/production OR 'media' production (Full Sail being an exmaple I can think of; I've seen where the video students film a performance by the music theory/performance students, and the lighting tech's do their thing, and the live sound guys run the FOH stuff, with other groups recording audio to tape or running in-ear monitors...that kind of thing) schools? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.145.238 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is Columbia College in Chicago not on the list of schools? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.29.94.189 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 6 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Is the statement about the uselessness of many degrees appropriate? Stizz 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Stizz[reply]
Yes, that is absolutely necessary for such an article. 4.january 2007-Anonymus.
"It's worth noting that a formal engineering degree is usually worth nothing if it's not accredited by a national or international accreditation organization, such as EurIng, NORDING"
I am sorry, but in 25 years as a professional audio engineer, I have never met anyone with one of these accredited degrees. As a matter of fact, many of the most successful recording and mixing engineers have no degree whatsoever! Stizz 17:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not an engineer without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree from a school accredited by an engineering accreditation board recognized by the education department or government of the nation or state you are in. Mixing records, stage shows, movies, etc. is not engineering. The people who design the equipment (for the equipment manufacturers) are the engineers, not those who merely operate it. Please see my comment above under Use of Titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to ask why a site such as this http://www.audioracle.com/Articles/Schools/AudioSchools.php
Is listed as it is not an authoratative resources for this subject at all, and excludes many schools and options for audio engineering learning, not least the distance learning solution of http://www.audiocourses.com for one and there are many many more!
No I dont want to advertise, I in fact think it is a very suitable link for the area, being a verified audio engineering qualification with staff as members of the Audio Engineering Society. And even if it the resource was not entered, I still feel the resource for that audio schools site is limited and frankly very under-represented and does not indicate exactly what is our there for apsiring students.
It seems to me that advertising http://www.audioracle.com/Articles/Schools/AudioSchools.php should not be allowed here, as it only lists 5 schools that have paid to be listed there. The Mix directory has well over 100 programs listed, and should be sufficient for American students.Stizz 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on "audio engineers" as in the "scientists and experimenters involved in the history and current development of electromechanical loudspeakers." To that end, I feel some sort of delineation between the two is in order so that in the future the categories and lists are topic specific. Ancjr 09:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article has a somewhat narrow definition of what an audio engineer actually is. Audio engineer is a very broad term, and the article seems to indicate that a recording engineer and a sound engineer are the same thing. Well, I tend to disagree. I actually am an audio engineer, but I am not a recording engineer. I design and plan large-scale, permanent audio installations in places like concert halls, convention centers, hotels, churches, etc. While I am fully capable of operating a mixing board or any other piece of audio gear, I do not get paid to mix audio. I'm sure that people like sound effects designers or foley artists would consider themselves audio engineers too, but not recording engineers. I think that a clear distinction should be made; and more research should be done before writing such a matter-of-fact article. Snottywong 00:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snotty, I think sound engineer is descriptive of a person that manipulates, records, and otherwise works with sound. I think your profession would better be described as a audio room designer, or an acoustical engineer, or something of the like.Therminator 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why someone removed someone's edit adding SAE institute, and my edit adding recordingjunkie.com. But signing in and having proper discussion should be done. Especially when leaving other links that are similar such as NORDING, or the sound and lighting link that is less relevant to audio engineering than recordingjunkie which is audio engineering specific. If content and quality are an issue, neither NORDING nor the uk sound and lighting links should remain. Better resources, such as pro-soundweb.com or gearslutz.com would be higher quality communities. Please sign in before deleting and at least discuss why or why not things should or should not be included. Thank you. Therminator 03:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is correct to not list links to schools, because it quickly gets out of hand as has been seen here. As regards "Communities", I am not familar with the other sites listed and discussed, but I am adding gearslutz, as I find that to be a highly useful and reputable site with a very active community of audio engineers.Stizz 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why then delete those other audio sites, while keeping NORDING and EURLNG which noone seems to know who they are. I feel that your removing the other schools and other sites, but selectively leaving others that noone is familiar with is biasing this entry. If those are to remain off then we should remove all sites until they are discussed. From past discussion it seems that other schools were listed in the past, in a non-biased alphabetical order. Aside from that, Gearslutz is a good one to remain I agree, but UK sound and lighting is not. I also think NORDING should be removed since it doesnt seem they are english speaking for the most part, this is the ENGLISH version of the wikipedia, nording might be more at home on the Nederlans version? S! Therminator 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem here is the title. The article seems to refer only to recording engineers, who, as mentioned, tend to be high-school dropouts, musicians, technicians, or anything but graduate engineers. What do we call the guy who designed the microphone or the ADC? --Ampwright 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the nording.org website: "Nording is a collaboration between 11 engineering societies in the Nordic countries. Nording represents 390.000 engineers and scientific professionals in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The main objective for Nording is to work for increased welfare and sustainable growth based on technology and science." I do not see how this organization is significant in any way to an article about Audio Engineering. I move to delete this link, and I will, unless there is a reasonable substantiated objection. Stizz 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Stizz, not to mention the fact that this is the English WIKI and few native english speakers will find a nordic site useful. It is better at home on a different language WIKI. I have removed Nording and the comment that an engineering degree is useless without accreditation by nording. I also removed a link to a smaller engineering forum, that is currently too small to be considered of equal footing as gearslutz or a similar board.Therminator 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(am moving this discussion here from indivual talk page as it may interest others)
I would suggest deleting the redlinked ones, or creating articles, as if they do not have Wiki articles they are not of note.--Epeefleche 09:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is tagged with a neutrality dispute and I see no discussions related to general neutrality on this talk page; there are only disputes of a few individual items. Let's either have one or remove the tag. Scott Johnson 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.
Done!Jjdon (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An audio engineer is someone with experience and training in the production and manipulation of sound through mechanical (analog) or digital means.
I think this is misleading in that audio can be transmitted via physical(or mechanical, depending on how one uses the term) or electrical media, and it can be in analog or digital format.
A better definition may be:
An audio engineer is someone with experience and training in the production, manipulation and transmission of sound through physical (analog) or electrical (analog or digital) means.
(I think its pretty safe to disregard the hypothetical transmission of a digital signal via a physical medium). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.14.188 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing this page and inserted a comment about formal engineering and accreditation and I listed a school of engineering, such as the University of Miami, but it was removed. Can anyone explain why?. There is listed on this page, an organization called AES and a school called SAE, which deals with professional audio engineers and different education, but they lack formal engineering accreditation from an engineering accreditation board, and such education includes extensive mathematics and physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B0ef (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 November 2007
User:Twinzor and I have been reverting the addition of Sam Ginsberg to the "Studio engineers of note" section. User:Ibusis1 has been adding him back, and replied in this way to my request to cease reverting:
- Google,The Bop sessions-Featuring Dizzy Gilespy,Sonny Stitt-Sam Ginsberg-Engineer
- Garland Jeffreys-American Girl and Boy -Engineer-
- Roy Buchanan-My babe-Engineer-
- Machine-There But for the Grace of God Go I-Engineer
- Frankie Miller-Double Trouble-Engineer
- Disco Not Disco-Engineer-
- Virus-Tierra del Fuego-Engineer
- Hellcats-Engineer/Producer
- Caifanes-El Diablito-Engineer/Mixing
- Valeria Lynch-Engineer
- Orleans-Forever-Engineer
- Dl Byron-This day and Age-Engineer-
- Valeria Lynch-Energia-Engineer
- Private Eye-Engineer
- John Lennon/YokoOno"Walking On Thin Ice"Recording/Mixing
Partial Discography-CREDITS ON GOOGLE-Sam Ginsberg/Engineer/Mixing Engineer
Last Recording Engineer to record and work with John Lennon the Night he was killed.Recording his last work,which was Guitar and Keyboards overdubs played on Yoko's single "Walking on thin Ice" @ The Record Plant,NYC.
This roll call of artists makes me think Sam Ginsberg is a fine and upstanding engineer from the working ranks, not a notable character who has achieved higher-than-normal status from an outstanding mix or an award-winning album. Ginsberg's biggest claim to fame appears to be that he laid tracks on tape for John Lennon on his last day alive. To my way of thinking, that's not good enough to qualify here. Did those tracks take Ginsberg to award-winning notice? Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that the list of notable studio engineers has once again been filled with redlink, I'm thinking of trimming down the whole list to 5-10 entries. I think it would be much better to include just a few highly notable engineers, than to have a huge list of which half (well not half but almost :P ) cannot be verified. I'm open to suggestions on who should be included in the new list. If there's no objections in a couple of days, I'll go ahead and trim it. --Twinzor (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've performed another cull of the redlinks in the "* of note" sections. I'm no expert in the field, so some of the ones I've removed could truly be notable. However, if that's the case, please either create the respective article, or add with a reference that proves notability. Otherwise, it's just an arbitrary list of names. Thanks, Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 10:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey so I think the title of Audio Engineer should be changed to Sound Engineer. It is more accepted now to use the term Sound rather than Audio. If you even google Sound Engineer you will have those job titles come up. I think it should be corrected to be more recent. Thank you! --Dswiggy (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Audio engineer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Audio editing software which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit confused by the presence of this section. This article is supposed to be about audio engineering and there is a large section about the lack of women in audio engineering field, which seems like a topic better discussed in an article about gender discrepancies within professional fields. After looking at the history, I noticed that this section was originally lifted from the Women_in_music article. This seems like a much more appropriate area for this topic. I tried deleting the section with an explanation in the summary that it was not relevant to an article about audio engineers, but it was reverted. I'd like to hear some feedback from other users. The heading "Role of women" as well as the content does not seem to fit the WP:NPOV rule.
I would argue that these sections go against WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION, since they constitute a rather large portion of the article and seem to focus on the experiences of particular social identity groups, distracting from what I would think would be the main purpose of the article: to describe what an audio engineer is/does. I would also mention that a version of this section has also been copied into the Record producers page. Am I the only one that sees this as a distraction from the purpose of the article?
P.S. This seems to be an ongoing, politically motivated theme throughout several articles that I've read. Large sections relating to "Women in said field" seem to be artificially inserted, in an uncomfortable and segregating way, into otherwise focused articles. This politically charged "Role of Women" section is not needed on this page and only serves to exacerbate the very issue of women being kept out of things. Creating a "women section" implies a separation of woman audio engineers as somehow distinct from the community of audio engineers as a whole. There is already a whole section at the bottom for notable audio engineers and all of the women listed in the "Role of Women" section are already listed in the "noteables" section at the bottom.
P.S.S. If you have any doubt as to whether support for this section is politically motivated, I suggest you view the discussion above where one user assumes my gender by accusing me of "mansplaining". The irony of it is mind-boggling.
Burtre26 (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial WP:AFD. Question of WP:Notability and WP:Before. Sources need improvement. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there was more info sure, but is this part really relevant?It's not notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailingOn (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]