Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Sound Reinforcement System vs. PA System

There seems to be a big confusion and very little sources on the definition and difference between these two words. While working at some concerts in Japan, I came to understand the two terms as such:

PA

  • A generic system designed to address the public
    • Common example being those in schools or hospitals
  • Not as sophisticated as an SR system

SR

  • Specifically designed for entertainment events, i.e. concerts.

I could be a lot more concise with my definitions, but I think you get the feel. The problem is, the distinction between the two isn't very clear in most articles. One might even conclude that SR is a subset of PA after reading the wikipedia articles. Perhaps it is so. Any thoughts, opinions, or sources? If we can define this it will help us organize these articles a lot better. --Davidkazuhiro 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that even (especially?) the general public often misuse the term PA to refer to a SR system. In my experience a public address system is primarily for making announcements to a large number of people over a large area (multiple rooms, hallways, buildings, etc.) On the other hand a sound reinforcement system deals with sound primarily in one room, hall or theater (although some systems may also be attached to auxiliary spaces such as lobbies, etc). Saying that SR systems are specifically designed for entertainment events would be going to far. In this area we would even call a system in a large lecture hall, for example, a SR system. The reason it's called SR is because the sound is reinforced to be easily heard in large spaces. --BenFranske 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this article today and its quite informative: [1]. The author did some pretty good research especially considering the general confusion of the public and disagreement inbetween professionals. Whatever consensus we (this project and the authors of the articles concerned) come up with, the way in which the articles present the definition of both terms needs to be improved. Articles I found which include definitions are: Public address, Sound reinforcement system, and Live sound reproduction. Let me know if you have any ideas of how to tackle this (discuss on each article's talk page? Start a discussion of this as a subpage of our project and invite the editors to join? Create an article about this issue and hope the definition solidifies in the years to come?) or find any more sources out there to help us out. --Davidkazuhiro 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this one is quite easy. Public Address refers to the part of a sound reinforcement system which addresses the public as opposed to e.g. the monitor system for stage actors for example. So the PA is a subset of SR, if you like to put it that way. --Audioholic 20:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good point Audioholic. I've never heard anybody put it that way before. Such a definition would help us distinguish definition ambiguities. I'm specifically reminded of the quote "In a concert setting, there are typically two complete PA systems: the "main" system and the "monitor" system." under Large venue PA systems in PA system. Unless anybody has anything further to say, I'd encourage you (and me) to start working on clarifying this on the related articles. (PA system, Sound reinforcement system etc.) Be sure to mention your reasoning on the specific talk pages so other editors can follow your reasoning and voice their opinions too. --Davidkazuhiro 13:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Task organization

As there are already hundreds of articles (many of which need a lot of work) that are within the scope of this WikiProject, we need to find an effective means of organizing and listing the open tasks (NPOV, cleanup, verification etc.). I think creating an "advanced project banner" that can be used to categorize articles might be the best way to accomplish this. Thoughts? --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of work? Tell me about it! That's why this project was started =D. I've been meaning to develop an advanced project banner (by improving the one we already have) but since I'm new to banner making and similar tasks, I started with the simple one we have. If you know how to make one, please go ahead! I'll keep reading up on advanced banners so I'll be ready to use them by the time you make it (or make it myself if you don't get around to it). Thanks KFP! --Davidkazuhiro 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I like the rating scheme of the Beatles project, particularly the inclusion of the "needed" rating. Is it possible to keep track of articles according to rating? --Davidkazuhiro 06:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebration of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom Power article and Project Userbox

I've organized it, restructured some of the text and added headers, so I'm removing it from the to-do list. If you want to object, do so.

p.s.

This user is a member of WikiProject Professional Sound Production. 
- how about this as a project Userbox? Goldenglove 16:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Good job with the Phantom Power article Goldenglove! Pretty nifty looking Userbox too. Keep up the good contribs! --Davidkazuhiro 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like things are starting to move on this project! The Userbox is great - but the text is hard to read on the black background.Stizz 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please review assessments

Please review my assessment of the B-rated articles. I've rated all of our articles on the quality scale as of February 8th. However, I was a little discontent with my B-ratings, either because the articles seemed like it should be nominated for GA or it didn't seem good enough for B. If you could drop by B-Class Professional sound production articles and fix any glaring misassessment, or nominate articles which could be GA, that would be really great! --Davidkazuhiro 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FS advertisement

You may be interested in the recently activated Wikipedia:Featured sounds project. It is the audio equivalent of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and aims to identify and highlight exceptionally valuable audio recordings used in Wikipedia articles and promote the use of sound on Wikipedia in general. Comments and nominations are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You guys seem like you would know

Hello,

I've created what I believe is a spectrogram movie and uploaded it to Wikipedia; I was hoping someone here could let me know if the term spectrogram is the actual term used for what I've created? You can see it at Image:My Songo Spectrogram.ogg - and of course Media Help in case you have never played an Ogg/Theora movie before. I just wanted to make sure Wikipedia stayed factual before I made some modifications. Thanks for your time and effort. Triddle 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Triddle. What you've created there would be called a Real time analyzer, which displays intensity over frequency. Spectrograms usually display frequency over time. That's how it works in practice anyways. According to the Spectrogram article, RTAs are a kind of spectrogram (look under format). This makes sense, but I'd have to look into it before vouching for it. --Davidkazuhiro 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information David, I added the movie accordingly. Incidentally, the new title of the movie is now Image:My Songo Real Time Analysis.ogg. Triddle 15:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

FYI, the following are new articles:

  • Maximum Delivery Potential - this should probably be speedy deleted, but maybe you folks can do something with it.
  • Music mastering

Thanks, Fang Aili talk 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I added merge tags suggesting Music mastering be incorporated into Audio mastering, that is if it has to say anything different. The description of the term doesn't seem to be saying anything different than Audio mastering. I'm not even sure the term is appropriate though, so maybe it shouldn't be merged. The term Music mastering makes me think of mastering music as a skill. As for Maximum Delivery Potential, I'll have to look into that or let someone else who knows better decide whether to put a delete tag on it or not. --Davidkazuhiro 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that music mastering should be merged with audio mastering. Combined with Stizz's opinion (see Talk:Music mastering), this makes 3 people who think it should be merged. If there are no opposing viewpoints, let's merge it in a day or two. I have also prod'd Maximum Delivery Potential so that there's some kind of deadline for improving it--I'd rather it not just sit around forever like it is now. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam/A7 articles

I've been looking over some of the links at audio mastering (under "Audio mastering tools"), and almost all of them are advertising and/or do not assert notability. I've prod'd most of them. I probably could have speedied them, but I'd rather the experts (y'all here at the project) improve the articles so they can be kept. If indeed they're not notable, they can be deleted in a few days.

Thanks, Fang Aili talk 21:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I've removed the speedy tag from Nuendo as it is a very well known program in the studio technology field (the article needs work though). Digidesign's Pro Tools is, in short, an industry standard and the most prominent digital audio workstation system in the world, but that article needs work too. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I've prod'd Nuendo - feel free to remove if you think it's notable. But I would like to see all these articles (and several I didn't list but are at audio mastering) include a notability assertion at least. Even just saying it is an "industry standard" is better than nothing. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I redirected Nuendo to Steinberg, the company that created the software, for the time being. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say:

  • JAMin Delete
  • Nuendo (tagged as speedy) delete
  • Pro Tools Yes, their TDM division is industry standard. Do not speedy delete just yet.
  • XO Wave Like Sound Forge but on the Mac platform. Not a tried mastering tool for professionals.
  • Sound ForgeThough a useful program, it was never regarded good enough pro mastering level. And although I like it, It should also be deleted.Evinatea 22:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mike Sorensen" with "artmastering" at New Trends section on the audio mastering page

I left specific questions to this user and even though administrator Fang Aili left a post that the contents were under debate, he went ahead and undeleted external links. (I deleted one, left his alone)

I suspect this is the G-man, a musician (who I actually remember he one time approached me for my services and got a free job out of me). The reason I think so is, both links directly mention him personally. Do i think the name Mike Sorensen is a pseudo? Yes!

I gave him explanations on each of his arguments as to why it doesn't merit the title of "a new trend" in mastering (See # 13 Questions about the "artmastering" inclusion) at the audio mastering page. In my view, it's a lame attempt at spamming Wikipedia (Just a big hunch).

I need you guys to vote as to whether he is got a valid point or not (Hey , did I say he's most likely G-man?) I make a motion to dismiss that section with the deletion of link as well. Evinatea 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to include this statement from "Mike Sorensen": "I agree with you Evinatea that this is a new style in service."

Can you believe this guy?

By the way I am now getting ganged upon with another user named "BiggyP", which apparently, is always there for Mike (see his History)Evinatea 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mastering page is ready for scrutiny by members

Hello Fellows, I just finished the merge and revision of the page Audio mastering/temp

First, we need to vote on whether it should be "audio" or "music" mastering. Please put your name and vote below my name:

1/Evinatea= music
2/Stizz=Audio
3/Davidkazuhiro=Audio

Second, If everyone feels that it would be best to make a search count on notability (Music or Audio mastering) then that's fine too.

Third, notice that my own personal definition is no more. So, the words have changed, but the definition remains the same. Let's get on it. Thanks.Evinatea 17:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I had ever heard the term "Music Mastering" before. Bob Ludwig says audio mastering on his site; and for what it's worth, a Google search will show 6 times more hits on the phrase "audio mastering" than "music mastering". But I don't really care what you call it, as long as I get paid.--Stizz 00:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "music mastering" exists and is not unheard of, however, since the criteria proposed by you now is, which keyword returns more pages from "Google", then we will retain the title "audio mastering".

If any objections by the other project's members, please say it now.

Another point, and this is just a suggestion, why not jut call it "mastering". I know it could be a bit vague, but what else besides music and speech need mastering? Evinatea 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Google is a common means of evidencing notability among Wikipedian editors. It doesn't always work out with PSP topics though, since the majority of literature on this subject is scholarly or in other printed forms, and rarely online. If music mastering is actually a term in use professionally, a reference/citation would be really helpful to people (I suspect many) who haven't heard of it before.

Also, I would vote against having the title as "Mastering" because it would also refer to other concepts such as mastering a skill. It is too generic. "Audio mastering" is a good title, and better than "Music mastering" because Audio refers to both music and speech, let alone anything else that makes sound. --Davidkazuhiro 03:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear David, I can not disagree with your argument that "mastering" is an ambiguous term. But, musicians that call my studio, never ask: do you do audio mastering? But, do you do mastering?

In any case, the issue has been pretty much resolved in favor of "audio mastering". So, your vote is a confirmation. I wish there were more voters, but we are the ones doing the rounds so the burden was on us. This doesn't mean that new proposals and revision debates may not be opened again, so for now check out our brand new page. I think the definition is elegant and concise. Evinatea 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi People. Since RMS is an audio engineering term that is used in general, I am proposing to move or delete this section at the Audio mastering page, simply because it doesn't merit its own section and may even help the confusion the subject on mastering. Any votes in favor or against it?. Evinatea 13:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the merge was executed. Good job --Davidkazuhiro 10:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Revision to Mastering Studio at Studio

Guys, I just completed a revision of the Studio#Mastering_studio at the Studio page, complete with more detail. It was too messy and unrefined. Any feedback would be welcome. Evinatea 06:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Now it's definitely better Goldenglove 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ProTools external links (Potential Spammers)

I cleaned up external links to other websites claiming had extensive forums and relevant technical info, but they seemed geared towards sales. Now, one appeared on one of the Pro Tools sections (the bottom of Pro Tools systems) The entry was re-made by an IP addresss (206.211.148.67 ) apparently shared by a College place that has reported issues on vandalism (Chapman U.). Anyone please, check it out? Evinatea 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I commented out the link since it's broken right now anyways --Davidkazuhiro 10:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AKG Acoustics partly rewritten

I partly rewrote the article of AKG Acoustics, I'll leave the stub markers though until I'll receive some feedback. Main changes: added references and footnotes, added a company history, sacrificed some of the parts of the article in order to get a NPOV. Feedback welcome. Goldenglove 16:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It definitely looks a LOT better than before. I'll have to give it a thorough and critical read through later --Davidkazuhiro 10:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A call to resolve the issues at the "Audio mastering" page

To all members of the Wikiproject:

I am new and not experienced yet in the art of Wikipedia.

It appears that an editor, calling himself Mike Sorense, in March 2007 placed on the Wikipedia "Audio mastering" page, a section called "Artmastering", complete with a supporting external link (See: [2]).

This article titled "Artmastering" which is related to audio mastering, was previously deleted for lack of support (See: [3]).

Originally, the article was posted as an external link by user "Voy7" in August 2006 (See:[4])

Around the same time, 2 more external links, one citing the same "Artmastering" studio, were apparently added by someone, presumably the owner himself, Art Sayecki. This was done anonymously with IP address 66.214.253.155 located in Burbank, California (Check IP) and (See: [5]and [6]).

Let's analyze this further:

66.214.253.155 (See IP) (Presumably Art Sayecki of "Artmastering") and
66.214.253.51 (See IP) (An unknown user who also supported "Artmastering" and attacked those who didn't agree (See: [7] and [8])

Location: Burbank, California.

According to most system administrators, there is a 95% chance or certainty, that these 2 IP addresses belong to the same user. Is this just a coincidence? It gets better. He plays with Wikipedia, erasing negative comments against Art Sayecki (See: [9]) and tries to erase his tracks from the system (See: [10]). Who could have an interest to do this?

The account Voy7 a/k/a "R.Watts" and the IP address with location in Burbank, were associated with accusations of sock puppetry (See:[11])

The "Artmastering" article and all external links were removed. Then, "Artmastering" was re-posted again by Mike Sorensen as indicated above in early March 2007 (See: [12]), only to be removed for the last time by a Sysop at Wikipedia (See: [13]).

All the aforesaid external links, direct to articles about "Artmastering", the owner Art Sayecki and his studio in Burbank, California.

The '"Artmastering" article, for the most part, is in the form of an interview with this mastering engineer, Art Sayecki, the creator of "Artmastering". It had a few brief quotations by well-known audio engineers agreeing with his views. (See: Mastering Your Music).

By his own admission, the interviewer of these "Artmastering" articles, who identifies himself as Scott G, "The G-Man", owns G-Man Marketing (See: [14]).

G-Man Marketing is in the business of consulting on advertising, marketing, positioning (Presumably for web/page rank), branding and sonic branding.

This "Artmastering" article, as a reference link at the mastering page, presented a problem for some users. As strongly indicated on the Wikipedia talk page and by the editors that deleted the "Artmastering" page (See: [15]). Some editors considered it a deliberate act of company promotion for the Art Sayecki mastering lab and studio.

I personally thought, that the "Artmastering" article did not meet the criteria for inclusion, since after researching the volume of interviews conducted by Scott G, "The G-Man", I found out that there were many more interviews with Art Sayecki (See: [16]), but no other mastering engineer was ever been interviewed by him (At least not found on the web).

The interviews, that I did find about "Artmastering", were apparently published by low to mid level of importance web sites of which Scott G, "The G-Man" is either a staff member or has an active affiliation (See: Click here).

In addition, Scott G, "The G-Man" is, by his own admission, Art Sayecki's client (See disclosure next to Sayecki's photo [17])

When I asked Mike Sorensen if he could provide more interviews, not by The G-Man, but by other known and reputable journalists, supporting Art Sayecki views on the subject of "Artmastering" (See [18]), he accused me of making a personal attack against him and Scott G, "The G-Man” (See: [19]).

He next accused me of being a "sock puppet account" of another user (See: [20]). This unknown user came in that day to apologize to Mike Sorensen for being rude to him in the past (See: [21]) and to respectfully request that article not be included on the mastering page again. (See: [22])

Believe me, I am not attacking anyone. I am only making inquiries to establish that the mastering engineer and his studio, Art Sayecki, has proven notability and not placed on the page for pure financial gain.

Although Mike Sorensen is sure that the work at this facility "is great" (See: [23]), my concern is that some people could get mislead by representations made on an informational page, but in effect being used for advertisement and self-promotion.

The long discussions and disruptive behavior of some users (See: [24]), one in particular that goes under the name "Biggy P", have made other users angry (See [25]).

Apparently, "Biggy P" provides support, by ridiculing (See: [26]) or harassing users who don't agree with Mike Sorensen (See: [27] and [28]). He has done this supporting roll in the past (See: [29]), and was presumed to be acting in connection with the account Voy7 a/k/a "R.Watts".

He also makes accusations of "sock puppetry" to anyone who questions Mike Sorensen views (See: [30]).

Certainly, you will agree that such thuggery, should not have a place on a Wikipedia talk page.

That said, it is not acceptable to link an article to a Wikipedia page that constitutes a conflict of interest, not by its contributor, Mike Sorensen, but by the author of the interview, "The G-Man", which at the very least, appears to be a biased promotion of a mastering engineer's studio facility.

My purpose in writing this is to bring this issue to a conclusion, so that Mike Sorensen's proposed inclusion gets adequate review, consideration, discussion and dismissal.

We need community and maybe Sysop intervention and WE NEED A FINAL RESOLUTION (This dispute started in the middle of 2006).

I sincerely hope that we can resolve this issues to the audio mastering page, so that we can all move on.

I greatly appreciate your time. Jrod2 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Whenever new users pop-up like mushrooms during a discussion like this it is a good indication of sock-puppetry. You are welcome to argue on the subject of audio mastering, as this page is dedicated to it, this is even encouraged, but this is the wrong place for attacks on others and conspiracy theories. Put it on your userpage or direct it to the right administrative page. Also without going into details your preoccupation with this subject is at best questionable as you haven't made constructive edits thus far other opposing in this discussion. I doubt that your current approach based on spamming this page with rants, and accusations will advance your point of view.--Biggy P 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
By looking at your talk page, it looks like someone has addressed your concerns. Thank you for voicing them here but please be aware in the future that administrators and the appropriate policy pages are more suited for resolving disputes than WikiProjects are. --Davidkazuhiro 10:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Professional_sound_production_5c70.html"