Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cleanups, expands

the preamplifier article looks good to me, take it off cleanup? also, i'd like to undertake an effort to clean up and expand the sm57 and 58 articles. these are two really meat and potatoes articles to what we're doing here, any help would be great. --drmartini 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[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)
This user is a member of
WikiProject Professional Sound Production..

Hey, Goldenglove, I tweaked your userbox for more readability. Binksternet 05:21, 28 August 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
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] 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] TC Electronic

Well, at last I've written it. I know it isn't very good, so feedback and additions to it are more than welcome.

GoldengloveContribs ยทTalk

07:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Loudness War: Removal of spam links

I have cleaned up some reference links, helped with the definitions (They were poorly written) and put spam templates on the Loudness War page. There is still a lot to be done in terms of the way it's written and in removing links that seem to promote commercial websites. There is:

  • December 1, 2005 article by Sarah Jones, full title: "The Big Squeeze: Mastering Engineers Debate Music's Loudness Wars"
  • Note: whether of not it is a reliable source, MIX online is cited in quite a few Wikipedia articles (Linksearch for *.mixonline.com)
  • 2. Stereophile.com with "Dynamics and Dynamic Range" at StereoPhile.

I feel these links should be deleted and suitable replacements (If any) put in place. Let's not forget the chaos that was brought upon the Audio mastering page. The solution was (for this kind of page) simple, propose links that: Do not mention an engineer's name and his website. If it mentions an engineer's name, then he must not be a living person. If you mention a website, it must be non-profit, i.e. org, learning institutes or a University page. Feedback, please. Jrod2 13:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused description of SLM or me confused?

Under the SLM page, the 'exponentially averaging sound level meter' is described, which from my understanding is the same mathematical description as that of the Leq (or LAT)(ie the instantanous acoustic pressure is squared and averaged over a time period (F, S or I), or any defined time for the standards, and given as a 20log10 ratio against 20uPa).

Then an 'exponentially integrating' SLM is mentioned, I don't know what that is used for. But my confusion - in the following desription of the equivalent continuous sound level (LAT), it states that an 'integrating averaging meter is required' to measure LAT. To be consistent with the above definitions should that read 'an exponentially averaging SLM is required', or am I mis-understanding the measurement?

Also is anyone free to chat about SLMs in general? I'm working on an MSc project and need advice!

[edit] Nika Aldrich and Bob Katz

User:Jrod2 has said on Talk:Audio_mastering: "Am I to believe that the whole world thinks Nika Aldrich and Bob Cats are the last word in mastering? I just found out the amazing extent of how these 2 engineers have their links comfortably placed on almost all the audio pages at WP!! This is a disgrace! Effective next week, I am going to clean up any Cats or Aldrich and I am going to demand other alternatives. Be prepared to make your arguments people and play clean. I have good sense of smell, so if something ever smells rotten, the game is over. Have a good night."

What is the opinion of the rest of the audio people here on Wikipedia regarding this? Illuminatedwax 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Illuminatedwax, welcome to the WikiProject Professional Sound Production! Pretty much, everyone here knows that I hate spam and people that manipulate WP for pure financial gain. Some members already respect my instinct and have recognized my talents. I spot BS and usually get rid of it. That's one of my main contributions to WP, and I am sure Jim Wales would be proud of my commitment (Unlike what you might want to believe).
Therefore dear Illuminatedwax, fear no evil. If your favorite engineers (Bob K and N. Aldrich) have not used WP for their own personal gain, then there is no reason to knock'em out. I am just patiently going to go through every link that references or directs to books sold by these 2 engineers, that's all. Call it an "audit". Then, I'll just do simple analysis: Do we need this link? Is this relevant to the subject at hand and Who posted these external links? So, as you see, I only have WP best interests at heart. You said to me once: "You are no cop Jrod2", well you don't have to be, just join the anti-spam Project, and you'll be one. Doing research to uncover spam and sock puppetry abuse by others is my thing. Do you have a problem with that? I am still going to manage to contribute to articles, like when I cleaned the sections "Loudness" and "Opposition" at the Loudness War, remember? I am sure you will agree that is easier to read now and not too difficult to understand as it was before my edits. Have a nice day. Jrod2 11:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that you made some fine contributions to Loudness War, but your contribution was NOT removing spam. Another editor was also the one who removed most of the unreliable links. I don't doubt your willingness to help out Wikipedia, but I don't think you have a very good grasp of Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, I think that you are very often disruptive in order to remove what you consider spam, including posting spam warnings on the talk pages of editors who disagree with you and revert your changes. You should also realize that who posted links is irrelevant if those links are in fact otherwise acceptable (except for punishing the user who posted them for COI).
If you simply plan to go through and evaluate the presence of Katz and Aldrich references on Wikipedia, I would think that either you consider them unreliable sources, or you simply wish to point out places where their mention is irrelevant to the subject. You say you are going to "clean up any Cats or Aldrich" and "demand alternatives". That sounds to me like you are planning to delete them from articles because they are unreliable sources; hence, I figured I'd get informed and ask the audio community what they thought about those two sources. Illuminatedwax 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you always need to have the last say on anything? I noticed that about you. It's a distinguishing personality trait that I have learned to recognize after interacting with dozens of admins ;-) Are you worried about me? So long as you don't become obsessed, OK? Meantime, I'll do what I do, tag who I'll tag (With good reasons) and if there is something wrong with my procedures, that should be none of your concerns, but thanks for voicing yours anyway. Jrod2 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References and Sources

I must say that I am finding it increasingly difficult to write articles about audio production using field knowledge that I have and then going out to find published sources to verify my work. The world of audio is one of the lesser published ones and I think some of the staunch Wikipedia administrators and "vandalism patrolers" at times get a little over the top with their cleaning. I always thought that Wikipedia was a place that the knowledge of people with internet access could be shared so that others can learn more.

I do fully understand and appreciate Wikipedia's policy on references and sources and don't mean to attack them, I simply think that if facts of an article are widely accepted by knowledgeable people on the subject then it shouldn't be scrutinized so much. Also, it seems that you have to throw some dirt on a company to prevent administrators from labeling the page as "blatant advertising." Does anybody else have similar frustrations? --Phil McGowan (user:PhilyG) 05:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The spam/vandalism thing has actually been a long, ongoing debate, with User:Jrod2 doing most of the cutting. The consensus amongst articles seems to be that links to engineers and companies are okay as long as they are part of an exhaustive list or they are in some way notable. Basically, as long as it enhances the article in some way and meets WP:NOTE, you're all good. The only editor I've seen recently that disagrees with this is Jrod2, and he may have even changed his mind.
As to the source thing, you have to be careful about POV slipping in. For example, the Loudness War article eventually devolved into a huge soapbox decrying the mastering methods used. To make things NPOV, you need sources. I'm sure the same thing happens in articles that discuss digital/analog pros and cons. My suggestion is that you just put in the information that you feel needs putting in, and if people think it needs a source, they'll tag it. Illuminatedwax 11:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Illuminatedwax! Good to see you back. Yes, I have changed my mind. One can't deny a good argument in favor of a few reasonable compromises such as the one you presented to me. So, the engineers must be "extremely" notable and recognized by all peers as leaders in the field. I accept the Grammy (reluctantly) as a compromise to measure the extent of the accomplishments of the engineers. Although as one, I couldn't care less about a Grammy on the category of "mastering" for the reason I explained before. Now don't forget, the moment that we continue to expand the article and turn it into a handbook, you will most likely see engineers and mastering labs from all over the world hoping to get their names included in it. Consequently, the spam "frenzy" will resume and we can't have that either. One of my main contributions to WP, whether my views where too extreme or not, is to have helped stop the spamming and vandalizing of the Audio mastering page. The scale of the vandalism can't be understood by new editors, so hopefully, they will read this and learn that as long as their edits are in "good faith", they'll be fine. Jrod2 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Engineer Userbox

Hey all, I recently created a userbox for us Audio Engineers as I could not find one. Enjoy!

This user is an Audio Engineer.




--PM - PhilyG talk 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


This user is an Audio Engineer.




I propose this one. Jrod2 15:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dash Signature has been nominated for deletion

You are welcome to give your opinion in the AfD debate. From a scan of this Talk page, I notice that editors here have also come up against the question of adequate sourcing for audio articles. I hope that this WikiProject has some overlap with the field that Dash Signature is addressing. That company develops software plugins used in digital audio production. EdJohnston 03:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The article Dash Signature has been updated and it has now not less sources than FXpansion one, actually some more. Also I point that Notabiliy states "Notability requires objective evidence", just it doesn't say anything about evidence by on-line comunities (E.G. Forums). But if notability would be extended (or is it alredy?) to those sources the "adequate sourcing issue" could be easier in some cases.--Luigi 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] editing a "stub"

I could use some guidance. I am improving the article on Metasonix. What exactly, defines a "stub" article, and how much info should it have to get out of "stub" definition? Please go to the article and let me know if there is anything else i can do to improve it. --Savagebeautysound 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can Someone Take this off my hands

I started an article on Mr.Rupert Neve a while back. It seems like this would be significant here.

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's templates and conventions, nor am a frequent user. I saw their was no article and felt that it should be added.128.189.171.56 06:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I can draw

Hi all, if you feel that any article is in need of a diagram to help things along, let me know and I will see what I can do. I have already contributed several to the dynamic range compression page, amongst others. And let me know if my pictures need improving as well. Iain 08:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent crossover diagrams and your earlier images as well. I'll keep your graphing skills in mind. Binksternet 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAE links

Hi All, First let me say that I work for a competitor of SAE Institute. This is possibly why I noticed that there are a lot of 'see also' links to SAE. I think that they are not necessary and may be SPAM. I'm not going to remove them, because I'm a bit biased about it. Can someone please have a look at the following pages:

Thanks. Iain 05:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't work for any institute of higher learning. I think that most of the SAE links don't advance the topic. I'm removing the weak ones. Binksternet 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I have also removed the SAE at History_of_sound_recording#External_links and a dead link, leaving the "External Links" section with just one. This link left should be taken out as well as it doesn't refer directly to the article's subject. This raises the question for keeping the external links section at all. I think that it will probably be best not to have it or use only wiki links. Jrod2 10:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page tags

I have attempted to add the WP:PSP talk page tag to both Jay Pritzker Pavilion for its use of technology to replicate indoor sound and List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry for its numerous types for recording methods that have been archived as historic. Let me know why both of these additions have been contested.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic voice phenomena

Electronic voice phenomena article: could use some improvements defining digital artifacting, capture errors, noise floor, RFI, etc. as they apply to sound recording. - LuckyLouie 06:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-weighting ??

The A-weighting article is tagged as being part of this project. Is that appropriate? I have not been envolved in professional sound produciotn, but I have encountered A-Weighting, and the related B-, C-, and D-Weighting networks in the context of measurement of noise exposure. Are these networks also used in sound produciton? If not, I'll remove the tagg. Pzavon (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clipping

There is a section in the Clipping_(audio) (and an identical one in the Clipping_(signal_processing)) that claims, that the clipped signal has more power, because the clipped waveform has more area underneath it. This is just wrong. I don't really know the standard procedure but since those articles "belong" to this project a mention here might be the right way. PAStheLoD (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Those sections that talk about clipping are correct. No need to change them. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] REAPER DAW

hey, noticed that the article on REAPER wasn't tagged as being part of this project, despite being in scope (it's music software, and notable) - and it could do with some love. i think getting an assessment done could help with the process. cheers! Onesecondglance (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Room matching equalization

I've listed Room matching equalization, a new article, for deletion. For discussion, go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Room_matching_equalization. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)