Talk:Audio mastering/Archive 1

Discussion about references and sources
I'd like to open a discussion about sources that we would consider as acceptable references for this article.

For example: I just picked up this book Mastering Engineers Handbook. The info in this book is partially obsolete but there are still a few good things in it. It really isn't a handbook, as the title says, but rather a collection of interviews with mastering engineers where the author asks a question and then he cites the answers from different engineers.

Some people raised objections against including links that may somehow lead to mastering engineers. I have a different point of view on this, assuming of course that certain level of scientific objectivity, accuracy and decency is maintained.

The field of audio mastering is roughly 60 years old. I don't know of any nationally accredited universities that offer BS degree in mastering and therefore there are no scholars on the subject other then the people who are actually doing it.

I'm against allowing mastering engineers spamming this page with their own promos and rants but if there is a good book or an article out there, then I have no problem with including it as a source, even if it eventually leads to some studio, under condition that:


 * said book or article appears in a respectable publication or website
 * is written by a journalist or author with a verifiable track record,
 * is NOT written by a mastering engineer to promote his/her point of view or opinion.
 * is NOT a review of some "great mastering job" done for a record(s) release
 * ( Please feel free to suggest additional constraints in your comments) --Mike Sorensen 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The book that I cited, references 10 names in the industry and offers different points of view on the subject. I would consider it as a decent source for this article but I would like to hear your opinions. (Since, by counseling of Omegatron, user Evinatea is advised not to post on this page, I'm entering a BIG VETO on his behalf so we all know that he disagrees. All other contrarian points of view are very welcome as long as they are signed by their respective authors. --Mike Sorensen 08:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is also a book by BobKatz. He is a mastering engineer who conveys some of his own opinions in his book but the book is very solid and the amount of factual information overwhelmingly outweighs any personal opinions of his. I would suggest his book as another potential source to Audio Mastering article. This brings another potential constraints to the list above.


 * is written by a mastering engineer but contains factual, objective and verifiable information which overwhelmingly outweighs any personal opinions of the author--Mike Sorensen 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vinyl and Lacquer
Seems like this discussion board doesn't talk at all about vinyl mastering, lacquer cutting, lathes and so on. The industry is going digital but vinyl is still an important aspect of the mastering process. Also the history behind it is interesting. --VinylJoe 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a little story in one of the discussion boards about history of mastering going back to 1900. --VinylJoe 20:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Vinyl Joe. I commend you for resisting the temptation to edit the Audio mastering page! This page is in my view, one of the most debated pages on WP audio pages, and important to every amateur and professional engineer out there. Therefore, we must be absolutely sure not to edit it, or make changes without a good consensus approval. Of course, correcting grammar mistakes or spelling stuff, is not an issue.
 * As far as including a section for vinyl mastering, I think we've already had that section before and was deleted (I am not sure), however, as far as I know, the process of mastering comes prior to the creation of lacquer, and thus, not part of "audio mastering". Also, I've never heard of such a thing as mastering being done in 1900. Maybe you are referring to the process of making a record. Most people will tell you that, although is part of the audio mastering history, is not modern audio mastering. Anyway, what you are proposing is already at the audio mastering page section "History". To protect you from any accusations of spam, I have wikified your link. Cheers.Jrod2 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that you did edited the article page without seeking consensus. Please refrain from doing it again. Although, I understand your proposed contribution, it needed to be revised. Also, lacquers come after the audio mastering process these days, not before. Maybe so in the 1940's. If you don't agree, please comment here, but do not revert my edit. Thanks.Jrod2 19:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that you understand the vinyl mastering process. The lacquers are sometimes cut on the fly as a part of the audio mastering and not after. So the lacquer becomes the master just like a CD or DAT tape, and the way in which lacquers are cut directly influences the sound quality. The mechanics of cutting becomes a factor in the shaping of sound, just like EQ or compression, and therefore it is an integral part of audio mastering process.


 * I also don't belive that I have to resist writing this page before I get a consensus. I just red this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus and it says just the opposite. You write first then the consesus is reached by the community. Also what I wrote is just a common knowledge for anyone who has the basic understanding of vinyl mastering process. I don't mean to be rude but I feel that you don't fully understand the vinyl mastering and your advice on editing is also incorrect. --VinylJoe 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand this part on the definition of WP consensus:
 * "everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community" 


 * Also, I welcome you to this talk page to create a discussion, but I also urge to read the tags posted on the top. If you don't like it, then you should probably go ahead and make your own page as the fellow Joachim suggested.


 * One more thing. If you are referring to albums like the latest "Zero 7" album, which was in effect transfered to lacquer and then back to digital, then you may believe that "lacquer mastering" is a necessary part for the definition of mastering, but in reality, it will misguide people to believe that it is needed. Now, I worked once upon a time on a studio where we used to cut "One-offs" for test pressings. The source material was usually mastered and we tried to keep it "flat". But, I am sure you didn't mean that type of "mastering".Jrod2 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One more suggestion, if you don't want to make a new page, and you're bent on including your section, and you want to expedite consensus, then maybe you should join the WikiProject Professional Soind Production.Jrod2 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The idea of describing the mastering process of a vinyl is quite interesting, as this medium has more tricky limitations than CD, and thus serves as a good example of how the medium type affects the mastering process. I am often asked how this works, and information on this topic is sparse. The above discussion seem to imply that LPs are a thing of the past. This is not the case - at least not in Europe. I still master stuff for vinyl now and then. So basically i think the vinyl mastering process should at least be available somewhere on wikipedia. JoaCHIP 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this? You guys make a new page, call it "Vinyl and lacquer mastering", then when it's all done, we will reference it at the "Audio mastering page" Feedback, please? Jrod2 22:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why do you insist on commenting on this topic if you don't understand the subject.

"Zero 7" album is irrelevant and not representative of how records are made. I'm talking about every single case of mastering for every vinyl release. In every case the type of amplifiers, the type of cutting head, the mechanics of cutting and the entire analog audio signal chain are critical elements that influence the sound of the final lacquer which is also the final master.

Similar principles also apply to analog mastering. The quality of electronics, and the entire signal chain, influence the sound. And in cases where analog tape is used as the master medium, then the mechanics of a tape recorder also influences the sound.

BTW analog mastering is still the preferred method of mastering by top mastering studios such as Grundman Mastering or Gateway Mastering. Here is Bob Ludwig at front of SPL MMC1 analog console with 120 volts railes for killer headroom http://www.spl-usa.com/Ref/bob_ludwig.html

Analog mastering is still the preferred method by great majority of Grammy winning artists and it needs to be explicitely mentioned here. --VinylJoe 05:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * VinylJoe, why are we discussing analog mastering now? It's not an issue. Of course, it's still in use and still common, we use it at the studio. Please refrain from advocating Vinyl stuff in here, though. And, that's not what the line in question:"Analog masters such as audio tapes are still in use today" is referring to. The line refers to the practice of bouncing the mastered material to audio tape. It's not the same, so please get your facts straight. And, please don't try to impress this forum with whatever Ludwig and Grundman use. Who cares? There is no need to cite names and post external links, either. Everything we need for referencing is already here at WP. You can improve the article with some reference to the analog equipment used still today, but changing the direction of the definition with confusing older technologies such as lacquers, it's not a good idea. As I said before, It would misguide readers to believe that lacquer mastering is needed and is a common step in the mastering process. I don't think people will agree with your proposal to include that. You are also advised to join the WikiProject I mentioned above to gain consensus. Regardless, I believe, if I called it in for a vote, they will not support your POV. One more point to add, if we continue adding to the description of audio mastering concepts like lacquer mastering, then somebody else is going to bring up "CD glass mastering" and by then, the concept will be extremely confusing at best. Good luck. --Jrod2 08:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey guy stop patronizing me about what I should or shouldn't refrain from. I was just reading your user page, and you used another person's name without his permission, and you try to lecture me on what I should refrain from !

Where I come from what you did is called Identity Fraud. So my advise to you is refrain from commenting on this page as you have no knowledge on the subject of vinyl mastering and no credibility. --VinylJoe 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Small revision
I have made a small revision to terms that were not clear on the second paragraph of the definition. Any objections? Please let me know. For the record it does not constitute adding new information.Jrod2

Digital audio for mastering or Analog ?
I am currently in the process of studying Nika Aldrich's "Digital Audio Explained" and felt at liberty to modify the section that pretty much dissed digital in favor of analog technology. I felt that it is quite subjective and can not be ratified. Here is the revised wording:

There are mastering engineers that feel that digital technology has not progressed enough in quality to supersede analogue techology, but on close review of the parameters of audio as relevant to human perception - the characteristics of simple, complex and band-limited waveforms, noise, and the physiognomy of the ear - analog recording methods can be demonstrated to be "[...] incapable, however, of recording audible perfection." [Nika Aldrich (2004): Digital Audio Explained; p. 97]

Please have a look at the reference which I personally find to be of great value.--Andrew.levine 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We appreciate your contribution, but it has been deleted. The way you get your opinions accepted at WP's audio mastering page, is by creating the necessary consensus. You are welcome to 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 University pages. These links I find acceptable. Please, don't forget to sign your comments with your name, next time. Jrod2 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works, IMHO. See Template:Who. --Kjoonlee 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously I did not consider my addition "unhelpful and unconstructive content" or I would not have taken the time to edit my first submission to make it fit for inclusion. I feel that it is completely uncalled for to label my entry as "vandalism". I even gave a source for my quote whereas the original wording talks of "Many mastering engineers …" without any reference as to what that means. Well, I hope people visiting this page do not get the impression that digital technology has not yet replaced analog technology for reasons of quality as well as usability, because that was the gist I picked up and that made me want to share. I won't try that again. Suit yourselves :-) --Andrew.levine 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One addition I feel I do have to make before I log off: Doesn't anybody else find it strange that there is talk of "consensus" followed by the statement that "These links I find acceptable"? Honestly, who is the censor? --Andrew.levine 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Andrew you on this part. I have been lectured by Jrod guy too. He is trying to appear as some kind of a spokesman for this forum and tries to impose some rules that are misrepresentation of wikipedia policy. I find it funny that a guy who spammed wikipedia to the max is now the voice os consesnus. --VinylJoe 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew, first of all, get yourself in the habit of signing up on all your comments. Second, this is the way you get consensus, by proposing changes. No it's not WP policy. In this situation, the best course of action. We've just had the audio mastering page vandalized so much, that, other than protecting the page itself (And hindering effectively its development) we need to build consensus first here at the talk page. This why, vandals can't accomplish anything here. And I a not referring to you, but real persistent and shameless one. As for my opinion I am entitled to it, and so do you. But, I don't dictate policy. There is a difference. Jrod2 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But I disagree with you Andrew on the digital recording. It seems like you and NikAldrich (whomever he may be) appear as the voice of digital technology for this forum while in fact this is not the case. I also find the contribution of 60.70.248.194 to be correct. Top mastering studios still use analog equalizationa and compression and the digital technology is used as a delivery medium for playback, editing and formatting of the material prior to replication. But the sound processing is still done in analog domain because it simply sounds better, so statement that analog is not capable of sonic perfection is utter nonsense. YOUR ENTIRE BODY INCLUDING YOUR EARS ARE ANALOG :) --VinylJoe 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * VinilJoe, I am not going to tolerate more personal attacks from you. I left you a second warning at your page. Use civility and WP:AGF, if you don't, you'll be blocked and removed from these discussions. I am not the authority, but I am making sure people like you don't take the subject on audio mastering to satisfy their own personal believes and agendas. I supported the idea of you making a page that we can reference to audio mastering, but you don't want to do it. I also asked you to join the WikiProject Professional Sound Production, but you don't want to do it either. Nevertheless, I believe that both analog and digital have the specifications that deliver great sound. What I don't know, and you should discuss further, is how "lacquer mastering" is different from "analog mastering", and what are the specs on that format (Lacquer) like for example: its headroom (dBFS), ASDR, signal to noise ratio, wow and flutter, etc.Jrod2 12:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well,...you may be up to something VinylJoe. If one looks at Jrod2 contributions and some of Evinatea contributions, I'd say they look let's say at best questionable . --Rert2 04:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rert2, Your comment above is just a sign of your frustration. Yes, I have another account and its legal, many admins know it. Now, stick to the subject at hand. Period. You persist in adding Bob Katz book to the audio mastering page. Sorry, WP is not here to sell books for Bob Katz. There many other sources that may be eligible for inclusion, BUT FIRST WE DISCUSS THEM AMONG ALL THE EDITORS, OK? One more thing, You are not going to find User:Jrod2 posting links at the Audio mastering page to promote http://MusicMasteringOnline.com either, so I suggest any insinuation of spam by me, to be taken to your own personal talk pages and not here. Jrod2 09:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Katz is an authority in this field, while http://www.MusicMasteringOnline.com is ZERO, nobody, zilch, zip, nicht, null, nada ! So that's why Rert2's link can be considered as a reference and your link can be considered as nothing. --VinylJoe 14:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Katz an authority? ROFLOL. You mean an authority on how to sell books! Anyway, please, I don't want to laugh too hard as I am at work. But, the point is it violates WP guidelines. OK? Read this Links normally to be avoided. Now, stop this ridiculous attempt at promoting Katz book. By the way, MMOL is more than a mastering lab than you'll ever know. it's not located in some state where nothing goes on but in THE CAPITAL OF THE MUSIC WORLD, OK? You got some nerve.. Jrod2 15:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Jrod, I'm not frustrated with your edits, and I never said that you are a spammer, what I meant is exactly what I said, that your contributions are questionable. But since you mentioned yourself as a spammer then I have to agree with you. All it takes is a quick look at your contributions under fake name Evinatea, which BTW you used without permission of the owner, and the picture is clear, you are a spammer as you said. --Rert2 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rert2, You think you are being subtle? You have been warned to stop making personal attacks, but you won't let up! Your frustration is making you uncivil, erratic and unworthy of forming an opinion on this forum. I am the most senior editor on this page right now, and instead of showing respect, you bringing stuff from the past that only god knows why is relevant to these discussions. This tactic of trying to discredit me with accusations of spam, already cost Mike Sorensen his precious user page (See: User:Mike Sorensen. Be smart, don't be next. I am not going to say that I am in command of the discussions, but I will make sure that there is going to be a discussion on anything that you want to include on the article page. Got it? If you don't like it, GO AWAY. So far, you and the other user are just acting as offensive and disruptive editors. Believe me, there are many eyes monitoring what you do and say on this forum. So, at this point, do you think I care about what you think about me? Jrod2 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No frustration, just simple observations of facts. I don't care about your seniority because it started with spamming, nor I care about your warnings because you are sneaky vandal who removes legitimate reference links and harasses other editors. I will revert you within the 3 revert rule as much as I can. And hopefully other editors will help if appropriate.  --Rert2 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Using books or textbooks as sources is perfectly fine; however, instead of Amazon, using the ISBN number (see ISBN) is preferred. I'm sure that no ill will was meant, and I recommend the Katz book be added (or changed) to link to the ISBN. Please see the ISBN link I just added for an example. Illuminatedwax 01:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with ISBN. I'm perfectly fine with this form of referencing. Actually it may even be better way to indicate the reference. --Rert2 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. Jrod2 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding Katz and other edits
I have added the Katz book to the "See also" section because his book is not only highly regarded by many professionals, it is used as a textbook or is referenced by many universities in their audio courses. It also links to the ISBN number rather than Amazon.com. I added a Mix Magazine article I found talking about modern improvements in mastering; perhaps more information from this article could be added. I also added info about the digital/analog debate as it pertains to audio mastering; please correct this information if I have the wrong idea. Illuminatedwax 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not appropriate, you should delete it because Katz is not worthy of being the ultimate word in mastering and the link servers more as a selling tool than any practical use for the Audio mastering page. That's my opinion. Jrod2 03:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, if you have any better links, please suggest them. Otherwise we have no outside resources for users to follow up on. One of the most important parts of Wikipedia is the ability to use it as a starting point. Illuminatedwax 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this spam?
If these are 37 jobs that he tracked, mixed then mastered, then there is no doubt this man is a "guru". But, if what was written on the mastering page is meant to give us a reference to excellent mastering, then I am seized with uncontrollable laughter. So, 37 "Grammy" nominations for mastering. I just have to say: Please! How naive and impressionable can you be? 37 times nominated, WOW, then you mean, 37 major label artists were nominated for a Grammy, which no one won. therefore, he got nothing either. So big deal! 37 times it could have fallen on his lap. If an artist or group had won it though, he would have won it by default. There is no GLORY in getting an award for doing NOTHING else than what you were supposed to do because YOU ARE GETTING WELL PAID FOR IT. Are we supposed to use this fellow as our "roll model" mastering guy, on the merit of his nominations? Even if he won one, that's not an indication of great mastering expertise. There are hundreds of labs that deal with mediocre mixes made by indie artists, and the results are short of miraculous. You believe that a mastering engineer who receives work from major labels and award winning engineers is going to know how to fix a bad mix? They are complete incompetents. Indie artists doing their own recordings or using project studios should never bother paying a "Grammy Award Winning" mastering engineer, especially one who likes to throw at you big names in the music industry or likes to mention the awards he had been given. It would be a waste of these artists hard earned money. An example of how things work sometimes at pro level engineering can be said on an article written by engineer John Vestman. This man mixes audio so well, that when he used another peer to master his own material (He likes someone else to do it for him) all this colleague did was just: "Roll off a bit of the bass and raise the top end by one dB". "You are so good at mixing, John!" Now, that may not be too complicated to do, but knowing that's all you needed to do, is what separates a rookie from a professional. What I wonder is, what would someone used to great mixing do, when several mix issues are found? Will they tell the artist: Go back and fix these issues. Or say, "Sorry, we are not on the same pro level, go to the web to master that", Or, "Hey this mix to make it sound descent is going to take too much time to process". The answer is, neither a "Grammy Award" winning engineer nor "equipment that can sample at 300 kHz" or "the best tube analog gear" is going to turn a mediocre mix into a descent sound that translates well on all playback systems, and the last engineer who is going to take it there, is the one that receives work from major label professional engineers. So, I would start focusing more on mastering procedures, common techniques and the knowledge of the use of equalization, multi-band compression, phase scope, RTA mastery, and stop pushing for all that nonsense. Take it to Sound recording instead. Jrod2 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a question: we want to point out that certain trends exist in the audio mastering community, let's say the fact that many engineers think analog signal processing is superior to digital signal processing. So we put it on the page. But, since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we have to anchor this fact to reality, a.k.a. outside sources. So how do we show this fact? It's unlikely that there exists a comprehensive poll of mastering engineers, so we go to the next best thing: we show that important or influential people in the industry are preferring analog to digital. So how do we pick who the important or influential people in the field are? In WP terms, this is notability, and there's an entire page devoted to this subject: WP:NOTE. One great way to show notability is to show that the person in question has received major accolades in his or her field. And what kind of accolades exist for mastering engineers? That's right, Grammy awards or Grammy nominations. I'm sure there are others, but for people who don't know about the audio mastering field, Grammies are the most recognizable award.
 * So hopefully you see the issue: we have a statement that is important to the article (many top engineers prefer audio signal processing to DSP), so we have to source it, and we also have to source the notability of the engineers. Right now, the two engineers listed are the best ones that are on record as saying "analog is better." If you can find another engineer who agrees that analog is better AND is more (provably) notable than Bernie Grundman, feel free to replace Bernie with them. But it's difficult to beat 37 Grammy nominations. Even if Grammies do just "fall into their lap", the fact is that Grundman was good enough to have such A-list clients.
 * That brings me to my final point, which is the fact that Grundman can not possibly get any more clients by having his name on Wikipedia. Grundman is such a huge name in the industry that people who will use (or can afford!) his services aren't finding him through Wikipedia; they're finding him through record labels. Illuminatedwax 00:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Illuminatedwax, you raised many valid points. Here is the problem: Mention one engineer and everyone including those providing services on the web will start adding new unsourced and unverifiable articles, unproven nonsense and stuff that has little or nothing to do with mastering. Making the statement that "Analog is better" is in my view, misinforming and irresponsible. However, the same applies to digital. The reason why you can't anchor this one up, is that there exists a state of transition going on between analog and digital. Also, there isn't an official poll among all ME's about which is better. Even if there was one, there would be a huge division: those who mainly master "The A-List" and those who master indie artists and wannabes. So, who do you think would prevail? You guessed it. And the most probable outcome will be inconclusive. The reason is, the analog equipment has been around since the 1960's and even though some people argue today that is obsolete, there isn't a way to convince the majority of the ME's that analog is indeed obsolete. They will argue in favor of the so-called "analog warmth", which is a form of signal degradation inherent to analog circuitry. The irony is that they don't do everything analog either, and they rely heavy on several types of AD/DA processors. Therefore, mastering should focus only on the engineering aspect. In addition, you are given to people a false sense of superiority by making the connection that if someone won a Grammy, then that must be a great example of mastering skill. Those who know better understand that's not true and those who don't (The great majority) will believe it. Again, focus on the engineering, not on the engineers and their awards. If you can't, then I hope those ME's that were spamming WP read this: Post your external links and new nonsense and you will be deleted on the spot. In regards to your final point, if Grundman is depending exclusively on mastering income, then, he is not doing as good as you might think, at least not without taking a heavy cut. The same applies to many other known ME's. They are taking work from indies with the price sometimes as low as 50% less than what they normally get paid for. This new special pricing for indies is not a new phenomenon either, it's a symptom of an industry that is dramatically changing and shifting and the "A-List" is evaporating like a pond of water in the middle of the desert. Here is a compromise. Let's use then Bob Katz and Bernie Grundman, that's 2 right there : One for analog and one for digital. Then maybe 2 more like Bob Ludwig? and another ME. After that let's put a cork on it and limited to our 4 mastering engineers that will attempt to represent a general consensus in the mastering community. Otherwise, it will be the same as before and it will never be resolved. Can we all compromise to this number?Jrod2 07:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the name of the engineer as per the offensive editor's contention that it might get picked up by search engines. Jrod2 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Another unresearched comment by Jrod2
Let me give you just a few Grammy winning albums mastered by Bernie Grundman. How is this for a mastering credit: And here is a partial list of albums mastered by Brnie Grundman. You do the research and find out how many of them received Grammys because I have no time for correcting your totally disruptive, and unresearched comments. --VinylJoe 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael Jackson - Thriller (Jackson received 8 Grammy awards for this record. Best selling album of all times mastered by Bernie Grundman, 100 million copies sold)
 * Norah Jones - Not Too Late (Record received 8 Grammy awards, mastered by Bernie Grundman, 20 million copies sold)
 * Fleetwood Mac - Say You Will (Album of the Year Grammy nomination mastered by Bernie Grundman, 300,000 copies sold within first week of release )
 * Let me ask you a question, so you mean to tell us that Grundman was right there with Jackson and Quincy , totally involved in the recording process? BS! He got the job to do it after jackson an Jones mixed, that's all! Are you Grundman? Of course not, But, if you had been a mastering engineer (At least a competent one), and you got the job, do you think they would not have won those Grammys and the history of "Thriller" would have been quite a different one? So they won because of Grundman? If you think they did, I rest my case about you. BTW Here is a few comments about how disappointing the sound of "Thriller" is on both CD and SACD formats. Keep in mind that these re-releases sound better than the original vinyl LP (Mastered by Grundman?). In my view, you are somebody who likes to show knowledge in all aspects of the music industry, all you have shown is that you really don't know how things work. I also find it hilarious that you consider these comments I erased from the audio mastering page "Technical" (LOL) Did you post all that? And, I am supposed to show my Computer Science degree on that account? You make me LOL. Right here is my degree...! BTW people, most ME's are aware of that "Grammy" fringe benefit, and it helps them get more jobs, free equipment, money loans and fake prestige. It's a cartel that is dying just like the majors are dying slowly. In the end, the music business will belong to no one and all of us will own it (Figuratively) and the reign of the record companies and their payolas will be over within my lifetime and certainly yours. At least their foundation will be very different from today's. Finally VinylGuy, I did have the chance to listen and spectrum analyze Norah Jones second album, I hope that wasn't mastered by Bernie because the sound on that CD was bad. Jrod2 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like you are confusing mastering with recording. You may want to read about audio mastering before posting comments on this subject. Let me briefly explain it for you. Audio mastering is a step that is performed after the recording and mixing. So your question about Grundman's involvement in the recording process is absolutely irrelevant. As far as sound quality is concerned, both the Grammys and the general public embraced both albums which was reflected by awards and millions of units sold, therefore your spectrum analyzer and your negative opinion is of no consequence. Your other comments about nonsense such as money loans and free gear are equally irrelevant to this discussion and frankly meanspirited. Grundman builds his essential gear, and Ludwig paid for his gear and then had some pieces customized at his own expense. The gossip and misinformation that you spread is counterproductive to this discussion. --VinylJoe 19:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all the advise to yourself, kid. The fact that I did say that Jones and Jackson mixed "Thriller" not Grundman, tells you that I know the difference, dah? In case you don't know, I've contributed and greatly revised in depth, both the Audio mastering and Mastering engineer pages. So, don't tell me what to read. Also, I will archive, when I feel like it, all this wasteful space you've written above (Sections 18-19-20) including your deliberate attempt to erase evidence of your nonsense without leaving a valid explanation (In which you changed  after I left you a response, Fleetwood Mac's album titles from "Rumors" to "Say You will" making me look in everyone's view, nonsensical). Or, when you reverted my deleting these last  wasteful sections at this talk page (See: ) which wouldn't allow you to have more opportunities for trolling, of course. You have proven that you are incapable of maintaining a civil discussion and that you don't respect other editors opinions. That your edits are geared towards inciting a reaction from me, and to harass me, or otherwise, create an aura of authority on the subject of audio which you don't have. One only has to review your constant harassment to force me to prove that I have an academic degree, to know that it was just an act of trolling. I make real contributions at WP, but all you do is attack me with your utterly useless POVs, because again, you are a troll (Where the basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits). Your contributions say so . You are also a confirmed sock puppeteer and they never quit.  Bottom line, no one cares the opinions of trolls and sock puppeteers like you. I am in the business, I work with real mastering engineers. I get good info from the trenches. You, on the other hand, want to give the impression that you know the facts. How on earth do you know that ME's never receive endorsement gear, unless you are one who never did? One of the studios I work for, got free gear early this year from 2 big manufacturers. They sold it all off on Ebay. And yes, BANKS are MORE inclined to approve loans to mastering engineers or studio facilities that have received recognition or accolades in the music industry. Also, if I think that some mastering jobs were horribly done, that's MY opinion! And, it is allowed to me and to every editor at the talk page! I'll have the same criticism for any engineer that, in my view, is not qualified to be cited on the article itself. That is also ALLOWED at the talk page! Next, do me a big favor, don't disrupt this talk page, and please don't bother me, or direct yourself to me ever again.  Jrod2 04:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Useless sections
Does anybody else feel that this discussion page needs sections 18, 19 and 20? IMHO, I think is nothing but a waste of good space! Jrod2 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone else feels it's necessary to keep the last 3 sections on this talk page, please speak up as I intend to delete them. Thank you. Jrod2 10:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't delete other people's messages, please. If the discussion is over, you can archive it instead. --Kjoonlee 11:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Kjoonlee, Thanks for the advise, can you help me archive it? I have no idea as to how is done. Jrod2 11:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ARCHIVE has help. Don't do what I did to my own page, but move the article and copy back the headers and such to the original location. --Kjoonlee 11:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam or Burning Books
I'm writing this with hesitation as a few days ago I was attacked after reincluding this article which was deleted on March 5th  by this user Evinatea and attacked as spam by this user 71.108.230.46.

I just found out that this article, is on the list of recommended readings at Eastern Washington University at the Department of Engineering and Design.Here is the link to the article on their server MasteringReading. It is being used to teach course "Tech 275 Digital Sound". In all this blind haste we just burned a book here...which was perhaps one of the best reference on Audio mastering that we ever had.

Please comment on reincluding it in References section.--Mike Sorensen 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Clarification: I'm proposing this article MasteringReading at ewu.edu for inclusion in references section for Audio mastering.--Mike Sorensen 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mike! I was the one who labeled the original article link and subsequent entry on artmastering as spam. Btw, I apologize for being so aggressive, but it was right around the time the mastering page was getting hit by spam almost daily. WIth all due respect, I would humbly request that both the gman/mastering link and artmastering entry remain off the mastering page. While the gman/mastering article does include a few good general-purpose bits of info, it suffers from major flaws that, unfortunately, render it spam, by which I specifically mean promotional material for Art Sayecki's mastering business. My main concern is the disproportionate coverage given to Art Sayecki and his mastering business in the body of the article. Sayecki is quoted a total of 10 times in the body of the text, while the other mastering engineers are quoted only once or twice. (also note the photo of Sayecki at the top of the page) I find this problematic for two reasons. First, the way the article is structured (Sayecki agreeing with noted mastering engineers / noted mastering engineers agreeing with Sayecki) it gives the impression that Sayecki is an authority on mastering, or at the very least is as notable as the other mastering engineers quoted. This is more than implied in the links section of the article itself, which reads, "[t]he following is by no means a comprehensive list. These are simply the mastering houses that came up most often when talking to artists and others in the industry about quality mastering engineers and great sonics". The first listing is Sayecki's, and followed by such noted "name" engineers as Bob Ludwig, Bernie Grundman, Brian "Big Bass" Gardner, Stephen Marcussen, etc. As such, the article at times almost reads like a commercial for Sayecki's mastering services. This is understandable, as the article was written by Scott G, a client of Sayecki's. However, I find it unacceptable. Second, I have reservations as to whether the other engineers/musicians quoted in the article were actually interviewed by the author for the purposes of the article itself, and not just had quotes lifted from interviews in magazines, websites, etc without permission. If this is the case, then permission must be given, and the sources of the quotes should have been listed in the article (for example, "Larry Crane, quoted from interview in TapeOp #15, February 2001". Lastly, the 'artmastering' section that was added to the mastering page also seemed too much like promotional material, or marketing for Sayecki. I do not mean this to be an attack on Sayecki, as I'm sure he is a fine and capable ME. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.51.147 • contribs.


 * You have some valid points and we will talk about them. However, I have to say that you should have addressed them this way in the first place rather then vandalizing pages and attacking people involved, but your apology is noted. Now, let me make a summary of your points so we can have an overview for our discussion.


 * Questions:
 * 10 quotations of Art Sayecki.
 * Why picture of Art Sayecki
 * Others are agreeing with quotes by Art Sayecki, and perhaps they shouldn't because he may not be as notable.
 * Were the people in the article really interviewed
 * Why is Artmastering listed as first in the "links" section and the rest is below.
 * Why section on Artmastering was added in the same time as the link to the article was restored


 * Answers:
 * In the entire article, including links, I counted 106 names of artists, engineers and producers, while Sayecki is mentioned only 10 times. I see no bias here. Just the opposite, other names and points of view overwhelmingly outnumber Sayecki's by 10 times.
 * This version of article doesn't have any pictures in it
 * Search engines return hundreds of entries on Art Sayecki so he is notable and known. I see no reason why others would disagree with him, particularly if the statements that he makes are correct. He also agrees with others so it is a reciprocal discussion.
 * I doubt that journalist like G-man, with hundreds of article in his portfolio, would write anything without interviewing his subjects, but bear with me and we will find out more. The article was published on 7 websites since Jan. 2004 (according to Google) If people in the article were misrepresented because they were not interviewed then they would have surely reacted by now, but that's not the case.
 * This version of the article doesn't have any studio links in it. However the links in the original section have been arranged in alphabetical order and thats why Artmastering is first as it starts with "A". Bob Ludwig is below because he is under "G" for "Gateway Mastering", Grundman and Gardener are also under "G" for "Grundman mastering", and so on.
 * I'm the person who re-included Artmastering section, as I found information to support it. I always do a basic research on my edits and in the process of researching Artmastering I found the other article which I consider as comprehensive so I reincluded it after I noticed that someone deleted it without any explanation. I also submitted the subject for discussion.


 * As far as point 4. is concerned, perhaps the best way to find out is by asking the author G-man. His contact info is in the article. I will send him a brief email and if he replies then I will post it here.--Mike Sorensen 22:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

...Conducting the interviews and performing research for this article took several months. Almost twenty studios were contacted with requests for information, interviews and pictures. Most of the studios extended great deal of support and provided interviews or comments featured in the article. Only one studio provided electronic images so the choice of pictures for the article took place by default. Some studios didn’t reply or replied after the publishing deadline so unfortunately they were not included in the interviews section....questions or comments may be directed to the mailbox provided in the article....-Scott .'' If you guys have any other questions then please contact the author yourself and share it with us. --Mike Sorensen 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It took a little bit of waiting but I finally received a brief message from Scott-G the author of the article. Here is a summary: ''


 * Search engines return thousands of results on many mastering sites and articles. The point is not whether the ME in question has enough search results to support notability, but whether the other MEs have actually agreed with his views. To establish that, you would need to provide links to those ME's websites, "popular" music or engineering magazine interviews, articles and/or editorials, mentioning that they indeed agree with Sayecki's views on mastering. These quotes, naturally, need to come from different interviewers and not from just one. There is really no relevance on how many interviews this G-Man has conducted in the past and neither is Sayecki's perceived "fame by association". The point is, a statement from this interview's writer at MusicBizAcademy, would just not constitute a good enough proof of notability as this could also be perceived as not coming from a NPV . Finally, the external link to that article creates a problem with Wikipedia guidelines ( See External_links) and should be avoided as recommended.Jrod2 01:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments, just like comments of 71.109.51.147 question the writer's professional integrity and honesty. This is considered a personal attack by wikipedia standards and a particularly aggressive one, as the person that you are attacking is not part to this conversation and can't defend himself. Not even mentioning that you have no proof to support any of your claims but only your conjecture. Additionally the manner in which you are doing it makes me question your motives as to objecting to inclusion of this article. If your interests were purely encyclopedic and motivated by civil discourse, then the appropriate course of action would have been to email the author and ask him those questions before making unsupported public accusation. But that's just my opinion. I also see no point in debating someones professional honesty unless a party to this article comes forth and states publically that he/she was misrepresented. So please stop unless you are such a party. And just as I told 71.109.51.147 I will contact the writer with questions, since neither one of you dared to do that. As far as the external links are concerned inclusion of this article would meet every standard of wikipedia guidelines on resources and references, assuming that we get a consensus on the inclusion.--Mike Sorensen 10:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Mike, I am so sorry you thought I was attacking you. And no, I was not putting into question the writer's professional integrity and honesty. I was putting into question whether the opinion of one interviewer was good enough reference. And now that you made me take a closer look at other comments, If the writer (Scott G) is also the ME's (Sayecki) client, then there is a conflict of interest that you can't deny and is noted at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines Conflict_of_interest. I have read the no personal attacks guideline you included on your comment. See personal attack.Sorry, but according to the rules, you have taken "no personal attack" out of context. It clearly says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Since Scott G is not the contributor but you are, then no personal attacks have ever been made. In other words, in order for you to say that I am making a personal attack against you, then you would have to be the writer of said article at MusicBizAcademy. I am only requesting for more interviews quoting those MEs agreeing with Sayecki's views. Is that asking for too much? It would help establish this ME's notability without further questions. That said, more interviews and quotes from all the MEs involved in the article, written by other reputable publications, will also merit the inclusion of said article on the audio mastering page reference links section without further questions. Your statements in the past apparently defend Sayecki and favor very much the content of said article. Are you yourself Sayecki's client?. Jrod2 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a brief lesson for you on morality: "...Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles.." You implied that no interviews were conducted and now you are implying that I'm Sayecki's client. This is again a personal attack. So I'm telling you again to STOP. Now the other issue. No Scott-G was not a client of Artmastering when he wrote and published this articles. Check the dates and credits on his albums and read the info on this very page before commenting. While writing this article he learned about concept of "artmastering" and subsequently when he was releasing his next album he decided to have it mastered with the process of artmastering, this took place after the article was already written and published.  After he became a client, he fully disclosed this fact in his subsequent articles. This is what an honest journalist does !. And "no" I never defended Sayecki or Scott-G before (other then in this discussion), but when I see people twisting wikipedia policy to justify personal attacks on anybody I will take an action. BTW, the information on Scott-G and dates of his album releases is available online, other info is right here on this very page . Feel free to read. --Mike Sorensen 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition on morality at Wikipedia cited by you, can not be applied to this situation because Scott G is not the contributor, you are. Nevertheless, no one is putting into question his integrity. On the other hand, if your are accusing me of personal attack against you because I asked you whether you are Sayecki's client or not, that was an honest question and it doesn't constitute a personal attack since at Wikipedia nobody is impervious from another editor's scrutiny and it is actually welcome and it should be expected. Again, you have taken "no personal attacks" out of context. It clearly says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Let me put it to you in terms that you will understand; the content is the audio mastering page and you like the other editors, are a contributor. In any case, this isn't about Scott G's article. Just like those editors who asked more references and you are citing hereby, it's about getting more interviews and references that quote those MEs agreeing with Sayecki's view. That's all. So, please refrain from using the word "personal attack" in the future. Jrod2 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me satisfy your "totally non attacking" curiosity. I'm not a client of Sayecki. Maybe in the future, as I think that his concept of "artmastering" is great. And if I ever become his client, I will tell you about it, just like Scott-G did.--Mike Sorensen 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. I am glad you addressed the question. Now please do not quote me as "personal attacking" Scott G. the G-Man because I found out that on the 4th of Sunday, March 2007, he did write another article at Music Industry Newswire web site about Sayecki (http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2007/03/04/min160_220600), where he did not mention the fact that he was Sayecki's client, presumably because it would constitute a conflict of interest. It is however at Wikipedia. Second, I an not satisfied that on his own admission, Scott G is the owner of G-Man Marketing, where he consults on advertising, marketing, positioning, branding and sonic branding . Now, as for your proposed inclusion of the artmastering section on the 5th of March of this year (Talk:Audio_mastering), we have something at Wikipedia called "Attribution".(Attribution) It says: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." That said, your proposed artmastering article does not fall within these parameters either. Sorry. Jrod2 13:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The way you know that someone lost an argument is when they start personally attacking editors and not the subject. From where I stand Jrod2, your comments on Scott-G are inappropriate, just like your cheap attack on Mike by implying that he is a client, (readAssume good faith),...but hey, I'm just commenting on your comments and not on you, I'm sure you are a sweet guy just like 71.108.230.46. :And in your last comment you are attacking Mike again by saying that he included article on Artmastering even though he knew that Scott-G disclosed about being a client of Artmastering. Dude, can you read ??? When an author discloses his association, it is done exactly to avoid conflict of interest, and Mike submitted it for discussion so people can examine the subject and decide (dede, read, read, read! ). And unless you can show that Scott-G was doing something wrong, you are attacking him again as a journalist. The Wikipedia policy is one thing but human decency is another and your comments violate both. But hey..., I'm just commenting on your comments and not on you. --Biggy P 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * biggy I don't see why you thimk jroad2 is inappropriate, all he saying is G-Man made interviews after becoming a client of the mastering guy himself but he did'nt make that public. If i read that artcle at musicnewswire.com i would thought G-man was neutral but he is full of caca for not saying he is a client too. G-man made it sound in that article like he didn't know Sayeki mastering personally ,why should we belive anything said on that article. The whole thing stinks and is spam!!! and stop calling good users like jroad2 bad because he is making good questions and i understand that G-man is not the contributor so he can be checked by anybody and is not personal attack is just checking to see he is legit. Luis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.224.3.55 • contribs.


 * I'm sorry "Luis" but looks like Jrod2 you are pointing out the last part of a 4-part interview instead going to the first part Music Industry Newswire Interview Part 1 where the author gives a full disclosure. Trust me, reading does wonders.--Biggy P 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of book by Bobby Owsinski as a reference for this article
Since we are debating references I'm also proposing inclusion of the book by Bobby Owsinski Mastering Engineers Handbookas a resource for this article. I just finished reading it and I think it is a solid resource. Maybe a little outdated but the fundamental information in the book is good. Again, I remind everyone that the book cites quotes from 10 different mastering engineers which some may find objectionable. The names cited in the book are different then those cited in the article Mastering Your Music, with the exception of Schreyer (correct me if I'm wrong). The names in the book are: Sax, Calbi, Meadows, Olhsson, Collins, Schreyer, Ludwig, Grundman, Cheppa, Katz. Between those two sources we would have a very wide representation of opinions on the subject. BTW the book also contains more quotes from some engineers and less from some others (those darn writers just can't count :-)). And "no", I didn't count who said what how many times, as it really doesn't matter as long as the statements contained in the book are informative, correct and educational. Check your library, I found one in a library after I bought it.

Comments please.--Mike Sorensen 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's debate "Celebrity mastering engineers are not good for mastering most indie artists and mediocre mixes".
I mean no disrespect to indie artists and their great music, so the word "mediocre" is referred strictly in audio engineering terms and not in musical content. That said, I raised this point before a user (I'd rather not mention by name) started trolling and deviating me from this subject. Some artists (Mainly indie) who get mastering samples from us, have told us that they spent big money with mastering guys who, supposedly, mastered famous bands and artists and even have awards in their studios. All this, only to be disappointed with the results. We do notice, in all fairness, that these indie artists original mixes were at best, mediocre. So, In many ways these mastering engineers hired to do the job were not completely at fault. We have noticed however, that there were instances of extreme neglect on the part of these "celebrity" mastering engineers. Perhaps they lose interest when they hear a mediocre mix and give up trying to make it sound the best possible way. Or, they simply don't have sufficient skills. How can this be, though? After all, they have the "golden ears", they are the "creme of the crop", they got the "awards", etc. Why can't they substantially make it a much better product? I know that my facility, along with some others online, can make this possible. I have good examples of these claims, however, I don't wish to embarrass other mastering engineers by name. It would be nice to test mastering engineer skills once and for all and put this theory to rest. The results could be searchable all over the web. The criteria should be: mastering examples with analog or digital gear, and the source should be mixes strictly from amateur engineers. A bad mix is not possible to fix and there are many  reasons why a mix may sound "Bad". However, "mediocre" mixes can be rendered to sound OK or even GOOD, but it would require complete "mastery" of the mastering process and the correct use of the tools by the engineer! Many of you here at this talk page have made big claims that leads everyone to believe that analog mastering is "only performed by professionals" and analog equipment, the best method to do so. It's time to make a final debate with real mastering engineers, real life examples from real artists out there on the web that are seeking to know if these statements are true: This way indie artists and producers who have a limited budget and who already understand that their mixes are not the best, and who don't want to skimp on the mastering, but at the same time, don't want to unnecessarily throw away good money, can get a good idea of who will provide the best service and quality results. I believe that it would be unfair to say that every major mastering guy with awards and what not, does not have the skill to convert those mediocre mixes to the best perceived sound. But let's be honest, indie production submissions for mastering usually suck. Should we blame the outcome on the mastering guy? Final point: As I said before, because these mastering engineers are only familiar, or used to receive great mixes from state-of-the-art studios and from engineers that have their own academy awards, because of this, the majority are incapable of resolving the most complex engineering problems in a mix. They might have been elevated to a status of excellency (Thanks to the major labels), yet, there are some real amazing unknown mastering engineers out there that would teach them, how a complex and difficult-to-master mix, gets rendered. My guess is that, as more and more people get involved to record and mix records without an engineering background, the more useful it will be that this new breed of truly amazing mastering geniuses, get noted and cited for the benefit of the new independent music revolution. I am sure all the mastering engineers cited on the Audio mastering page are the exception, that's why they are in WP. But, if they want to join in on the debate, it would a great honor to read their points of view. I know some of you are going to give me flak about this and I expect it, just don't make personal attacks because your debate will be over. Jrod2 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A} Award winning mastering guys can master mediocre records better than the rest?
 * B) Only analog equipment can deliver the best sound out of a mix?
 * C) Mediocre indie mixes can never sound like a major record?
 * Let's not. Wikipedia is for discussion and improvement, not debate and original research. --Kjoonlee 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kjoonlee, if you are not an engineer, then, what are you doing in here? Also, I was not necessarily saying "let's use the article page to debate this". We can debate any of these concerns at the talk page and if any consensus about these topics are reached, then maybe they can be added to the article itself. How are we going to improve the article beyond what it's been said without discussing related points and making people find sources of reference? We are talking about mastering, Pal. Where else can we discuss it? Finally Kjoon, there is a lot more flexibility at article talk pages than article pages themselves. So, I am going to assume that you are just a bit misguided today. Jrod2 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Watching, reading, and editing, and pointing things out, of course. Nope, please reread WP:NOR and WP:NOT and WP:TALK, thank you. --Kjoonlee 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope! There is nothing on WP:NOR that says these rules applied to talk pages. Also on WP:TALK it clearly says "There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation...". You just want to keep things quit everywhere. You are lay-back, chilling editor. I am not. I want discussion(s). Thanks for your responses anyway. Jrod2 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kjoonlee, the truth is, if we are going to use talk pages "by the book", then, we should erase half of the sections above. Don't you think? Jrod2 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, read the rest of the links. If some of the sections are inappropriate, archive them, please. --Kjoonlee 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)