Talk:Echoplex

Jerry Goldsmith
I've added Jerry Goldsmith to the list, though I am not sure how to give a citation for this. Goldsmith and Miles Davis are the most famous musicians for using echoplex and to leave Goldsmith out is just plain silly. Specifically, the devise itself may be best known for Goldsmith's use of it in Planet of the Apes, Patton and Alien. Gingermint (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter statement is not true at all--the machine had plenty of notability already before 1968. But in general, silly or not, inclusion should be based on reliable sources. There are already too many articles where people just drop names in based on what they think is true or what they read on some forum. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, Goldsmith is perfectly acceptable, based on this book search. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why was the section "The Echoplex Digital Pro" deleted ?
On the last few edit on 2011-01-07, the section "The Echoplex Digital Pro" was entirely deleted. I think it is not reasonable, because Echoplex brand is not only for old tape echo units such as EP2, but also for digital version which is monumental on modern loop-music communities. Why was it deleted ? I'll restore the section if we could reach some agreements :) --Clusternote (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (added indent. Please add indent on discussion)
 * It's not the first time. The first time it was removed, the description given was 'rm spammy section: note that none of the links are to reliable sources.'  Looks like the second time was due to so-called unreliable sources also.  How many people need to vouch for a source before it is considered reliable?
 * Sean Echevarria (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your opinion didn't respond to my first question. Why you want to delete the section ? The section "Echoplex Digital Pro" on article about "Echoplex" brand is not the "Spammy section". And on second time, full of reliable sources were already added, but you also delete the section again. If you think the sources are not reliable, you should discuss about it on here. Please don't delete the section without any discussion or request for more reliable sources. Your actions seem to be too hasty. Clusternote (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my confusing. At now, I understand the first deletion was done on 15:15, 13 September 2010. The reason, unreliable sources, seems to be not reasonable. --Clusternote (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I restored it the first time.  Your beef isn't with me.Sean Echevarria (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * > There is little to discuss. I don't own the article (so please keep those accusations to yourself), but I am interested in keeping it free from useless links to sources that cannot count as reliable. This is not a reliable source. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (copied Drmies's comment from Clusternote's talk page by Clusternote (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC). please don't diffuse discussion places)


 * OK, if you think so, do you agree the restoration of the section "Echoplex Digital Pro" except for the source you said ? --Clusternote (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (added indent to Drmies's comment)
 * I don't understand the problem. Wikipedia has a policy on reliable sources: it's found at WP:RS. That Loopers delight site is obviously not a reliable source. If you think it is, post a notice on Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but there is no a priori reason to think that such a website, without clear editorial control, would be a reliable source by our standards. Sean, it's not about how many people vouch for something--it's about whether a community of editors believes that the publication passes muster. It's not reliable because you say so.
 * Not to belabor the point, but Looper's Delight was created by Kim Flint when he was a Gibson employee working on the Echoplex Digital Pro (he worked at the G-Wiz lab in Oakland).Sean Echevarria (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cluster, you'll note that I did not remove that Gibson News thing--but while I don't doubt the basic information in that article, it's a company website and thus cannot contribute to any kind of notability for that specific effects unit which, of course, has nothing in common with the subject of the article except for the name. Well, that part is covered in the last section, "Towards the middle of that decade the Echoplex brand was purchased by Gibson and applied to its line of digital looping units, one of which was sold under the Oberheim brand as the Echoplex Digital Pro." Without real reliable sources discussing that unit, and especially without a firm connection besides the name, I don't see any reason to restore that section. After all, these kinds of articles are not about a brandname, which is all these things have in common--the article is about a machine, and the EDP is decidedly not a further developed version of it. What you could do is write a separate article, but given the sourcing there is little chance that it would survive a deletion discussion. Another thing you could do is write an article on that person you cited a few times, and try that out for notability. Are there no real sources, that pass muster with our policies, that discuss Grob and his work? There's a sleuth of audio magazines and guitar magazines--is there nothing there? Write one of these two articles, and wikilink from our article--that strikes me as congruent with our policies. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Drmies, Wikipedia is a place of cooperative work, but your responses and actions are not cooperative at all. You are avoiding the discussion for obtaining the consensus.  On first and second deletion, you described unreliable sources. But, after the addition of reliable sources, again you delete the section and explain Digital Echoplex Pro is not the original Echoplex.  Your insistence lack the consistency.  --Clusternote (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have it your way. Stop patronizing me. I've been here long enough to know that it is and what it isn't. Stop telling me what to indent and how. Don't start considering adding gossip and chit-chat based on forum posts and news releases to encyclopedic articles. Start making sense: one cannot avoid a discussion for obtaining consensus, when it is obvious that in this case the one is only one, who is arguing against two relatively unexperienced editors who do not yet seem to grasp the importance of having reliable sources. No one of sound mind who reads this talk page can think I am avoiding discussion--on the contrary, I have tried discussing things with you, but you seem to be more interested in wikilawyering. Because the Gibson News thing stated some things doesn't mean they are relevant or ought to be included. You have yet to answer the specific question about how this pet product of yours (what is your interest in that looping website?), which has no connection to the subject but a brandname, has any relevance in this article. You also misrepresent what I've said: look in the article history for the words "this is what is verifiable." They are there, and they are mine. A final remark: inviting cooperation can be done in lots of ways. Re-indenting my messages because you think they weren't done properly is not one of them. Properly reading other people's messages in which suggestions are kindly offered, that might be a good way. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Drmies, on first deletion, you should discuss and explain why you want to delete the section, to share the existence of the issue. If any preceded discussions were already exist, other users including me may carefully avoid to touch the Mastodon. That's all. --Clusternote (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For your suggestion about new article, it is not a reasonable solution because Echoplex is still brand name of Gibson. If you want to eliminate the digital version, you should split the article about tape echo version, but it would not last long because it may be re-merged to main article anyway. The best solution may be co-existence of two versions on one article. --Clusternote (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Drmies, on first deletion, you should discuss and explain why you want to delete the section, to share the existence of the issue. If any preceded discussions were already exist, other users including me may carefully avoid to touch the Mastodon. That's all. --Clusternote (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For your suggestion about new article, it is not a reasonable solution because Echoplex is still brand name of Gibson. If you want to eliminate the digital version, you should split the article about tape echo version, but it would not last long because it may be re-merged to main article anyway. The best solution may be co-existence of two versions on one article. --Clusternote (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

<-- Well, it's not an article about a brand name. It's an article about a tape delay echo, which happens to be a highly notable product. The digital version is just not that notable--this is the most useful source I found. (This is what is called a good-faith effort toward cooperation.) Perhaps you have something on your bookshelf, some publication that's not web-accessible. Even a stub with a single reference would look a lot better than the average effect unit article, which is a crying shame--look at something like Big Muff, a great distortion pedal with, no doubt, plenty of references available. But that's beside the point. What is in the article now about the digital version, that's about all you can possibly get out of a Gibson press release, and the fact remains that it's an article about a tape delay. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a tangent, but the Big Muff article has no references (reliable or otherwise). Why didn't you delete it? Sean Echevarria (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sean, no tangent whatsoever: I can't delete anything; I'm not an administrator. At the most, I can nominate something for deletion (see WP:AFD), and so can you. But the rules for deletion basically say that if a subject is notable, even if the article is bad and unreferenced, then the article is not to be deleted. So, since the Big Muff is notable enough it would (or should!) not be deleted. Oh, it is notable not because of what it says here, but because of this--and if Hendrix used something, verifiably, then it's pretty much a safe bet. Now, if you were asking why I didn't go through and delete the unverified content, there's a few answers. a. that's the entire article. b. the article is not actually poorly written, and many of the claims can be verified. c. I have nothing to replace it with. When I do, it's a different story. The Echoplex article is in pretty decent shape (it's been peer reviewed since it was a DYK). Another example: I did have something of a start at Boss DS-1, and did some cleanup and found additional references. But last night, I didn't have anything to improve Big Muff--I was just looking for an example, and you can't do everything at the same time. Does that help? Incidentally, with the Google Book search for the Big Muff, you can get to work if you wish to improve it. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable Users
"Spirit" guitarist Randy California, whom I saw several times live, had some type of effects "box" that he used onstage and obviously in the studio. He (it) had the richest, most varied types of sounds and had the ability to pre-record a solo track and play against it in harmony; in effect, the very first double guitar- solo before the Allman Bros, Deep Purple etc. The first "Spirit" album was recorded in 1966, when Randy was just 15, and released in 1967. Could the Echoplex have been Randy's "box"?Dcrasno (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Echoplex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204233647/http://www.vintageguitar.com/features/brands/details.asp?AID=1170 to http://www.vintageguitar.com/features/brands/details.asp?AID=1170

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)