Talk:Professional audio

Untitled
When a DJ performs, they goto a venue, club, whatever. When they go, they bring their own equipment, including but not limited to, Turntables, cd players, computers equipped for digital audio control, battle mixers, Time base correctors, speakers, subwoofers, monitors, amps, compressor/limiters/gates, lights and light controls, microphones, smoke machines, video projectors and the like.

I think it makes sense to put DJs back in.


 * I've taken it out, along with the other PA-related stuff (stadiums and theme parks), as PA and its applications are really about reproducing sound to a crowd through loudspeakers. Pro audio is more about microphones than loudspeakers, IMHO, and I think that is the acid test of whether an activity counts as pro audio - is the activity centred on a techie at a mixing desk balancing lots of microphones? If it's mainly about playing recorded sound, it doesn't count. Harumphy 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see where the divergence is now... Pro Audio doesn't just simply refer to a classification of activity, but is also used to describe a level or grade of equipment too. Pro audio is NOT used exclusively to refer to the activity of recording, or to specific recording equipment either. You can go to equipment manufacturer's websites, such as JBLPRO.com for example, and see their 'professional audio' encompasses cinema sound, portable, touring, etc, and is not limited to recording. Same thing with Mackie, Behringer, etc.


 * Where does a DJ shop for their equipment? A pro audio shop. If you Google 'pro audio,' almost all of the first 30 results market their wares to and for DJs and other live reproduction type events.


 * The point being that just because one may think DJs don't count as a pro audio application does not change the fact that they predominatnely use pro audio equipment and is therefore still relevant.


 * By the reasoning you gave out, Shure would be a professional audio company, but not JBL, or Carver, or Cerwin Vega because the latter don't carry microphones.


 * The article needs the 'recording' part re-written to be non-exclusive, or removed entirely, imo. CHM 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I see it, pro audio is a combination of two things: (a) an activity done by someone as a full-time occupation, and (b) using top of the range kit.


 * Any fool can sell cheap tat by using the word "professional" in his marketing. Whether it really is professional depends on whether a professional user - i.e. someone who earns his living full-time from the activity, is properly trained in it, and has earned a reputation for at least competence - would use it. I can assure you that the full-time sound balancers and recordists I know - some of whom have engineered top-selling albums, film soundtracks, TV and radio shows - would not regard Mackie or Behringer kit as anywhere near up to their requirements. A few do use JBL monitors in their control rooms, most use something far better. Harumphy 09:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * but since when is your anecdotal experience viable for use in an article? I'm sorry, maybe I'm not looking at it right, but your response seemed to be more of product elitism than substance or counter-point. I'm guessing from your vernacular that you're English; had you also considered the possibility of having a different locality of experience on the subject?


 * Again, 'professional audio' is not a term exclusive to recording, but for any sound engineering, capturing, and performance application. This is demonstrable both in professional consumption, referential marketing, and observable application. And simply because there are people you may have respect for that don't like certain 'brands' for what they do does not invalidate them, or make it relevant for an article here. CHM 06:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely experience, anecdotal or otherwise, is preferable to the only alternative, namely inexperience? I only mentioned it to make a point on this talk page, not within the article itself.


 * The word 'professional' is inherently elitist. The whole point of it is to distinguish between the professional on the one hand, and the unprofessional, semi-professional, dilettantish or amateur on the other. The concept of professionalism, almost by definition, shuts out that which doesn't measure up to its standards. See profession.


 * I am English, although I don't understand how that is relevant. The sound engineers I have met from other western countries, including several from the US, work to similarly demanding and critical standards. If there are significant national or local variations in how pro audio is practiced, maybe these could be incorporated into the article.


 * I don't regard equipment brands as very important; but you mentioned three of them. I merely responded to your point. The reality is that people who push faders for a living - i.e. professionals - generally don't push Mackie or Behringer faders. They might push AMS Neve or Solid State Logic faders. Most people who push Mackie or Behringer faders do so as a hobby. That's why they don't count as pro audio equipment.


 * I started this article to describe a subject that I have 30 years experience of and since then, various wannabees have added 'me too' to the list of 'pro audio' activities. It's pathetic. I wish I'd never started. Harumphy 08:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * and you're unwilling to consider that in that 3 decades time or beyond the UK, the dimensions of it could have expanded? That it could have grown to include other applications beyond the immediate scope & locus of your anecdotal experience? Because you have yet to produce a citeable reference that says "even though Numark and Denon market and sell their products for professional audio use, and even though they are standards used by working vinyl & digital DJs who perform with them for a living all over the world, neither really count as professional audio because they don't have anything to do with sound recording or record making."


 * ...because by the definition one can look up in an Oxford, professional does not mean elitist, nor does the wiki article imply indirectly. (though the article scope seems to be limited to electronics rather than professional equipment as a whole.) Professional would simply mean used by professionals or of satisfactory consistency to be used by professionals.


 * If you're uncomfortable with people adding to, taking away, editing, or refining the content you submit, you might be on the wrong site; especially if your interpretation of this is so strict to you that it causes you stress to entertain the idea that 'various wannabees' ended up under the same umbrella. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tone of your point of view seems to be two-fold repugnance toward DJs as a profession, and to brand names used by some professionals that your personal experience doesn't meet a satisfactory quality level.


 * If you want to pick up your ball and go home, not much I can do to stop you, but rather than have an edit-war, I tried to continue the discourse here hoping we could come to a better understanding. But if you're more interested in maintaining the perception of 'ownership' of the article you created first, you might want to re-evaluate why you are contributing here.CHM 17:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Much of the above is incoherent. Also, you seem to be repeating earlier points to which I have already responded. Furthermore, your Anglophobia is becoming offensive. I don't want to waste time with such an unintelligent discussion. Bye. Harumphy 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

i dunno whats up with those last two edits... the changes and inclusions don't seem to make much sense.CHM 17:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Expanding this article
Hello,

I've been drafting some edits to this article, including adding a history section (currently the history section is focused on the history of audio recording, but as my professor suggested I will be adding to the section to include the history of the "professionalization" of the field). The full draft is here: User:JonNotJohn/sandbox. I will start by porting over the update introduction and definition, please let me know if you have any questions or want to help me expand this article!

Best!

--JonNotJohn (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed your addition because you made the unsupported assertion that Alexander Graham Bell is "widely" considered the first pro audio engineer. I've never seen that in print, and I read a lot. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have done the same. You also converted a lot of simple links unnecessarily to piped links. Both work but we don't change stuff just to change stuff. Please respect the time of other editors reviewing your changes, take it slow and make clear improvements to the article. There's a bit of a learning curve to deal with here. Let me know if I can help. ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the feedback. Sorry for using piped links incorrectly, I was trying to make sure all the linked articles fit grammatically, but please let me know if there is a better way to accomplish that. Besides from the Bell citation (which yes, I completely missed finding a citation for that after my first draft thank you both for catching that!) and the over use of piped links are there any other issues with the content itself? JonNotJohn (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are the changes we're discussing. I'm not sure why you added Jobs in... I don't see DJing as an improvement over DJ performance. The lead should summarize what's in the body. You've added The history of professional audio is rooted in... to the lead. There's no such statement in the body. If you want to add this, find a citation. You've expanded unsourced material in the Definition section. What we have there now is not great but making it bigger and still unsourced does not make it better. You've removed citations. ~Kvng (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and response. I am new to Wikipedia and am becoming a tad frustrated with this process-- where am I supposed to find a source for the fact that Mastering is a part professional audio? Why am I required to source that material when "Balancing, mixing and adjusting sound signals from multitrack recording devices using a mixing console" is unsourced? Is this article doomed to be subpar because the term is used colloquially?
 * 16:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC) JonNotJohn (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're frustrated. There are many textbooks written for people studying professional audio. Start with a visit to the library, Google Books or the bookshelf at the Internet Archive. We have a lot of weak material in the encyclopedia but that does not justify taking it further away from where we'd like it to be. If you're not interested in adding sourced material, you may find other tasks such as copy editing, identifying problems, adding descriptions, adding diagrams and pictures and improving organization to be satisfying. ~Kvng (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Many books have been written about pro audio. You'll find good information in books about mastering, too. At least one of these books will describe mastering as part of pro audio. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Online Communities
— Assignment last updated by NUstudent1316 (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)