Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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. - 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)



Hey, Goldenglove, I tweaked your userbox for more readability. Binksternet 05:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

WP:FS advertisement
You may be interested in the recently activated Featured sounds project. It is the audio equivalent of 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 Featured sound candidates. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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 - and of course Media Help in case you have never played an Ogg/Theora movie before. I just wanted to make sure Wikipedia stayed factual before I made some modifications. Thanks for your time and effort. Triddle 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey there Triddle. What you've created there would be called a Real time analyzer, which displays intensity over frequency. Spectrograms usually display frequency over time. That's how it works in practice anyways. According to the Spectrogram article, RTAs are a kind of spectrogram (look under format). This makes sense, but I'd have to look into it before vouching for it. --Davidkazuhiro 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information David, I added the movie accordingly. Incidentally, the new title of the movie is now [[Image:My_Songo_Real_Time_Analysis.ogg|My_Songo_Real_Time_Analysis.ogg]]. Triddle 15:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.
 * JAMin
 * Nuendo (tagged as speedy)
 * Pro Tools (asserts notability, but lacks references)
 * XO Wave
 * Sound Forge

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)

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)

Major Revision to Mastering Studio at Studio
Guys, I just completed a revision of the 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)

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)

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)

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.  Goldenglove Contribs · Talk 07:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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:
 * 1.  The Big Squeeze: Mastering engineers debate music's loudness wars (MIX Professional Audio and Music Production magazine)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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

--PM - PhilyG talk 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC) I propose this one. Jrod2 15:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:
 * Sound operator
 * Audio editing
 * Professional audio
 * History of sound recording
 * Sound recording and reproduction

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Featured sound candidate
Hi, I wonder whether you have time to look in at Featured_sound_candidates/When_Johnny_Comes_Marching_Home. It's a matter of balancing what I see as a poor musical performance with any historical value the recording has (yet to be justified by the nominators). The criteria are here. TONY  (talk)  03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?  " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) -, member of WikiProject Council. 14:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Audio mixing scope too wide and could use a split to additional articles
I'm trying to expand the (currently very poor) Audio mixing article, but I have a big problem with its scope. Originally, Audio mixing included music mixing, live mixing, post-production (motion-picture) mixing and DJ mixing. Trying to write an article that is concise to all four is next to impossible. The history, process, equipment used, while similar, is very different; and it is very hard to write text that is correct to all four categories. The large format consoles used in music mixing is different to those used in post-production theaters, and in live sound there are often specialized matrix desks. If this article is to be written properly it will have to have a top-level division to the three industries (music, live, motion-picture), which suggest that initially there should be more than one article. I suggest:


 * Audio Mixing (for studio music mixing)
 * Live mixing
 * Motion-picture audio mixing
 * (DJ mixing)

Your comments are highly welcomed. Izhaki (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PS This page could use some archiving - some discussion are inactive since 2006.


 * You're showing your background in suggesting that studio mixing take the standard name for itself. Me, I think "audio mixing" should stay general since it is general.


 * Another couple of types of mixing: radio and television broadcast mixing, and unattended mixing such as occurs via automixer in a civic conference room or courtroom.


 * My suggestion would be make the Audio mixing page be brief; have it describe the various kinds of mixing and offer links for the reader to jump off into the more specific kind of mixing they had in mind. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes sense and fine by me keeping audio mixing brief. Does this mean that there should be a new article titled Music Mixing? Studio Mixing? How shall we call it? Izhaki (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we please agree on the following article titles, to be linked from the Audio Mixing article:
 * Studio Mixing
 * Live Sound Mixing
 * Motion-picture Sound Mixing
 * DJ Mixing
 * Izhaki (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 402 articles are assigned to this project, of which 135, or 33.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:



If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Professional sound production
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable ) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Compact Cassette
nominated Compact Cassette for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Stephen 05:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of professional sound production?
By the way, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

Now back to the question...

The Transhumanist 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bose product pages up for deletion
More opinions would be appreciated at the AfD:Bose stereo speakers page. All are welcome to weigh in on whether the eight articles covering Bose Corporation product lines should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1
Feel free to comment at Featured article candidates/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Logic Pro issues
Crossposted to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

An anonIP has been adding a very poorly worded and sourced rant to the Logic Pro article (e.g., this and this). I object to the lack of sourcing and the language style used, but it is possible the editor has a point with respect to the underlying content. I do not know enough about the online audio world to help research that, but perhaps some eyes here can help craft something encyclopedic and well-sourced.

Of course, if that is not possible, more eyes on that page would be welcome to protect it from editors' vendettas. Thanks either way. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Euroblock
The Euroblock article has been tagged for deletion. I'm uncomfortable with this (Google shows plenty of hits for euroblocks from suppliers) but lack expertise to engage on the topic. Article is very stubbish, but I suspect there is a genuine article there waiting to emerge.Perhaps someone from this project could address? Thanks!

Cje (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I worked on it some, and removed the PROD tag. It still needs references, though, and I'm having a hard time finding any sort of specifications for the connector itself. Perhaps someone else will know where to look. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  15:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I used Dennis Bohn's Rane Pro Audio Reference to define some terms, and so I removed the "unreferenced" tag. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for jumping on this! --Cje (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

PreSonus Studio One
I've added PreSonus and PreSonus Studio One to the project. Since I work for PreSonus I'd appreciate people having a look at the articles and making improvements. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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:. 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)

Sorry to arrive so late to this party. A distinction that used to be made by the HiFi trade magazines many years ago was that a PA system provides lots of amplification aimed at intelligible speech, whereas a sound reinforcement system is concerned with fidelity and is generally used for concerts as opposed to speeches. My information may be completely out of date, but this is the distinction that I recall from the early days when SR was first introduced. --Rocket Laser Man (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can tell you with certainty that modern concert sound system people still refer to the concert speakers as a "PA" in casual conversation. Specifically, the loudspeakers aimed at the audience are often called the "PA" or the "mains". Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been some recent discussion how to organize Public address and Sound reinforcement articles. Please post any additional comments to Talk:Public address. --Kvng (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

AES/EBU embedded timecode
Help is needed on the AES/EBU embedded timecode article, which was up for deletion, and I've now suggested be merged into the AES3 article. However, the reference I've found for this timecode embedding (Ratcliff) seems to contradict the information currently given in the AES3 article for the use of the same bits in the channel status word. Can anyone dig up an authoritative reference for this? -- The Anome (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

5.1, 7.1
FYI, there's a move request at 8 channel audio that relates to the new article 5.1 that may be of interest to you. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Article overlap
There seems to be unnecessary overlap amongst Reel-to-reel audio tape recording, Tape recorder and Magnetic tape sound recording. I thought this might be the best place to discuss a plan for better organizing this material. --Kvng (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Additive synthesis
There is a dispute at Talk:Additive_synthesis on whether the sinusoidal definition (3) should be treated as the main definition in the article, and a third opinion would be welcome. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Professional sound production articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Professional sound production articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Article importance
Why is there no capability in the project template to rate article importance? --Kvng (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be pretty trivial to add this to the template. If you like, I can add it (assuming there are no objections).  However, there should probably be some kind of bare-bones standard to go by when sorting articles by importance (i.e. a general way to determine what makes one prof. sound production article more important than another).  Snotty Wong   prattle 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, there's the small task of rating the importance of nearly 600 articles... Snotty Wong  gab 06:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ive added a draft importance scale to the assessment page. --Kvng (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are just over 100 articles with ratings higher than start-class. I would start importance ratings with those in descending quality. Importance ratings are used to help decide what gets included in Wikipedia editions - see section preceding. --Kvng (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Template updated. Get to work!  Snotty Wong   confabulate 17:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User Ease of Rewind Function: Analog versus Digital
In all the topics, I cannot find one that addresses it from a USER perspective. Mainly, I bought a digital recorder, but you cannot rewind a digital recorder. For a user who is used to stopping, rewinding and re-phrasing what is dictated, this does not work with the Olympus digital. I was told you have to make bookmarks. Is there a way to use a digital recorder in the same way as a tape recorder in that I can rewind and re-dictate my last sentence whenever I feel like it, which is pretty easy to do? This is one drawback I see, but maybe I just don't know how to use a digital recorder to do the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.29.116 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on the digital media. For example, a DAT (Digital Audio Tape), ADAT (Digital on Super VHS), DASH (digital on reel to reel tape), or other formats that used tape to record the digital PCM information would rewind, just like an analog tape recorder.  However, if your digital unit stores information on a hard drive, flash drive, or other non-tape destination, you may not be able to rewind the same way.   Regardless, you should be able to go back in time (via timeline or time counter) and re-do sections of audio.  Heck, that's what overdubbing is anyway.  Hope this was helpful Greenshinobi (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Save the Beta 58A?
I have nominated the Shure Beta 58A article for deletion. I looked around the web for something that would make this microphone more notable and I came up empty. I welcome anybody who can establish its notability. Please comment at Articles for deletion/Shure Beta 58A. Cheers to any who can save the article! Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just fold the Beta 58A info under either the SM58 or the Beta Series article or under SHURE? Greenshinobi (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This AfD was withdrawn. Doesn't look like any changes are needed at this time. --Kvng (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Replay Gain requested move
Please consider weighing in on the proposal to move Replay Gain to ReplayGain. --Kvng (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Commercially unbiased
It seems that this page is somewhat commercially biased towards Cirrus Research as a manufacturer and that it is being used as a marketing tool. All of the images used are branded Cirrus so either a mix of different manufacturer's images should be used,or blur out any branding within the images used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimTurney (talk • contribs) 08:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which page? -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  12:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sound_level_meter, German sound level meter page, French sound level meter page — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimTurney (talk • contribs) 13:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The English page has only one image of a Cirrus SPL meter, the German page has images of two different Cirrus SPL meters, and the French page has images of both a Cirrus and a B&K SPL meter. Of those three, the German one is the only one where Cirrus might be favored, but there is nothing in the text of any of these articles favoring any particular manufacturer. It would not be appropriate to attempt to include images of every manufacturer's SPL meter. The images in the articles as they stand are simply meant to be examples, and I believe the average reader would understand that. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  14:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

AMS Neve up for AFD
I guess it is a sad indicator of the absence of experts in this field when the article for AMS Neve is put up for AFD. I thought of fighting the AFD, but what's the point? I can't maintain this field on my own and there clearly aren't enough other people. A real shame. Manning (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not despair. That was not difficult to turn around. You are not alone. --Kvng (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Neve deleted? That would have been ridiculous. If someone had deleted it I would have rewritten it. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mult box
Can somebody tweak this article for obvious errors or ommissions? Bearian (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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!

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Missing sound technology topics
Has anyone of you had a look at the sound section of one of my missing topics lists - Skysmith (talk)¨

Lossy compression and perceived quality
Several sections on "lossy" audio compression schemes need to be cleaned up and correct contradictory information, such as in the section on audio_compression (data) which says lossy compression is perceptually the same as lossless compression, but then goes on to say it is lower quality and lossless compression is used to avoid common lossy compression distortions such as artifacting. Lossy audio isn't exactly able to reproduce an audio signal without loss of detail and it can come out completely different. The claim that it can't be differenciated by humans is also rubbish, at best it produces something that only sounds similar and to achieve this it has to be specially trained (called tuning) and at this time it only works for humans. "Lossy" compression deletes sounds and information that are less prominently noticed by humans but they can still hear them, the human ear and brain can observe much more audio fidelity than all lossy compression schemes hide.

There's a whole lot of lack of references in these articles, as well. Togiff (talk)

the bass cut in the IEC/RIAA disk replay curve
as an eye whitness and a participant in a discussion in BBC designs department (section one, sound recording and reproduction) some time before 1970 I can tell you all how it started.

Cecil Henoq who represented the BBC on one of those valuable BSI commities came into our corner of the "lab" and mentioned that there had been some discussion of the value of the low frequency cut-off in disk reproduction as gain was in limited supply at the low end of the spectrum with the type of pre-amplifier circuit in use. that is, that the gain would run out resulting in a rather variable roll-off at LF depending on the open loop gain of the amplifier. He asked G V Buckley and myself what value of roll-off we applied. GVB had settled on neg one DB at 40 c/s as it was in line with BBC practice. i was quite in agreement. Now, neg one DB at 40 c/s is a curve that is neg three DB at twenty cycles. as simple as that... a casual question and answer over the coffee.

further, there is (was) no complementary bass boost intended for the cutter.

i do smile when i think that this has rumbled on for about fourty years.

in these days of 100dB open loop gain high spec op-amps it might be better to quiety bury it. however, as i watched my speaker cones flutter in and out years ago i thout that there should be some system in system design. my opinion is that a good digital filter should help a lot: if there is good recorded material.

further, please note that the participants are refering to the recorded velocity. if this continues constant down to very low frequency the amplitude increases proportionatly and the result is a mess. so, there has to be a roll off in the cutter. as we have to do this it might be better to formalise it but doing so might inhibit progress (if any now). william r blankley 20 march 2012.

Audio mixing
There are several articles covering Audio mixing but nothing but this disambiguation page to tie it all together. There is a discussion in progress on how to best organize this topic. --Kvng (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Keeping track of tasks
Template:WPBannerMeta has provisions for leaving project-specified notes on article talk pages. We could use this to pretty neatly keep track of tasks in lieu of the current temporary system. What I suggest is to create a note for each task, paralleling the current ones, then the notes can be added to article talk pages inside the project template. Putting a note in the banner automatically categorizes it under a category for that note, so instead of keeping track of tasks by editing the page over here manually, we can just put in a listing of the note categories.

As an example, a note could be created for articles that need expansion, then to delegate an article to that task, you'd just add a |needs-expansion parameter to the banner, which would automatically categorize the talk page under, say, Category:Professional sound production articles needing expansion, which could be linked here. It requires a few extra clicks to view the articles from WP:PSP, but it delegates specific tasks to article talk pages, keeping them a bit more localized to the articles themselves, which would be a lot more convenient during editing. This may also be a positive change, given the relative inactivity of the project, since a lot of the edits (perhaps a majority) are being made by users that aren't project members and it makes our project goals more visible to them.

A note could also be created for verification, so if, for instance, you've expanded an article but aren't sure if it's enough to warrant removal of the note, you can place a |needs-verification parameter on the banner, which would categorize it over here under the category for articles needing verification.

It still isn't perfect, but I think this would be a lot better than the current system, which, as far as I can tell, isn't really being used at all now. If it pleases and sparkles, I can go ahead and make the additions to the banner, as well as add a relevant subpage to the project (at something like /Task note procedure) with a guide to the note system.

I am also considering adding task forces to the banner, mainly just to keep working on organization. There aren't really enough people here for task forces to actually exist, but it's a way of sorting articles internally within the project scope.

Either generalized, like this: Or by subject, like this: Either would make sense to me, though I think the first is more encompassing, since we have a pretty wide range of information within the scope of the project.
 * 1) Concepts and terminology
 * 2) Equipment and technology
 * 3) People and corporations
 * 4) Techniques and methodology
 * 1) Sound recording production
 * 2) Live sound reinforcement
 * 3) Broadcast

I'll give the talk here a little time for others to weigh in, but I know there's really only a couple of you that I see still active at the moment (Binksternet, Kvng, looking at you guys). I am pretty sure these would be well-received changes, so I am inclined to just go ahead and do it if there isn't much discussion by towards the end of the week. The basic problem here is that there are a lot of articles within the project scope and not enough people to effectively manage them. These seem to me like two pretty effective steps to take towards fixing the issue. Radiodef (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added a first note for an example. Relevant pages to look at:
 * WikiProject Professional sound production/Assessment
 * Talk:ReplayGain
 * Category:Professional sound production articles for new assessment


 * Just a harmless example to show what this is capable of. Radiodef (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also WikiProject Professional sound production Radiodef (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is more process automation than is necessary. The fact that editors are not using the current simple/manual system is not evidence that improvements are required. Could be just the opposite - e.g. there's enough room for improvement anywhere you look that there's no need to identify where the work is. I've successfully used to do locally organize work at the article scope. -—Kvng 14:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added over 300 articles to the project's scope
Over the weekend and with Binksternet's consent I have added over 300 articles to the scope of this project. For every article I added, I gave it a class and an importance. I have also added class and/or importance to many existing articles. I think I may have been slightly generous with defining things as class C and class Starter. When I started out I set importance on existing articles on the high side. Many at top or high. Since I started adding new articles, I have set most at Mid importance. Please take a look at WikiProject Professional sound production articles and Current Statistics. Revise as needed. Robert.Harker (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good work! That was with my encouragement, not consent. Nobody is in charge here to give consent. :-)
 * Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Amplifier organization
Is being discussed at Talk:Amplifier. -—Kvng 14:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is another proposal in there. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks Olli! -—Kvng 15:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Professional audio
Professional audio is a stub. I've nominated at WP:TAFI. Can we also give it some love? -—Kvng 15:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Categories: sound mixer versus electrical engineer
Over at the project page for WikiProject Professional sound production/To do there is a discussion of how to organize the different types of audio engineers/engineering jobs. This is located under Categories: sound mixer versus electrical engineer.

Since it has no associated Talk page, I'm placing my thoughts on that topic here. If this is not a good place (or not the best place) to do so, please tell me! I know this isn't really a good excuse, but I am a newbie--not just at this WikiProject but at Wikipedia in general, which, unfortunately, means that I'm going to be a bit more prone to errors when it comes to "how things are done here," the sort of things one learns only by just doing something for a while.

Anyway, Binksternet offers this suggestion: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ob1-kenogle (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd put mastering engineer under "Studio", like this:


 * Studio engineers:
 * Recording engineer
 * Mixing engineer
 * Mastering engineer
 * Live mix engineer
 * Audio engineer


 * It's also possible to break live sound people into FOH mix, monitor mix and system engineer. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I like the changes he made under "studio engineers," namely the three types of engineers he proceeds to list.

For the category "Live mix engineer," I offer using the term "Sound reinforcement engineer" instead. (I took long enough for me to get around to the point of this edit, didn't it?

Also, perhaps I missed something somewhere, but I don't understand why "Audio engineer" is listed at all, as it seems redundant and is a broader category than either "Studio engineers" or "Live mix/Sound reinforcement engineers."

And he's right about the subtypes "FOH (front-of-house) engineer," "Monitoring (perhaps use "monitor" instead) engineer," and so forth.

By the way, folks, if I haven't already messed something up or offended someone's sensibilities/ego/parents, I am looking for someone to "adopt" me. (You know, after typing out those two words they seems a little bit, well, creepy.) Unless something changes drastically around here, as both my wife and I have health issues, and I've been on disability since 1997, I certainly do plan to be around Wikipedia for some time, and not only in this WikiProject. (Well, it's also possible I could be banned or something, but surely not me...!) I definitely believe I have a good deal of ignorance knowledge and experience to offer. Of course, it's also true that the most important thing I've learned about the internet in general, since it arrived, is that

1. No matter how much you think you know about something--anything--there will always be someone else out there considerably smarter than you, and who is capable of making you look like an ignorant fool without a lot of effort.

2. If such a person exists, he/she will publicly correct everything you just posted and will make you look like an ignorant fool. Which you are. At least you will believe you are now, even if nobody else does.

3. This will cure you of any inclination toward posting anything at all, anywhere, for a long, long time. A really long time.

Oh--sorry about that "unsigned comment." I certainly had intended to put a signature at the end when I was finished, but, of course, as soon as I posted just a part Mr. SineBot, being a non-biological entity (nothing personal, Mr. SineBot, sir), sprung into action quite faster than I was able to finish. Yes, I realize I shoulda made a lot more use of "Preview," and that this is but one evidence of my heretofore-referenced newbieness.

Ob1-kenogle (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I like your "Sound reinforcement engineer" better than my "Live mix engineer" but just as much as "Live sound engineer". Not everybody who is expert at sound reinforcement is actually mixing. Some live sound engineers are busy with wireless frequency coordination, or with delay towers, or with patching, setting mics, changing stage monitors, etc. With that in mind I am not as positive about "Live mix engineer". On the other hand, nobody is going to get famous for coordinating frequencies. ;^)
 * The "Audio engineer" designation is there for the famous audio system and equipment designers, such as Ed Long or David Gunness (both loudspeaker designers), Graham Blyth the mixer designer, or even Don Buchla the synthesizer guy, though his audio gear was all of the musical instrument type. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like the proposal is to create some functional sub-categories below Category:Audio engineers. Right now the only functional sub-category is Category:Mastering engineers (there is also Category:Audio engineers by nationality). Sounds reasonable. I think we should keep it simple. I propose the following sub-categories under Category:Audio engineers:

-—Kvng 15:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Live sound engineers
 * Category:Recording engineers
 * Category:Mastering engineers
 * Category:Audio equipment designers


 * Looks good. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"Cue sheet"
The usage of Cue sheet is under discussion, see Talk:Cue sheet (computing) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

IXI.jpg
image:IXI.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

File:IXI sketch 2.jpg
File:IXI sketch 2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Compact Cassette Logo.svg
image:Compact Cassette Logo.svg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Logic Pro
There's a RM at Talk:Ultrabeat which may be of interest. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate templates
It seems clear that Template:AVconn and Template:Audio and video interfaces and connectors need to be merged. The only obstacle seems to be lack of participation in discussions and lack of someone to do the work. I would, and still may, do it but my experience working with templates is limited. ~KvnG 16:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Funktion-One
I just added Funktion-One to Article requests. 72.244.204.173 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for assistance (cross-posted on article talk page)
For the article Pono_(digital_music_service) Text removed -- should it go back in? I took out the numerical decibel info in "a new less dynamically compressed master with high resolution in mind with an average dynamic range of -10.00 dB below 0 dB is necessary for a noticeable increase in sound quality" because the wording near it was garbled and because I thought the minus sign on the decibels was a typo. The references (one before and three after) didn't help, but negative decibel numbers are real; a decibel rating, to my surprise, is always relative to something. So please feel free to put this text back in, especially if you can find a reference. Thanks. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Jo3sampl (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like this has been competently resolved at Talk:Pono_(digital_music_service). Dynamic range in audio mastering is covered in detail in Loudness war. ~KvnG 12:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Professional Sound Production at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Rewards
I'm offering a reward for most improvements to audio articles over the next 90 days. A separate reward for the first new GA audio networking article. Knock yourselves out! ~KvnG 15:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

MSR Studios
Hello! I noticed that this very promotional-looking article is referenced only to the subject's own website. Can members of this project please take a look? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Gain listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gain to be moved to Gain (electronics). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Sawmills Studio, Cornwall
Hi There, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.213.174 (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

CobraNet RfC
Please contribute your thoughts on a dispute regarding inclusion of a list of licensed manufacturers in the CobraNet article. ~Kvng (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Audacity (audio editor) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Audacity (audio editor) to be moved to Audacity. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

My Ears!
The Wikipedia Page for "White Noise", and possibly the pages for brown noise and gaussian noise and so fourth, has an absolutely pain inducing sample. Do not check the sample yourself, it may be actually dangerous to hear at high volume. Thispagehasathing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

My Ears! (Clarification)
I cannot add to the "Talk" Page for "White Noise"/ other pages. More importantly, I cant remove that sample. Please remove this sample if you can, and check the samples of the other types of noise - even at low volume its painfully loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thispagehasathing (talk • contribs) 02:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Monaural symbol?
The Monaural article has an image at the top which is uncaptioned. It was first added in 2006 and captioned then as "Label for 1.0 sound, mono." The Quadraphonic sound article has a similar image. Are these indeed standard labels, and if so where does one typically see them? 24.7.14.87 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any industry standard for these speaker-placement diagrams. There are standards for the placement of speakers themselves. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Loudest sounds
There are currently discussions at RfD for the redirect at Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13 where input from editors knowledgeable about loudness and related concepts would be most welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Website link
Hi,

In the "Production music" page I added a link to a website dedicated to one library music composer. But it has been removed, considering it as "inappropriate". Why? It's non commercial and anyone being interested in production music can get there information never seen anywhere else: it's about De Wolfe, Chappell, In-editions... So to me it's a way to go further in the subject.

Best regards, Croquetout — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croquetout (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Audio converter RfC
Please consider weighing in on this RfC about Audio converter. ~Kvng (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Broadcast engineering and technology task force
I am attempting to bring the Broadcast engineering and technology task force from inactive to semi-active state. Come join if you are interested. ~Kvng (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Question: I m searching for the name of the company that produced a training film for IBM using Zuccarelli's Holophonic sound.
This was produced in Santa Fe, NM in either 1983 or 84. If you know this info, please contact me at pshapiro08@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:F00:235B:1557:1906:5717:2E1B (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Amp rack
A proposal to merge Amp rack into 19-inch rack is being discussed. ~Kvng (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Drum kit equalization
Hello. I am interested in adding content regarding drum kit equalization techniques for studio recording, but I am unsure which existing page the information will best compliment. The information describes which frequencies (in Hertz) to boost or cut in order to achieve the user's desired tone/character. It seems the best option would be the drum kit page or the equalization (audio) page. For either page, I do not know if I should create a subcategory, or add to an existing category. If more detailed information is required to help determine which page works best feel free to ask!Whitfield817 (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:NOTHOWTO before proceeding. That notwithstanding, it looks like the topic is possibly notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Professional audio manufacturers
I created and populated Category:Professional audio manufacturers as child category of Category:Audio equipment manufacturers. It was quickly nominated for deletion. Please consider commenting on this proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This was kept but renamed Category:Manufacturers of professional audio equipment. ~Kvng (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Blu-ray
Portal:Blu-ray is tagged as being relevant to this WikiProject. That portal has been (individually) nominated for deletion. I'm wondering whether anyone here wants to try to improve that portal, as the main justification for the deletion nomination is that it's out of date (along with the Blu-ray article). - dcljr (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is clear that many portals have not been maintained and will not be maintained. There is a proposal to whosale delete them all. I think we need better options. ~Kvng (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Motorhome Recordings
Hi there, I just thought this might be a new category under recording studios or sound production. More and more people are recording on the road in RV's and motor homes. I am trying to write my first article on this and found the "Rolling Stones" had a mobile recording truck. So if there is a place for this category please let me know and I continue my research and write about artists recording "on the road". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahipara King (talk • contribs) 06:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is often the case that improving existing articles is the best place to start. In this case, before starting a new article, have a look at what's already covered and potential improvements to Remote recording, Rolling Stones Mobile Studio, Outside broadcasting and Electronic field production. ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Ampex ATR-100
Hi, I was the engineering project manager for the ATR-100 at Ampex in the Audio-Video Division, working on multi-track audio recorders and tape duplication systems. I wrote the Product Plan for the ATR-100 in 1972, and still have that original plan, code-named "GNAT (great new audio transport).

The small-format mainstay of the company was the AG 440, with one to eight track versions. It was old, using normal pinch-roller and AC reel motors, and tired. Motors were controlled with large resistors under the tape deck, which could actually get so hot the deck would cook eggs. I designed a new capstan servo for the AG 440, the last improvement to the machine.

GNAT became the AT-100 series machines, and the design team was Alistair Heaslett (signal system); bob Harshberger (reel servos); Roger Sleger (all mechanicals), Bill Pottberg (heads) and myself (control system, capstan servo, project management). It was radical at the time, with dynamic brakes, no pinch-roller, and fully servoed reels. The deck was amazingly fast and gentle on tape (though in the first months it routinely turned half-inch tape into quarter-inch tape). In my view, the most brilliant part of the machine was the signal system by Alistair. He was crazy and a genius, and the system was incredibly quiet and flexible--but expensive.

The idea of a removable control panel was new, and required small high quality buttons which did not exist. We used micro-switches on a PCB with small buttons to operate them--Roger cast them by hand with epoxy.

Because of the cost, it was not a particularly profitable recorder for Ampex, and with reorganizations the audio group was closed during a recession.

One funny story: I was an active sailor, and Alistair as my best friend and ever-ready first mate we sailed often on San Francisco Bay. One stormy day Alistair, Roger and I were slated to sail, and with the bad weather Roger wanted to cancel, as did his wife. Alistair shamed us into going anyway, and four hours later we capsized in the Bay, miles from shore. We watched the last boats disappear, and after four hours in the freezing water, were sure it was the end. Roger was in the worst shape, and we got him into the awash boat, and I began to swim for shore, holding onto the mast. A few hours later a fishing boat found them, and another went looking for me. We all survived, but wives never forgave us, and our boss (Michael Felix was the engineering manager) reprimanded us and told us never to sail together again. The boat was a 17-foot open boat called "Over Easy". Roger soon left for HP and Alistair to a startup, and I went on to videotape recorders at Ampex, ultimately becoming the GM of the Audio-Video Systems Division. Alistair, a non-stop smoker, died a few years later at a young age.

Msandhill (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Synthesizer
Is anyone available to help us get consensus regarding 's removal of uncited sections from Synthesizer? ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Disc_jockey
Discussion taking place with regard to selection of a lead image or images for Disc jockey article, here - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorting categories:Noise control and noise reduction
Category:Noise reduction has Noise reduction as its main article, on the topic "the process of removing noise from a signal" but it contains many articles on the topic of Noise control, on the topic "strategies to reduce noise pollution or to reduce the impact of that noise". I'm creating Category:Noise control with Noise control as the main article, and moving applicable articles over there. Please take a look or comment as needed. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Studio parameter of the album's infobox (Template:Infobox album#studio)
Is the studio parameter of the album's infobox Wikipedia definition only for recording studios where a record was recorded, and not where it was overdubbed and/or mixed? "If the album was recorded in a recording studio, enter the name and location." (Template:Infobox album#studio). It does not say to include anything other than a studio in which the album was recorded. The Wikipdia page Audio mixing (recorded music) states "Before the introduction of multitrack recording, all sounds and effects that were to be part of a record were mixed at one time during a live performance. If the recorded mix wasn't satisfactory, or if one musician made a mistake, the selection had to be performed over until the desired balance and performance was obtained. With the introduction of multi-track recording, the production of a modern recording changed into one that generally involves three stages: recording, overdubbing, and mixing." Since the 1970's, record albums have been recorded in three stages: recording, overdubbing, and mixing. It was common practice to record an album in one studio, overdub in another studio and mixed in another. I would argue for the listing of every recording studio that was used in the making of the song or album. Please weigh in here.Joanne.nathan (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please add your comments at WT:ALBUMS. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Extra-)low-voltage wiring, from more than a technical perspective
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering.

Mentioning it here since it involves things like hi-fi and home theater cabling information (and where to put it), and would also encompass some high-precision (studio, concert) cabling. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Zoom product amalgamation
I recently started the Zoom H6 Handy Recorder article, but shorty after, it was nominated for deletion. I've since added more information about awards and better references, however after talking with over at User talk:Lopifalko/Archive_3 it seems as though the best course of action may be to fold all of the individual product articles into the main Zoom Corporation article. The articles in question are:
 * Zoom H6 Handy Recorder
 * Zoom H5 Handy Recorder
 * Zoom H2n Handy Recorder
 * Zoom H4n Handy Recorder
 * Zoom H4 Handy Recorder
 * Zoom H2 Handy Recorder
 * Zoom HD8 and HD16

I've started to 'backup' the data into Wikidata (list of Zoom product entities), for example -, just in case anyone goes on a WP:SPEEDY rampage. There's still loads to do before I even attempt to write something that covers all of the recorders but before I went too far, I just wanted to put out a call to see if anyone is interested in helping out with the individual articles, or to see if the general consensus is that they should be merged. Cheers in advance! --Aluxosm (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I worry about an WP:UNDUE issue at Zoom Corporation if you attempt to merge all this stuff in there. It might work if you made the information about each product collapsable by enclosing in hidden begin, hidden begin. Perhaps better would be to create Zoom Handy Recorder to cover the whole product line. You can also leave the more notable products as stand-alone articles so long as you can find and cite at least two reliable sources for each article. For this subject, these would normally take the form of a professional and independent product review. ~Kvng (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there could be an article for each series (such as the F Series, or H Series) from Zoom, that could definitely have enough content for its own article, which if left in the main Zoom page itself would make it too bulky and long. Mathmo Talk 02:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Room acoustics needs help
This article is rather short and cryptic, and suffers from some long-ago COI editing by Oscar Juan Bonello (his work looks OK, and is fairly widely cited, but it's not presented here with any sensible context). Could someone who is into this take a look at how to improve it? Dicklyon (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Navigation template overlap
AVconn and Audio and video interfaces and connectors have overlapping scope. Please post your thoughts at Template talk:Audio and video interfaces and connectors. ~Kvng (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I am proposing merging Audio electronics into Audio equipment. Please leave your thoughts at Talk:Audio equipment. ~Kvng (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi Joseph Begun
This article could use some attention. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Environmental impact of vinyl record production - No specific information on any Wikipedia articles.
I cannot find any Wikipedia articles that go into detail on this matter- not even a snippet, or a single mention of the problem.

The environmental impact of vinyl production is ridiculously bad, unfortunately. The vinyl revival itself is a huge disaster, environmentally.

Renewed production of vinyl has a disproportionate impact compared to other forms of audio storage. The evidence is quite easy to find by searching. Just completely absent from Wikipedia. 76.21.71.54 (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Production of phonograph records ould probably be the best place to put that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Peter Doell AfD
Hi there. There is a voting going on regarding mastering engineer Peter Doell's page. I'd appreciate it if you could look into it and give your input.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Doell

TanookiKoopa (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sound Logo project


Hello everyone,

The Wikimedia sound logo project is in an early development phase -- this stage is for asking all kinds of questions, developing and fielding ideas, finding themes and shaping the direction of the project. Here is a link to the meta page for the project:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Sound_Logo

Your input is welcome. Thank you, VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Loudspeaker vs. Speaker (audio equipment)
Can we get some additional input on this two-editor discussion about the name of this important article? ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:ISO/IEC base media file format
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ISO/IEC base media file format that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 何をしましたか？ 那晚安啦.  08:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Categories for musicians by software, notable DAW users etc.
I have started the Category:Bitwig users, following the example of Category:Musicians by software and its sub-pages Category:Ableton Live users and Category:FL Studio users. Basically, I was inspired by the recent endorsement for Bitwig Studio by Richie Hawtin (he did some videos and released his add-ons on github) and wanted to learn more about notable artists using my DAW of choice.

Now my fresh category is up for deletion, and this may extend to all similar categories including Category:Musicians by software

IMHO the software used by musicians has become a very important part of their work, so I think these categories should be kept in Wikipedia. What do you think? Feel free to join the deletion debate :-)

Hirnlego (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like that will survive. I'd screenshot the information and consider creating List of Ableton Live users etc. ~Kvng (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)