Talk:Mastering engineer/Archives/2012

Regarding my "Cleanup" Tag

I think this tag should be self explanatory, but for example, this article could be sectioned out like many of the recognized Wikipedia articles. Again, I will get into specifics if I find time and desire. Quiest 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my "Innapropriate Tone" Tag

My intial impression of this article was that it was being spoken from the POV of someone on a high horse. The bolded statements, for example, have a tone that is definitely not appropriate for Wikipedia. This article doesn't serve the public well if it is written from the standpoint that "real" mastering engineers are being attacked or threatened by seemingly less compotent ones. My history as a Wikipedia consumer suggests to me that issues, controversies, debates, etc, are usually given a section within the article. For a great example, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Controversy_and_criticism . If the mastering engineer article doesn't see changes soon, I'm sure I will get around to making them. Without getting into too many more specifics, I hope that this explanation makes my reasoning for the tag clear. Yes, I am a sound engineer, but this is about tone and Wikipedia.Quiest 14:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Time TOLD: You have been nothing but a pain in the back to many legitimate and caring editors. Your 2 day tour of annoyance was over as soon as people started to question your purpose at WP and your opinion is as serious and relevant as your first user page. So much for a user called Quiest. Knock the chip off your shoulder, buddy boy, you'll never be a mastering engineer, maybe an audio engineer's sock puppet the most.Jrod2 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Quiest, your edits continue to address Jrod specifically when this article has been and is being worked on by a number of editors. Your "Tone" is "Inappropriate" in that you seem to be on a personal crusade to interfere with Jrod. You aren't taking the time to make appropriate changes; you are just slapping labels on pages.

Inasmuch as this Mastering article needs to have a change of tone I don't think it compare AT ALL to the very much debated and contentious Scientology article. Mastering engineers will agree on many more mastering issues than they will disagree on, in my experience. I don't see the problem. I'm reverting the "tone" tag. Binksternet 14:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Bink, any responses directed to Jrod are spillover from talks on our user pages, sorry if you found those annoying. I'm pretty sure he and I resolved any issues we were having. I feel that I explained my tag above, and have been trying to make it clear that I want to have a pretty good article, much like those featured on Wikipedia. Any problem I might have with anyone's statements within the article or towards me stems from what I perceive as making changes that don't seem (to me) to have the final Wikipedia product in mind. If I'm missing something, please tell me, but I'm pretty sure this is an encyclopedia meant for an audience of the entire English speaking community. If there is some kind of consensus among professionals about something, it should be easily validated or verifiable by the non-engineer individual. I'm pretty sure that the most general Wikipedia protocol states something to that effect.

I'll try changing particular things in this artice that I have a problem with and see if that sits any better with you (as you are the person who made the change). I'm sorry you have a problem with the manner in which I edit, but it is my choice to edit how I want. You feel I'm "slapping" on tags, when I may have very well taken a while to think them out and/or feel that they are a good technique to use for the benefit of the article. For me, it's all about the final product, the same way that I would personally approach my professional work in producing any product. It's your choice of course to revert a tag. It is my choice to respond in the way I do, which is in a manner that I would hope is somewhat conciliatory and acknowledges a concern. I won't just change who I am or what I'm doing because someone (or a group of people) doesn't like it. This is an encyclopedia. Mastering engineers can agree that the sky is blue, but I'm sure an encyclopedia would still say it's green. That may not be the best analogy, but I think I've spend enough time on this talk page. :) Quiest 17:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In my view, if someone disagrees with the statement that "A mastering engineer does not get his title at an audio engineering school" is either a misinformed rookie engineer or just someone who is interested in audio but knows little about it. And, according to you on an edit summary, "YOU ARE" an engineer. So, why would you want people to believe that you can get the mastering title at some school? Do you just want to change the arrangement of the words or erase the statement? Of course as an engineer, I hope you are not teaching at a school that "teaches" mastering. Not so much for WP conflict of interest violations, but because you would be giving misguided information about what it takes to be a mastering engineer to the public. You agree on this point, don't you? Jrod2 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, If you are still not convinced that my statement is true, then let me ask you this: does someone like Adam Ayan need a mastering title to work at Gateway or any other lab? Since you are a Ludwig fan, I am using Ayan as an example. Further more read WP:CITE "Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article.". This means that, it only takes 2 editors that opposes your actions to get your tags (which you regard as your "contributions") deleted once and for all. War editing is futile and puts you at risk of a 3RR violation. Believe me as a WP:CVU, I'll report it. I am just giving you a final civil warning to stop putting tags without making a real effort to contribute to the articles. Find references instead of putting those ugly citation marks which make it difficult to read. Most of the audio articles you have excessively tagged may have some problems, but they have been scrutinized by dozens of audio engineer editors who just couldn't find the right citations or references due to issues of spam, problems with notability, etc, etc. Regardless, the great majority agreed to use and leave it there as is for someone to improve upon. Why? Because it is common knowledge and common sense. Now, please stop your tagging activity and join us as another audio engineer in the discussions to improve these articles. Do you want to delete all that text from the articles in a few days as provided by the rules at WP:CITE? You need consensus for that. Thank you. Jrod2 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wamnet Talk

Well, I'm trying to be neutral, un-opinionated and informative. Kudos to all that delve into wiki-dom, it ain't easy. Wamnet 16:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Talk

"The pattern of editing you are using indicate that you disapprove of most anything written about audio at WP. Well, don't put tags, instead raise consensus of your opinions and disagreements (if you have any) and take it to those articles talk pages. Otherwise, next time you'll be tagged as a vandal. Jrod2 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)"

Jrod obviously has some power issues. I don't have any problems with audio or it's discussion, but I DO have a problem with your "writing". If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, back it up. Contrary to what you may believe, your word is NOT law! Amazing, I know. I am going to post this on the other contributions I made, so that you "don't DARE" tag me as a vandal. Thanks! Quiest 05:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

28 cite tags

I removed the 28 cite tags... I feel very strongly that the cleanup tag at the top is enough motivation. What this articla needs is substantive, constructive editing work, not more tags. Binksternet 19:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Online sites for "audio mastering" degrees

Hello audio "college" or "schools" online services, stay the heck out of this article. Who else but you would want it removed? Just because you can be anonymous at WP, it doesn't make it easy for you to delete things up here.

Furthermore, if anybody has a problem with this content, state your reasons why right over here and before you make significant changes to these definitions. You are welcome to re-write it to a more encyclopedic content, but if you are here just to delete, cut out or reduce it to nothing just because you don't like the tone of it, I have a few words for you: You are either one of those "mastering" online schools or an engineer with a chip up his/her shoulder, so please have the cojones to debate me here. Thanks for your cooperation. Jrod2 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of people with chips on their shoulders... like half of your posts in the talk pages are how anyone critical of the content and tone of the article must be rookie engineers, or have never seen a real mastering studio, or are jealous of your equipment, vandals. I think more likely, they just want to improve the article, which glorifies the occupation. 76.20.139.79 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "I think more likely, they just want to improve the article, which glorifies the occupation". How does improving the article glorify that occupation? It doesn't, improving the article is what me and the other users have already done and it doesn't glorify the occupation anymore than your ranting against the tone of it. Yes, it is a special skill, yes it is very expensive, the equipment used is extremely unknown by most audio engineers, yes it requires many many years to gain that skill, yes it requires a very good and precise listening environment, free of surfaces that deflect or reflect the sound unlike most recording and mixing studios, etc. And who are "they" or these people you claim have a good argument against the article anyway? One troll.Jrod2 (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's most likely that the "which" refers to "the article" and not to some verbal noun use of "to improve". The "to improve" is clearly being used in the regular infinitive construction with "they want" and so the relative pronoun "which" could not possibly refer to it, since it's not a noun or pronoun, whereas "the article" fits that role just fine. --Atethnekos (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Organizing and Divergence

I took some time to organize this article into sections, and I removed paragraphs that began to talk about audio mastering instead of the mastering engineer. The article seems too much like a persuasive essay than a neutral article still, so if a more experienced Wikipedia user can find time to shape this up, it'd improve the article. Geht (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's looking good and in the right direction, Geht. Nicely done. Jrod2 (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I proposed this article be merged into Audio mastering because I can't see a reason for two separate articles existing. A mastering engineer is a person who does audio mastering. Discussing what mastering is, how it's done, what equipment is used, etc, is discussing mastering, not the engineer. Not to mention the POV issues that still exist. "Good mastering takes at least 10 of experience" etc. The same reason that teacher and teaching do not have separate articles. Or firefighter and fighting fires.136.181.195.10 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - move relevant content after major cleanup. Radiopathy •talk• 22:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep If this article were seen as a redundant one, others would have already moved it a long time ago. my2C.Jrod2 (talk)
• Merge Merge information unique to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.139.79 (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"A mastering engineer is a person who does audio mastering. Discussing what mastering is, how it's done, what equipment is used, etc, is discussing mastering, not the engineer."Actually, this is no longer the case. Just about everybody and their dogs are doing DIY mastering these days and nobody can be a "firefighter" without training to fight fires or a "teacher" without certification, so BIG distinction there. It is more relevant today more than ever to have a dedicated page to the true mastering engineer(s) than before. Thus, keeping the page not merging it is the logical thing to do. Jrod2 (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Whilst I sympathize with the suggestion and argument for a merger I feel that the two terms are different enough to retain their own articles; a mastering engineer engages in the process of mastering audio in the same way that a politician engages in politics, this doesn't mean that both terms don't exclusively deserve their own articles, it's on the authors to make sure the content is dissimilar enough to warrant their separation, authors should just take care not to duplicate information and to cross reference the articles. Stevezimmy (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)