Talk:EtherSound

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Added a redirect from Ethersound, since a search without the double capitalization (EtherSound) was not resolving to this page. Snottywong 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a Layer 2 protocol[edit]

The existence of products such as the Digigram EtherSound ES220/ES220-L and the Digigram NCX Network Audio Terminals for use in multi-point Ethernet LANs prove that the EtherSound protocol can also be used in non-daisy-chain setups. The primary use for these products (as advertised) is Ethernet based paging systems in large venues and buildings, enterprise radio broadcasting and multi-track playback, recording and logging. These products also support MPEG Layer I and II encoding/decoding, and mp3 playback. They can also be combined with live installations by using PC software (such as Digigram's Audio Manager or ESControl) and products such as the PC "sound cards" (NICs) LX1616ES / LX6464ES (16 and 64 channels of audio) and EtherSound appliances ES8in / ES8out / ES8mic with line in/out and microphone pre-amplifiers. And finally, the Audio Manager software allows the combined administration of EtherSound and CobraNet hardware and networks. Audio interconnections between EtherSound and CobraNet networks, however, require physical patching or PCs with dual hardware. The only drawback to this kind of setup is that you must run MS Windows XP or 2000 or 2003 (as advertised) for physical hardware support (and thereby audio interconnections / recording / playback). A virtual PC infrastructure such as the VMware Server would still be able to run a Windows installation and the Audio Manager / ESControl software without the "sound card" / NIC hardware installed -- thereby providing audio routing management and device setup.

Digigram URIs:

Added on July 7th, 2009 by anonymous admirer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.112.86.51 (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced list of companies licensing the technology[edit]

The outcome at Talk:CobraNet seems to be: these audio tech articles are a bit of a walled garden where very low quality articles that meet policies poorly are assumed to be far better than they actually are. As such, I'd hope we can improve this article without interference. I expect that we can at least get this article to meet the poor standards at Cobranet: meeting WP:V while trying demonstrate some encyclopedic value rather than using this article as a marketing platform. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please fee free to work on the article Robert.Harker (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the list of manufacturers, along with a source to verify them. The RFC that took place at Talk:CobraNet resulted in no consensus. Therefore, it's difficult to imagine how that RFC could be used to justify your mass deletions of content in this article. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 04:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not encyclopedic while being promotional. A self-published, promotional source doesn't help the situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been restored with a huge expansion to the references. [1] Lots to review. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential refs[edit]

I'm having trouble finding potential refs.--Ronz (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sportsvideo.org/2016/05/05/tech-focus-digital-audio-networks-part-2-the-major-players/
Doesn't say much, but places EtherSound in context. Might be considered unreliable and self-published. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with this organization and the author and would consider both to be reliable. ~Kvng (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An internet search is not going to be a very good source for refs for a technology introduced in 2001. There was definitely ample coverage in the early 2000's when EtherSound was being actively marketed. These days it gets mentioned in a historical context. The thin coverage today has no bearing on notability because notability is not temporary. ~Kvng (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some results from Systems Contractor News archives. ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. So we likely need to look for material a decade or more old.

Is there something in those that's not a press release, because the first page appears to be nothing but? --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Ronz had removed the Companies section from EtherSound 3 times in the last week. Both Scottywong and I have restored it. We did not get consensus to remove the list in CobraNet so I don't understand why you expect a different result here. Please restore the section and we can continue discussion here. ~Kvng (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand, don't take part. It all comes down to sources and the larger consensus on what to do with such material with such sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We tried to understand your "larger consensus" argument previously and were unsuccessful. Please restore the deleted material and we will try again. If you do not wish to restore the material, I think the most productive way forward would be a visit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I and at least one other editor (Scottywong) think the material should be restored. I am trying to figure out how to best assert that. I don't think we need to retrace the protracted process at CobraNet. I don't see any options but to take a detour to discuss your editing behavior. Let me know if you have a better idea. ~Kvng (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The better ideas are the fundametals: FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this notable?[edit]

Currently the article has no independent sources, and the one potential ref I've identified above isn't enough to establish notability. --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking this article should be deleted? Have you tried looking for references yourself? ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:EtherSound#Potential_refs. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]