|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pro Tools article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Alsihad redirect without explanation
- 3 New updates to the "on culture" section
- 4 "Academic Award"?
- 5 Criticism
- 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Hd3.jpg
- 7 Ronaldo Cezar de Moraes
- 8 Issues
- 9 Include
- 10 Is this the Pro Tool sales brochure?
- 11 Unreliable sources in "Use" section
- 12 Systems needs attention from an expert in Pro Tools
Hey guys I've started working through this page and adding the information that will help other readers such as history etc. I will also address the impact of PT on popular culture and the recording industry as requested. 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selllerness (talk • contribs)
Who makes Pro Tools? For what platforms is it available?
Perhaps someone could add info on where a new user could learn how to use pro tools. --unknown
This information is online and in the DVD you get when you buy pro-tools --Tm1000 03:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could remove all the marketing bullshit from this article, make it more sober? Agreed!
The "For Dummies" series of books are outstanding. I used "Pro Tools for Dummies" to learn Pro Tools 6.x on an original MBox. Great book!
The whole User Group thing seems like an advertisement. Should it be deleted? Q90 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This entire article reads like it was written by Digidesign. There should be discussion of the large recording-industry backlash against ProTools and DAW recording/mixing in general, including the entire industry of products designed to bypass the perceived undesirable parts of the processing. This includes the advent of the "analog summing device" which is a minimalist mixer designed specifically for use with computer-based DAWs, manufactured by Dangerous Music, Roll Music Systems, SPL Labs, and at least a dozen other companies. Justinulysses (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Alsihad redirect without explanation
I've noticed that someone's cunningly redirected the Alsihad article to the ProTools article... For those who are unaware of this reference and association, some more information and historical references should be provided imo - but by someone who is better-informed than I am! I agree with the Alsihad sentiment personally, I have to use ProTools in my daily life and I'm quite firmly within the cynical camp ;) but for many people it would just be lost on them. So, I suppose one could consider this an RFI on the connotation and reference. Also consider Mixerman's diaries, and places like the ProSoundWeb forums where PT/Alsihad is discussed at great length.
Christopher 14:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
>I can add it. However, I'd rather not, Its hard to cite the information. Alsihad is a reference from the book The Mixerman Diaries (an E-Book Version is availible for free). Who refers to protools in the novel as Alsihad. The author him self is anonymous, to the general public. However, the term is used by many professional recording engineers familiar with book, and author, and is familiar to most who are active in the professional/semi professional online Pro-audio community.
The term Alsihad refers to the debate about the analog medium v.s digital recording medium. Protools due to the limited power of computer in their initial introduction, was the first viable digital recording platform, since it initially used its own internal computing power, instead of a computers processing power (professional protools systems) still do. Many engineers feel that Tape medium is preferrable to digital medium, because tape has its own sonic characteristics, and protools encourages over editing, since its easier to edit than tape, and therefore also encourages poor performances. This explanation is significant, because the term Alsihad is a play on the word. All I had, "I wanted to use Tape, however, Protools was All's I had (ALL'SIHAD=ALSIHAD).
22.214.171.124 06:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
New updates to the "on culture" section
I've started making some large scale changes to the section that was called "Pro Tools in culture". I'll be continuing and finishing this edit by the end of the week (Feb. 11, 2007). In this section I'm trying to illustrate some of the ways that Pro Tools helped to encourage shifts in digital technology, economics, IT, politics, and possibly several other areas. I understand that to most people it seems like just another software package but I'm confident that I can show here that it bears some responsibilty, both directly and indirectly, for where we find our larger culture today. Please don't be put off by unfinished sentences, etc. All will be fixed very quickly.
Neilperry 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have continued substantial editing of this section and renamned it "The Impact of Pro Tools on Culture". I've cleaned up from last night's post and am on track to finish for the weekend.--Neilperry 04:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Added subsections to the "Impact on culture" section.Neilperry 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Digidesign received a technical Academic Award for the development of Pro Tools in 2004.
Was this meant to say Academy Award? What's an "Academic Award" and why does it link to the Academy Award page anyway? Clarification needed. Inoculatedcities 18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I changed this to "Academy Award of Merit" which is what the Digidesign website says it is. Academic makes no sense. Bufflo 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be added that there has been criticism of Pro Tools in particular by many musical artists because of its uncanny ability to make really nasty-sounding music sound a lot better than it really is:
"It sounds like you're ready to, cause these rappers are terrible And the game is unbearable but Imma fix, fix This feeling that's dead in you got your brains like a vegetable Use the Pro Tools and tell em to edit it, it" -- Chamillionare, "The Sound of Revenge (intro)" The Sound Of Revenge
I might be able to find other examples
- the problem with this is that "Pro-tools" is on its way to becoming a genericised trademark, like "Biro" for all rollerball pens. when non-audio engineers talk about "Pro-tools" we can't be 100% sure they're referring to the product itself, and not any other comparable DAW. plus there's no magic button in Pro-tools that makes things sound better - that's just skilful work by the engineer. and let's not get into the misconception that Auto-tune is part of Pro-Tools... eesh. Onesecondglance (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Article also doesn't mention you *have* to have specific digidesign hardware to run pro tools, unlike most other DAWs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Charging for minor upgrades
Digi have a habit of charging for minor updates (like paying extra for stereo tracks when they finally introduced this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Hd3.jpg
Image:Hd3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ronaldo Cezar de Moraes
Some of this article is really, really good. A lot of it isn't. Just made a couple minor edits, may try to re-work some things over the next few days. Things I'm noticing:
1) It's still not well-sourced; part of the issue seems to be that the main sources of info on Pro Tools are either DigiDesign's site (already cited) and various audio recording forums on the internet, which consist of about 2% actual information, 49% Pro Tools evangelism, and 49% Pro Tools bashing, none of which is verifiable or notable anyway. I'm looking for good sources; if anybody else finds something reliable in a 3rd party publication, please, please add it!
2) Super-listcrufty; does this article really need the model numbers for every single product that works with ProTools?
3) The need for special hardware to run the high-end PT versions is something that's frequently cited as a reason to pick a different DAW; I'm working on trying to include this in a non-ranty, reliably-sourced fashion. evildeathmath 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"The hardware includes an external A/D converter and internal PCI or PCIe audio cards with onboard DSP."
Is this the Pro Tool sales brochure?
Unreliable sources in "Use" section
Three references claiming to cite Billboard Magazine point to dubious resources on the domain AllBusiness.com. The source material consists of multipage articles surrounded by advertisements and promotional material. There is a "source" link (left column) with a date, but it points to an on-site index. No reference to an actual Billboard Magazine article is provided. In fact, there is no mention of Billboard Magazine anywhere on the site. It is simply "Billboard" in plain text with the copyright notice "© Billboard 2012" at the footer. No logos, no cover images, no "Billboard Magazine," no trade markings, no external links, no evidence of a legitimate association with Billboard proper.
This may very well be a legitimate source, but their poor presentation and lack of reference leads me to believe this source is unreliable. Perhaps if the article were accompanied by an issue date, issue number, page number, etc., it would lend some credibility to this source. However, the overall experience is lacking, and in many ways suggests content farming.
- The two that I see don't even exist anymore. I've removed them and removed the statement about how "Miami is widely believed to be the first city to broadly adopt Pro Tools", which, as far as I can tell, is solely derived from one of the broken refs. Radiodef (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, here is the article in Google Books, a legitimate article in Billboard magazine from 2001. Page 59 of http://books.google.com/books?id=HBQEAAAAMBAJ
- Reading the Billboard article, the statement that I've omitted from the WP article on Pro Tools still seems dubious to me. The article is about how a PT training center has opened in Miami, and the statement about Miami being "ground zero" was made by the owner of the training center. Hardly enough to proliferate the statement as "widely believed". Radiodef (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I too agree it reads like an advertisement. Just take a look at Jack White's quote. There's nothing in that section that describes limitations or issues with the software. There should be a fair balance of opinions (if any) especially given that the overall stance is not clear. And there are a lot of reference links missing. More info. --Humorideas (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)