Talk:Synthesizer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Synthesizer was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 18, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
April 8, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Split proposal[edit]

Rob Kam proposed a split without explaination. I'm not excited about the proposal but I thought I'd create a discussion link so maybe Rob can explain the proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That it's too long to read comfortably. The three sections: about the history of synthesizers (referenced), types of synthesis (unreferenced) and about the roles of synthesizers in music (unreferenced) could each stand as articles the in their own right. --Rob Kam (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's hard to write these articles without including stuff that should preferably be included in the Synthesizer article. Synthesizer makes it easier by directing everything a reader may want to know to a single page. SpikeballUnion 20:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Splitting is not a clear improvement. The benefit of shorter articles does not outweigh the inconvenience of having to find what you're looking for in multiple articles. Length issue can be solved by more aggressive use of WP:SUMMARY or by outright removal of tangential material. ~Kvng (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support moving lengthy information out to a child article and keeping a brief summary in each section here. @Rob Kam: Hopefully you are willing to undertake the task, and help address the banners you placed at the top of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll take care of the splitting and adding banners to point to article histories. Rob Kam (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unreferenced content should be removed, not split into several articles. --Λeternus (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not sure if this is still being debated, but my feelings are that the article would be better off being pruned and having all the trivia and lists chopped. There's an awful amount of fluff that might be interesting to synth aficionados, but doesn't actually add any value to the article as part of an encyclopedia. It's geek talk and gear porn. I'm sure that if you cut out the parts that don't need to be in this article, it will be a lot more readable and a lot shorter. It might make sense to move some of that information to other topics, but I would strongly advise against removing fluff from this page just to add a new article that nobody needs. 80.245.197.109 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Son of my father[edit]

The song has been composed by Giorgio Moroder and the Chicory Tip's version was more successful than the original, how Moroder says in many interviews available on youtube, but it's still a cover. --Angelo Mascaro (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Why does (Release) music redirect here??[edit]

when an album is released buy a label, that's called a (release) music - at least, according to the DAB page. Why on earth does it instead redirect to the subsection Attack Decay Sustain Release (ADRS) envelope? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a hatnote on that section directing you to Art release. One of the problems that repeatedly comes up on Wikipedia is how to disambiguate words that have two or more different senses. This is particularly difficult when different senses exist within one subject area. In the present case, there are redirects to Attack (music), [[Decay (music), Sustain (music), and Release (music), which are the four parts of a musical note's envelope (at least, as it is understood in synthesizer technology). If you have got a better suggestion for how to differentiate "release" in this context, then by all means let us hear it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I now see better what you meant. The question really belongs on the disambiguation page for release. There were at least two errors there, which I have now fixed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hugh Le Caine NPOV[edit]

Kaustin6969 has sprinkled Hugh Le Caine's name a few places in the article. Jerome Kohl was apparently unable to verify these contributions has marked them as needing citation. As this is a potential cast of WP:POVPUSH, I think these need to come out until the significance of Hugh Le Caine's contributions can be substantiated. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see Gayle Young's book, The Sackbut Blues, ISBN 0-660-12006-2 for details about the dates of Le Caine's work on modular synthesis. This book, now O/P provides much documentation on the history of modular synthesis, for example, Hugh LeCaine 'demonstrating the electronic Sackbut, an instrument built between 1945 and 1948'. This is a quote from the sixth page of photographs between pages 34 and 35

When Bob Moog was starting to build synthesizer modules, he was advised to visit UTEMS, to meet Le Caine and see the studio. I was told by people who worked in the studio at the time that Moog visited Toronto. Young's book, p 134, confirms that Moog visited the studio 'several times and discussed electronic music with [Myron] Schaeffer who encouraged him to develop his own equipment."

My sources, except for Gayle Young, are mostly dead now. I met Hugh on a number of occasions, and heard anecdotes from the [later] studio director, Gus Ciamaga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaustin6969 (talkcontribs) 17:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms, the best sources are published ones—it makes very little difference whether the authors are still alive. Out-of-print books are commonly consulted in libraries, and some of them are even (gasp!) available online. By all means insert these source citations. I have not seen Gayle Young's book (which is probably why I was unable to verify those claims), but I am willing to accept that it is a reliable source (the author is certainly very well-known in the field) until someone discovers evidence to the contrary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Gayle Young's book was apparently commissioned by the Canadian National Museum of Science and Technology. It's going to give a Canadian perspective and will need to be balanced with other sources. I do not find any better sources at Hugh Le Caine.
The other thing is that we don't just incorporate any verifiable statement into an article. There are also issues of WP:RELEVANCE and WP:UNDUE weighting to consider. ~Kvng (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Given that Le Caine was Canadian, it is hardly surprising that the best sources might be found in Canadian publications. Agreed that the issues of relevance and due weight must be taken into account, how should the be balanced against what appears to be mainly a question of precedence and influence?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

John Chowning and digital FM synthesis?[edit]

This article, also FM synthesis and others, increasingly claims that digital synthesis was the invention of John Chowning around 1971. I dispute this: Chowning's paper [1] focuses on analogue FM synthesis. I would recognise him as the inventor of the synthesis technique, and that he did this at that time, even that he later was instrumental in the development of digital techniques for the same approach. However it's unsourced - and I don't believe it - that he was working on digital synthesis so early.

Can anyone expand further? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion—it's likely the misinterpretation of sources. --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted a digital assertion added by Kaustin6969. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)