Talk:Digital audio workstation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2021 and 25 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Degoodlife. Peer reviewers: Kaycian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random Notes[edit]

I would like to deposit some resources I've been working on for years on the Digital Audio Workstaion article and buff it into a central technical reference library if that's OK.

I'm intending to link it to production audio streaming and internet radio

Quinobi 20:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Malcolmj 23:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) Edited the "Overview". DAWs with proprietary hardware and software are still the most popular system in professional film and television post-production, broadcasting and recording studios.
    • Please feel free to contribute stuff about the proprietary DAW systems. This article is lacking authoritative info about those. Quinobi 14:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Plugins sections should go[edit]

The sections on plugins, especially the list of "common plugins" are really bad, unfixably so, for several reasons. First, they're off-topic in an article on DAWs themselves. The topic deserves its own article, or several, detailing the various plugin formats, but here it's just noise distracting from a discussion of the characteristics of the DAWs themselves, not all of which can even host plugins. There's no indication of how they're related to DAWs (which DAWs can host which plugins?)

Second, the list itself just invites arbitrariness and abuse. Without any sourcing about which plugins are common, or indeed what "common" means, it becomes simply a vehicle for whoever is enthusiastic about a particular plugin to ride that hobby horse. Even the most experienced user of DAWs will have a narrow perspective on a vast and rapidly evolving field. A Pro Tools user will have little insight into what's "common" among AU format plugins, and so on. I think Wikipedia's experience with "list of popular X" articles will bear me out that such lists become a target for everyone who wants to promote their product, and there's no way to assess the quality of the resulting list.

And it quickly becomes obsolete. Take a look: it includes Camel Audio Alchemy, which no longer exists as a standalone product, it includes one product (Iris) out of many from Izotope (no Ozone or RX), a random subset from Native Instruments (no Guitar Rig) and IK Multimedia (no Amplitube), Superior Drummer but not EZDrummer from Toontrack, etc. etc., and few if any of the list items have links to existing, sometimes much better Wikipedia articles. The answer is not to undertake some heroic job of fixing the list, because the entries are constantly going out of date or being superseded--it's to just get rid of the list.

That's my position anyway. I realize some people feel passionately that this belongs here, so I won't edit it without some discussion (I have at least alphabetized it, though). But take a look at that list and tell me it represents a high-quality view of the field, or that it ever could. It basically says "plugins exist, here are some." · rodii · 17:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. The Common instrument plug-ins section is just a list of what ever plugins someone wants to add. The first paragraph is not bad, but it is also not very informative. No mention of different plugin APIs or how a plugin integrates with the DAW. Robert.Harker (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I agree as well. I think that this section has become, as said above, a hobby horse ride for those who have a favorite plugin. I will delete the section. 159.83.54.2 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reassessment[edit]

This article cannot be class=C without references and this article has no references - I reassessed to class=start. Please do not change class= to anything above start without adding WP:RS. Thank you. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]