Talk:PreSonus

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

wat[edit]

In keeping with PreSonus' Louisiana roots, Studio One also ships with a free jambalaya recipe.

HAHAHAHAHA!! 92.114.179.73 (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Start[edit]

I made a start on this page with some basic fluff from the company press, and it was quite rightly flagged as reading like an advertisment. Accordingly I've now rewritten it using info from the reviews the software has been getting, and added citations to said reviews. I think it's a lot better now, but there's still a long way to go. Disclaimer: I work for PreSonus, but I'm also a fairly experienced Wikipedia editor so I'm trying to keep as neutral tone as I can. Any additions or improvements would be very welcome. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an ad[edit]

Hi. I've re-inserted the ad-tag because of the following:

  1. Studio One includes everything required for music production
  2. As well as a complete suite of built-in audio effects, Studio One features...
  3. ...can be controlled easily by Studio One's innovative Control Link system
  4. Studio One is built on a more modern codebase than most of its competitors and employs a state-of-the-art audio engine that delivers clear, accurate sound.
  5. audio engine that automatically switches between 64- and 32-bit operation on the fly
  6. However Studio One Pro offers arguably the most integrated mastering suite in a DAW to date
  7. At the Frankfurt Musikmesse in March 2010 PreSonus announced a major free update to Studio One
  8. The cheaper Artist version...
  • 1) "Everything required" according to who? What's required?
  • 2) It's like those tv-ads "But wait! There's more! If you order within 5 minutes, you also get..."
  • 3) "controlled easily"
  • 4a) A more modern codebase than its competitors? Please remove or quantify what's meant by "modern codebase". What's the problem with the competitors? Why is that comparison important?
  • 4b) "State-of-the-art audio engine"
  • 4c) "...that delivers clear, accurate sound."
  • 5) "on the fly"
  • 6) "arguably the most integrated" - WP:WEASEL
  • 7) "a major free update"
  • 8) "cheaper"

Judging from the above it seems more like you're trying to bend a product advertisment page to meet the policies of Wikipedia, than genuily trying to write an encyclopedic article. Have someone else that is not affiliated with presounus read your article. You might also consult the Five pillars of Wikipedia-page which is a good starting point on the fundamentals of Wikipedia (policies and principles). - Meewam (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* 1) "Everything required" according to who? - Umm.. according to Music Radar's review that I was citing... did you bother to check the sources listed? I am not arguing about the re-insertion of the Advert heading, that's completely cool, but if you have a problem with the language I'm using, please edit away, that's why we're on Wikipedia after all. But do read and cite the sources listed, that's why they are there. And thanks pointing out the Five Pillars, but with something like 179 articles to my credit on Wikipedia, I'm already fairly familiar with them. Please see [1] if you doubt my sincerity. Yes, I do work for PreSonus, I've made no secret of that, but I'm genuinely trying to create a good article, because I think it's important, not just a puff piece. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I appreciate that it may be what the source said (I'm not checking- I've been to that site, and their Flash crashes my browser), but you should understand that their readership and standards are different from Wikipedia's readership and standards. Not better or worse, they just have a different audience and purpose. I have no doubt that StudioOne has "Everything required...", but keep in mind that a Wikipedia reader doesn't necessarily know what "everything required" means, so a statement like that doesn't inform. You know that language like that isn't going to fly, and I don't feel good about an editor who throws a bunch of stuff out there, then calls for the rest of the community to come along and clean it up. Dementia13 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dementia, Wikipedia is built on verifiability via good third-party referenced sources. That's why one was cited in the article. Regarding the citation being fit for the purpose, Music Radar is the number one music technology site on the Internet, plus the article was originally published in one of the world's leading music technology magazines, so yeah, it's fairly relevant in a music technology article. If you can find better citations, please add them.
As regards you not feeling good "about an editor who throws a bunch of stuff out there, then calls for the rest of the community to come along and clean it up", umm... that's the entire basis of how Wikipedia works. And as I pointed out earlier, I've got a fair amount of Wikipedia edits under my belt already (somewhere over 2000 now I think), so I'm hardly asking other people to do my work for me. Quite the contrary, I'm encouraging other people to add to it. That's how this site thrives. If you think you can do better - then please have at it, with my blessing. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the original complaint was in April 2010. The article has been updated many times since, and the problematic language was already removed some time ago. So I really don't understand why you are complaining now, over two years later. Especially since you haven't even checked the citation in question! --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have been maintaining a revisions sections for few months. I also started to make the main text a bit less marketing oriented. I am not affiliated with PreSonus. I have written training materials for Studio One and would like to see Studio One accurately represented on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigazaga (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PreSonus Studio One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PreSonus&oldid=1201391348"