Talk:Digital Performer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this article meant to do. It looks like a software promotion page here on wikipedia !


I agree. I think the article has value (Performer/Digital Performer does have a place in personal computer sequencer/DAW history) and there's good info on its lineage here, but there's an obvious point of view.

Page was cleaned up to remove pov, focus on the subject at hand and get a more neutral tone. Hellgi 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

When I get the chance, I will be restoring much of what Hellgi removed. This account was intended to be an historical account. Now it has been pared down to what resembles a press release. Many important lines were removed which gave significant context, especially in regard to the differences between DP and Pro Tools, points which are at the center of the native audio revolution. People wonder why use anything except Pro Tools, and this explained the differences, but it's gone now. There are other examples, but I will simply restore parts of what was there, and try to make it as factual as possible. If it seems that there is a POV, it's because Digital Performer was from the beginning at the center of the native audio model as a serious alternative to the Pro Tools model. We must not let this context slip from the written history. It is the driving force behind the Digital Audio Workstation's need for faster computers (which affect Pro Tools very little). Let's not be so over-zealous in our edits, please. What seems like unnecessary point of view to one person is important historical context to those who are trying to learn the facts, and those facts need to be available to all. You've removed the tension, the struggle between competing models which gets more exciting every year. I will fix it, but not today. Shooshie 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Shooshie

[edit] Electronic Musician Editors Choice Awards

Digital performer has won accolades as the best "Digital Audio Workstation/Audio Interface" multiple years in Electronic Musician. 2001 [1], 2002 [2] 2004[3].

I think it has won in that category at least one other occasion. This information could be added to the article to further support popularity within the industry. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, you're welcome to go ahead and add that info. --Tikilounge (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then. Going to cull some other articles and will integrate into article in the near future. Thanks. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)