Talk:EtherSound

message: Added a redirect from Ethersound, since a search without the double capitalization (EtherSound) was not resolving to this page.
Snottywong 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

message: The existence of products such as the Digigram EtherSound ES220/ES220-L and the Digigram NCX Network Audio Terminals for use in multi-point Ethernet LANs prove that the EtherSound protocol can also be used in non-daisy-chain setups. The primary use for these products (as advertised) is Ethernet based paging systems in large venues and buildings, enterprise radio broadcasting and multi-track playback, recording and logging. These products also support MPEG Layer I and II encoding/decoding, and mp3 playback. They can also be combined with live installations by using PC software (such as Digigram's Audio Manager or ESControl) and products such as the PC "sound cards" (NICs) LX1616ES / LX6464ES (16 and 64 channels of audio) and EtherSound appliances ES8in / ES8out / ES8mic with line in/out and microphone pre-amplifiers. And finally, the Audio Manager software allows the combined administration of EtherSound and CobraNet hardware and networks. Audio interconnections between EtherSound and CobraNet networks, however, require physical patching or PCs with dual hardware. The only drawback to this kind of setup is that you must run MS Windows XP or 2000 or 2003 (as advertised) for physical hardware support (and thereby audio interconnections / recording / playback). A virtual PC infrastructure such as the VMware Server would still be able to run a Windows installation and the Audio Manager / ESControl software without the "sound card" / NIC hardware installed -- thereby providing audio routing management and device setup.
Digigram URIs: 
* ES220/ES220-L (4-8ch) 
* NCX Network Audio Terminals (4-8ch)
* ES8in/ES8out 8ch appliance
* ES8mic 8ch appliance
* ESControl PC software
* Audio Manager PC software (PDF brochure)
* LX1616ES 16ch PC sound card/NIC
* LX6464ES 64ch PC sound card/NIC
Added on July 7th, 2009 by anonymous admirer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.112.86.51 (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also a Layer 2 protocol 

message: The outcome at Talk:CobraNet seems to be: these audio tech articles are a bit of a walled garden where very low quality articles that meet policies poorly are assumed to be far better than they actually are. As such, I'd hope we can improve this article without interference. I expect that we can at least get this article to meet the poor standards at Cobranet: meeting WP:V while trying demonstrate some encyclopedic value rather than using this article as a marketing platform. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reinstated the list of manufacturers, along with a source to verify them.  The RFC that took place at Talk:CobraNet resulted in no consensus.  Therefore, it's difficult to imagine how that RFC could be used to justify your mass deletions of content in this article. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 04:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is not encyclopedic while being promotional. A self-published, promotional source doesn't help the situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced list of companies licensing the technology

message: had removed the Companies section from EtherSound 3 times in the last week. Both  and I have restored it. We did not get consensus to remove the list in CobraNet so I don't understand why you expect a different result here. Please restore the section and we can continue discussion here. ~Kvng (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't understand, don't take part. It all comes down to sources and the larger consensus on what to do with such material with such sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We tried to understand your "larger consensus" argument previously and were unsuccessful. Please restore the deleted material and we will try again. If you do not wish to restore the material, I think the most productive way forward would be a visit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I and at least one other editor () think the material should be restored. I am trying to figure out how to best assert that. I don't think we need to retrace the protracted process at CobraNet. I don't see any options but to take a detour to discuss your editing behavior. Let me know if you have a better idea. ~Kvng (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The better ideas are the fundametals: FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: Currently the article has no independent sources, and the one potential ref I've identified above isn't enough to establish notability. --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you thinking this article should be deleted? Have you tried looking for references yourself? ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:EtherSound#Potential_refs. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: How is this notable?