Talk:Acid Pro

Was the move in error?

I moved this article from "ACID (software)" to "ACID Music" but I am having second thoughts about this move. Could I have some input here as to whether this was an appropriate or inappropriate move? If it is deemed to have been inappropriate, I'll shepherd it through the administrative move process at WP:RM. Courtland 15:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that "ACID (software)" seems better as there is a whole line of software called ACID. The article should at least mention that there were previous as well as other present versions of ACID out there. M. Stern 04:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

ACID Music → ACID Pro – {ACID Pro is the current name for the software} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support Borb 01:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Since ACID Music is the former name of the software --Lox (t,c) 16:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

This seems to be written in a corporate fashion. It looks almost as if it was taken from a website? I don't think the tone is proper for Wikipedia; my 2 cents. Diizy (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed this article is borderline advertising - reads like a product brochure, and as such I think, without significant modification it should be targeted for deletion.

Article has been moved., redirects fixed.--Tznkai 11:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

ACIDplanet

I'm a devout member of the acidplanet community and I was wondering if any other ACID users also thought there should be a seperate page for ACIDplanet. I'd be happy to write it, I just don't want it to be struck down.

Be bold, man. Be bold. --69.138.91.29 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

God, this page stinks of advertising. 125.63.229.201 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I too post on acidplanet regularly and would like to see a separate page. Thtuskey (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? There's hardly anything in this article about it. A sub-topic should only really be moved to it's own article is when there is so much info that it has outgrown the main article. If you'd like to write about it, you'd be better off creating a sub-section on the topic here (observing WP:No original research, WP:Reliable sources & WP:Neutral point of view) and seeing how it goes. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to use ACID Pro on YouTube projects? 202.8.226.165 (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Version history and changes?

It would not be cool to have a section that details each version of acid pro and the changes from version to version, and also display the current version. 71.126.12.86Surge

Listing XPress Separately?

The ACID XPress 5.0 page raises this issue on its own page: should these be separate pages?

• Personally, I would not have found out about the free edition if they had been merged. My sole concern is that somehow the free edition is given mention on the free audio software page. If that can be achieved even though the pages are merged, then fine. The Xpress page is a bit of a messy stub right now anyway. Erichero (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The stub is brief, messy, and hasn't been updated in a while. It's merely a separate version of the ACID Pro software, therefore should not be given its own page. Yes, it is possible to mention it on the free audio software page. In fact, I think I'm going to redirect the XPress page now. -71.107.253.41 (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. -71.107.253.41 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't realized I wasn't signed in when I did all of that... -Lamarcus (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

KILNA'a Proposed Changes, February 2009

This article seems to be woefully neglected... it does not represent the current state of ACID in its various incarnations properly. ACID Xpress has had a new 7.0 release, and ACID Music Studio is barely mentioned in the footnotes. Although these are based on the same engine, each of these programs are targeted at very different user levels and have significantly different feature sets.

There are two workable solutions for addressing this:

Separate Pages For Each Version With A Product Line Page

One option is creating a new page at the current redirect location ACID (software) which describes Sony's ACID product line as a whole (with things like a feature comparison table for the different editions). We'd then link to separate pages for each product, "ACID Pro", "ACID Music Studio" and "ACID XPress".

Argument For This Method

• Separate ACID product line products can have their own infoboxes, which allows seperate:
  • Screenshots
  • Current Version Numbers
  • Homepage Links
• Separate categorization, as previously noted "ACID Xpress" is free and would rightfully belong in the Category:Free music software, but the other versions would not. There may be other categorization divergences we haven't thought of yet as well.
• We can expand upon the differences between the products more effectively if they are managed via separate pages.
• There is precedent for this already with the separate Sony Vegas and Sony Vegas Movie Studio pages.

Single Page With New Product-Specific Sections

This option would be change this ACID Pro page, and others like ACID Xpress to redirect to sections specific to each version under ACID (software) (or, alternately Sony ACID to match Sony Vegas with some degree of parity). The article will describe both Sony's ACID product line as a whole, and have specific sections for each of the editions. "ACID Pro" would redirect to "ACID (software)#ACID Pro", "ACID Music Studio" would redirect to "ACID (software)#ACID Music Studio", etc. A feature comparison table can be included for the different editions.

Argument For This Method

• One page to look at to see anything with regard to the entire ACID product line
• Canonical page name is no longer specific to a single edition of a product in the ACID product line
• Incoming links can be made to specific products
• Separate products deserve their own sections
• There is a precedent for this already with the single unified page for ProTools which includes sections for "Pro Tools HD", "Pro Tools LE" and "Pro Tools M Powered" editions.

Questions

Is it possible to include this page in a category under a different title than the canonical name of the page? I.e, include this "ACID (software)" in the category "Free music software" but using the name "ACID Xpress"...?

Responses

Which way should we go...? Please put your responses below...

KILNA (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, for the record my preference is for the second option, a single page relocated to "ACID (software)" with sections for each product in the line. -- KILNA (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge tag

Do we particularly need a separate article about Acid Loops, rather than just a subsection within this one? Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Please

Heya

Personally, I actually use Acid Pro to make music myself and I think it's great software. It's totally fine to have articles about the major different brands of music production software, given that all the best-selling ones seem to be covered. But I really think it's unnecessary to have separate articles about unique concepts stemming from that software that most people on earth probably don't know even exists. To cut it short, a separate article on "acid loops" fails the notability requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua1007 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ACID Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120032515/http://www.digitalmusicdoctor.com/loopinvasion.htm to http://www.digitalmusicdoctor.com/loopinvasion.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ACID Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225223218/http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep01/articles/acidloops.asp to http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Sep01/articles/acidloops.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

acid loops section talks about Sony

the mentions on Sony at Acid Loops section (that it owns the s/w and that it is in version 7) should probably be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.75.186 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)