Talk:Mixxx

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

I protest the idea of this article being deleted. I've just used it to create the coolest little ambient track track ever, and this may appear on my planned cassette release. I don't use this program for DJ'ing. I'm not a DJ. My music is ambient/electronic in nature and this free program proved to be the simplest way I've found yet to create something worthy of release. I use and love Propellerhead Reason 5 and Ableton Live Suite 8. But I've been hindered by too many options and too many sounds. Use Mixxx to load just two short samples and mess with their EQ's, pitches and levels. I mapped the knobs to my E-Mu Xboard25's sixteen knobs and my life is changed. Thank you Mixxx. If my album sells a few copies I'll donate to your continued efforts and improvements. Perhaps even sooner. Now I'm thinking of getting a dedicated controller like that new little DJ2GO. DJ gear ain't just for DJs. Same with the MPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gspong (talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion has nothing to do with being "coolest", just that the article had poor independent sources. The best way to save an article you like is to add reliable independent sources to it, instead of self-published blogs. W Nowicki (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple more independent news sources, but don't feel qualified to remove any article quality tags since I'm a developer on the project. Would someone please review and remove as appropriate? I also tried to flesh out the lead but everything I wrote sounded like an advertisement, so I figure someone else should write it. -- PegasusRPG —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I removed the section listing all of the versions and their added features. It was completely redundant with the official blog, and looked like it fell under WP:NOT. I also added a REFIMPROV template. This article has many refs, but they're not that good. Too many of them are wp:primary, and the rest mostly look like passing mentions or press blog articles. I certainly wouldn't be offended if anybody thought this was too drastic and wanted to revert. Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mixxx. 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/20111007042119/http://haste.dk/tue/pub.html to http://haste.dk/tue/pub.html

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) 00:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: The source currently used in the lede, "James, Daniel. "Drafting Digital Media". Apress, 2009, p. 213", specifically says that this software is designed for the style of mixing known as beatmatching, which is a DJing technique associated with dance music. This was previously explained in the article, but was changed back 2016, where the source was also removed. The edit summary was the only explanation, which suggests to me that this was based on original research or maybe just opinion. Audio mixing (recorded music) is not an ideal wikilink, is it is mainly about multi-track recording being mixed-down by an engineer, which doesn't really have much to do with DJing or beatmatching or similar. Mixxx is not designed for this purpose, nor would it be a good choice for this, which is supported by the attached source. This is why I say that the previous lede was inappropriate, and also why I don't think calling this "jargon" is appropriate. At this point the source is dated, but it's still better than nothing, and I have read it and can confirm that it is about DJing, and is not about broader forms of sound engineering. I don't like Jargon on Wikipedia either, but mislabeling something isn't the solution. Grayfell (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

That's not at all what I said.

I said a source that says this program is exclusively for DJing (whatever it means). This program can be used for any audio mixing project.

Also, "Audio mixing is not an ideal wikilink" is not an excuse for subverting factual accuracy. It is analogous to saying "X is a tomato product, but I don't like Wikipedia's tomato article, so I write 'it is potato product' instead."

But I guess I have invested far too much time on this. I am gone. Bye.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely do not understand what you're saying. I did not add the word "exclusive" to the article. I said that the program was designed for a specific task. That task is only tangentially related to the one described in the current lede. The source currently used was added (by me in 2011) to help explain the specific purpose of this software, because otherwise it's too vague to be useful. I don't dislike the linked article, the problem I have is that it is describing a different process from the one this software is designed for. The source already supports this, so asking me to find a source is redundant. Accusing me of subverting factual accuracy is a bit much, and I'm confused by the apparent hostility of your response. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response, I have restored the link to DJing. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you could use Mixxx for audio mixing (recorded music) but you'd have a hard time doing that because that is not what it is designed for. Audio mixing (recorded music) is done with digital audio workstation software, not DJ software. I removed the confusing link to audio mixing (recorded music).—a thing 23:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]