Jump to content

Talk:LOUD Audio

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

Contested deletion

[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a well-known brand that owns a bunch of other well known brands such as:

LOUD Technologies has been in the news:

LOUD has is listed in business books:

The lack of coverage in the article is reason for improving it, not deleting it. — Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it seem that most people who say "improve it, don't delete it" are just too darn busy to do anything themselves to fix it? It's like my boss constantly telling me how "easy" my job is, though he's incapable himself of even the rudiments.
FWIW, Hoover's & Plunkett's are not "business books" in either the B-school or entrepreneurial sense — "has is" notwithstanding.
The company's early history is actually buried in Mackie (and to a lesser extent Greg Clark Mackie.
Worth salvaging? Certainly. But I can better make the case that SLM is much more interesting than LOUD — definitely Crate Amplifiers alone deserves an article. Here's a brief overview of St. Louis Music's (entirely unstated) history, including the rapid rise of SLM Electronics: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/st-louis-music-inc-history/ Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted for your approval, my valiant attempt at improving the article.synthfiend (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the update problem

[edit]

From a press release dated sometime Nov 2008:

St. Louis based M.I. Distributor; U.S. Band and Orchestra Supplies Inc. acquires St. Louis Music and its divisions of Knilling, Austin and SLM MarketPlace from Loud Technologies Inc.

http://www.pro-music-news.com/html/01/e81120us.htm
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have both created a dedicated St. Louis Music article, and updated the Loud and Mackie articles appropriately. synthfiend (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

was reversion necessary?

[edit]

I am uncertain why user KH-1 felt the need to revert this article. I hoped to find discussion here but, alas.

At a glance, it seems that the information added 26 Jan 2018 does accurately update the status and naming conventions chosen by LOUD. I'm swamped by trivia at the moment, but hope to get around to research. Meantime, chatter here would be nice.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit comment on this revert by KH-1. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't recall my reasons for reverting. Feel free to re-add the information. -KH-1 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bits that could be added

[edit]

Info on the Austin brand held by SLM since 2001:
http://www.austingtr.com/guitars/
http://www.vintaxe.com/catalogs_pages/catalogs_japanese_austin_2001.php
(Actually, these Austins were never MIJ. MIK at the beginning, likely some MII, entirely MIC about 2005-2006. The name may have previously been held by another owner.)

Before Austin, SLM had a '90s budget line, but I can't recall the name.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a St. Louis Music article, which makes mention of Austin Guitars, and would be an appropriate place for expanding any relevant information about the brand. synthfiend (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]