Review of Audition 3 in Norwegian press!

Edit simply means to alter, change or correct.

In my vocabulary, edit does include adding effects.  But digital audio has always been a part of my career.  There was never a time where I only knew tape splicing.  So to me, edit is whatever an editor does.

In my mind, restoration also falls under the "editing" heading.  In some sense, so does mastering (and by mastering, I mean final processing).

Those are the thoughts in my head.  And it has nothing to do with dillusion or improper use of terms.  It has to do with jargon following trends and technology.

I can't agree with you, although I do follow your line of thought.  As someone who does restoration work, I certainly wouldn't consider it to fall under the heading 'editing'.

What we are dealing with here is not the use of the word 'edit' as a generalised term, but with the word as it is specifically used within a certain context or industry (i.e 'jargon').  In the film or sound industry the term 'edit' specifically means to cut and assemble components of a film or soundtrack; "edit film"; "cut recording tape".  It has always meant this (at least, for as long as I have been involved with the business) and in my view, should always remain so. 

There are dozens of 'jargon' words from this business that have had their meanings changed (usually by people who know no better) so that nobody really knows what they mean any longer.  Just a few examples; producer, master, edit..... the list is quite long.  Jargon should not follow trends or technology.  It is (or should be) a precise shorthand for the industry concerned - if an existing word does not fully describe a new process, then a new word should be given to that process, not a re-definition of an old one - that merely undermines its true meaning and confuses everyone who knows the real meaning.

Nothing much changes - I wrote this in Jun 2002!!

[Quote:]
I just feel that it is important that we recognise a middle ground here between complete newbies and the real pros, who have something valid to say, but need a little help rather than put-downs and elitism. [/quote]

Unfortunately, what you see as 'put downs and elitism' is not that at all. What it really is, is an attempt to guide users towards an understanding of what it is they are playing around with.

It's quite simple really. If these guys want to pick up pointers from the 'professionals', then they have to learn to explain their problems in a way the professionals understand.

The 'professionals' hold that place within our society by dint of experience and learning their trade the hard way. Generally speaking (in my experience) most are willing to pass on the knowledge they have acquired but, in return, they expect the 'beginner' to at least do some of the groundwork for his/herself. At the very least - in terms of this thread - the 'professional' would like to see an understanding of the jargon which we use.

Professional jargon is not something which is generated to confuse the outsider, although it is often seen as that. It is something which develops, over a period of time, to describe exactly, a process or product within the industry concerned. This is not something which is solely the province of audio engineers, every trade and profession you can think of has its own jargon - and for good reason.

Jargon is a precise way of relating something to someone else in the same business. If people start to use jargon incorrectly, then no one knows what it is that is being discussed. This thread is a prime example of what I am talking about. Users are bandying around the term 'mastering' when what they really mean is 'mixing'.

Edit simply means to alter, change or correct.

That's so, but only in a strictly mechanical context. But whenever I teach editing skills, I don't put it like that, because it's rather a negative, process-based way of looking at it. Certainly as far as speech goes, I prefer to emphasise that editing is the process of selecting what's required rather than removing what isn't. That way, you generally get better-constructed material. It's also why I don't like DJ-speak.

But it's also an example of how the attributions of specific meanings to words can subtly change over time. I don't think that any of the definitions of 'edit' are actually wrong - it's just an example of how jargon also alters to take account of different circumstances. So I'm with pwhodges on this one.