|WikiProject Professional sound production||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Physics / Acoustics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Why does this article include no mention of the fact that Wikipedia itself is often criticised for being subject to echo chamber effects? Whether or not you agree with the criticism, it should at least be mentioned, if only to serve as an example.
Echo vs Reverb
I'm no expert on this subject, but isn't the term echo chamber a misnomer, at least in modern production terminology? Surely reverb chamber would be a more accurate term, as I don't see how a basement would produce distinct diminishing repetitions of sound required to be classed as echo. Still, anyone with more knowledge about this subject, feel free to correct me.
I'm not suggesting we rename the article, but if my assumption is correct, then could we mention this potential misnomer somewhere in the article?
'The original echo chamber...' paragraph
The chronology of the stuff described in this paragraph is unclear, due to the stringing-together of multiple ideas in single sentences and the lack of attention to existing text when adding new material. Someone needs to pick the commas out and put some full stops in, and to make the sequence of events clear - I can't do this myself because I don't know the story. Can anyone help? Regards to all. Notreallydavid (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)