Talk:Noise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Acoustics  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Acoustics Taskforce.
 

Disambiguation[edit]

a really good candidate for DISAMBIGUATION...psssss....

Only, I would suggest, when this article becomes bigger than it is now. As it stands, I think it's OK to have them all on the one page - none of the individual bits would make a very good article on its own (others may disagree, of course). --Camembert


Expanding and consolidating[edit]

I've added material, sectionalised it, and shortened the intro to the bare essentials. I think this can now stand as a page in its own right functioning also for disambiguation. I note the translation problem, but in English one word does cover all these things. Maybe in other languages you now split this page into two under different words, deleting sections as appropriate. Any number of specialist pages can now follow, some of which I've recently created, as each area listed is complex. Some links, like A-weighting, are appropriate to both acoustics and electronics. --Lindosland 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

i think we need to get rid of discussion on acoustic noise. it is a meaningless term not used by any profession and is not an article we can link to Anlace 00:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Acoustic noise is an important and valid subject--Light current 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
well what is acoustic noise...it is not a term used by the public or by acoustical scientists...are you talking about environmental noise or community noise?...this page needs to have more focus not a bunch of topics that are rarely used, regards Anlace 05:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
What is an unwanted acoustical (audible,say) signal called?--Light current 05:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Google returns about 12.5 million results for acoustic noise. You say its not a topic worthy of inclusion?
[1]--Light current 05:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Light current, i think the real issue here is that the discussion of acoustic noise in this article is jibberish and has nothing to do with the concept of noise cancelling which is the commercial use of the term "acoustic noise". do you think "acoustic noise" and "audio noise" are the same? i am open to combining them if so. in any case we need to have a better focus here on the big picture uses of "noise" and make sure our page reflects that priority of Noise pollution, industrial noise and various forms of electronic noise, regards Anlace 15:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I think its time to start a linked series of articles on noise as User:Ambush Commander suggestes some time ago to iron out any problems with navigation over large topics.--Light current 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)]
I agree that:
the discussion of acoustic noise in this article is jibberish and has nothing to do with the concept of noise cancelling which is the commercial use of the term "acoustic noise".
Therefore this para should be edited to remove non scientific meanings. Would you care to do that Anlace?
--Light current 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Ive given it a first pass. The second para is actually interesting but doesnt belong here...it should be moved to somewhere like the history of early filmmaking...so how to we start to create a better navigation page...how about major categories, then subcategories...major categories could be "airborne sound" and "electronics noise" or someting like that ...what do you think Light current. Regards Anlace 22:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be good for you to read the talk on a previous failed attempt at organisation. This can be found at talk:root page and also some at User Talk:Lindosland.
I am in favour at the moment of trying out User:Ambush Commander's suggestion of a series of articles. For instance Noise would have a series of sub topics all listed on the front page. From there, one could navigate to the different types of noise and back again. On each sub-page there would be a second 'series' box to navigate deeper into the subject(and back again).
What we need first tho' is a Series box template for the front page that would list all the different forms of noise we want to deal with under this topic heading.--Light current 23:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the referrals to the thorny history, which ive now read. im not sure now i support a root page concept, but maybe a little more sophisticated disambig page...my bottom line is that i want this page to get the reader quickly to where he needs to go and to recognize a majority of readers will either be headed to environmental noise or some sort of electonics noise. with this root page concept you need an extra click to get anywhere and the very different topics become more intermingled. a complicating problem is that the Environmental noise link just delays the reader further from getting into the "meat" of his search. i will work on that "back end" problem and put more order into the Environmental noise and Noise pollution pages. cheersAnlace 03:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The shock of disambiguation[edit]

I worked for many hours yesterday extracting from my brain everything I knew about noise, and ended up exhausted and surprised by what I had created. Today my text is scattered across Wikipedia, with no mention of me! I'm not sure I'm complaining. It's just another revelation about how Wikipedia can work!

I did feel that the page I created had value as it stood in enlightening people regarding the many meanings of noise, while being still quite short. I think I would prefer to keep it as it was, but I have no desire to remove all the other pages, which I had foreseen anyway given time. Can we keep the original, as well as the improved disambiguation? --Lindosland 16:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking further into this, I find that the important area of Environmental noise has been lost, with the link going to a lot of stuff about avant guarde music! It can all be sorted, but I'm reverting with the suggestion that noise is perhaps not a true candidate for disambiguation as in some sense all the examples do have a common meaning of either 'unwanted' or 'random'. Disambiguation has created problems such as the fact that people looking up 'Evironmental noise', may actually have factories in mind, yet all forms of environmental noise monitoring share a common basis that is perhaps best explained in the root page. Please leave the page and help perfect the links. Disambiguation has taken away many of the useful links to weightings, equal loudness curves etc, which need to be restored to each specialist page. --Lindosland 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

To make this easier to sort out, I've removed the disambiguation tag but added into the original all the new links. Some of these may be better turned into redirects. For example, the original meaning of what I wrote on Noise (Acoustic) has been distorted, because Acoustic noise was part of a hierarchy not a thing on its own. Environmental noise is acoustic noise, but that was no longer clear after the article was broken up! All this convinces me that Noise is not a subject for disambiguation, but better kept as starting page for introducing noise and its many specialisations. --Lindosland 17:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

i thik we re on the right track to have this as a root page...except i dont think big-bang noise has a place here...it would not have .0000001 the hits or interest as electronic, audio or environmental noise...also acoustic noise is not a useful heading...i think it should be deleted...with those two gone one can easier sort out the information....by the way the subsequent link from clicking Environmental noise really should be directed to Noise pollution; howver, the name of Noise pollution should probably be changed to the more scientific Environmental noise...by the way ive just beefed up the Noise pollution article which needed a lot of workAnlace 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

big bang noise[edit]

Cant we get rid of big bang noise. I couldnt even find one link back to that topic. this page really needs streamlining....i think i can figure out how to get rid of acoustic noise as well ...any other ideas for streamlining the electronics side? cheers Anlace 06:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about the 3K background radiation that is observed wherever in the universe you look.? That is indeed noise for radio astronomy and maybe other scientists. It does cause them a problem as at Haystack observatory where it was first discovered.--Light current 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

where does one edit the branch[edit]

its now out of date since environmental noise has been merged into Noise pollution--Covalent 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's easier now, since I renamed all the branchlist templates using a scheme described at Wikipedia:Root page incorporating the root and hub page names. You either enter Template:Branchlist/Noise into the search box. Or for a full view of all branchlist templates that you can just click on to edit, go to Category:Branchlist. This link is at the top of Wikipedia:Root page for convenience. Sorry I'm a bit late replying. --Lindosland 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Units of electronic noise[edit]

What is a uV? A typo, a microvolt, or something else?AlmostReadytoFly 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing Topics[edit]

This page is missing descriptions of psychological noise and physiological noise.

Edit Summaries[edit]

Editors, please follow guidelines regarding edit summaries. Most of us have, and it goes a long way towards preventing reverts of good edits. If the diffs look like vandalism to me on first or even split-second glance, and the edit summary is completely blank, then chances are, I'm going to revert it. --黒雲 user:Qaddosh 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about this? — Omegatron 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge and disambiguation?[edit]

It has been proposed a month ago that signal noise be merged into this article. User:Camembert proposed a disambiguation earlier. I propose to combine both ideas: Leave the disambiguation section of this page and merge the rest into the appropriate articles (mostly signal noise). Should the links to white noise, etc. also go to signal noise or remain on the disambiguation page? — Sebastian 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the merge. Signal noise is a small article, containing information relevant to noise. I'm not sure about the white noise links. — I am a lemon 05:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I made Noise into a disambiguation page. I'll remove the merge tag from signal noise. I think this page is mostly OK as an article on audio (sound) noise, but the video part should be removed or relocated some place. Dicklyon 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sound files[edit]

I deleted the white noise sound file because its frequency spectrum fell precipitously by about 24 dB at about 17 kHz, staying at that greatly reduced level up to 22 kHz where it reached its Nyquist limit. Is there a low-bit sound file type that is suitable for Wikipedia, one which will preserve the full white noise frequency range up to Nyquist? One more problem I had with that file was its level which was a very hot -4 dB relative to 0 dBFS. Casual users would be blasted out of their seats upon clicking on the sample. I imagine that an average level of -18dBFS, standard broadcast level, will suffice.

I complained about the sound file here:

I could easily upload an uncompressed WAV or AIF file with proper spectrum. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia likes OGG - see here for details. If you can generate WAV, you can probably generate OGG as well. Or I might be able to convert it for you - I say might because I have no idea what the conversion would do to the spectrum, but we can try ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It very well may be the OGG conversion that takes down the spectrum above 17k. I will try it myself and see. The least I can do is upload a file that does not peel paint with its intensity. The pink noise file is about -16 dBFS average level, so the white noise could easily live 2 dB down at -18dBFS because its greater high frequency content will make it that much more irritating. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I had a quick look at writing an OGG from Matlab, but couldn't see an easy way to do it. If you have an easy way of generating the file, please try that. But ultimately, does it really matter if the top frequency is at the Nyquist limit, or a bit below it? In the end, and 'white' noise is only going to be white over some limited bandwidth. The amplitude, on the other hand, clearly is important. Matching to the pink noise file (or replacing that at the same time) sounds like a good way to go. GyroMagician (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I am reverting my changes here because I have uploaded a new white noise file with the same name. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"random unwanted data without meaning"[edit]

I guess the word "random" is redundant in this phrase. A periodic disturbance may not comply with the common parlance definition of "noise", but technically it is just another disturbance of the communication. Likewise, I wonder whether conceivably wanted data without meaning could exist. Unwanted data with meaning does exist (e.g. the messge "you are fired"), but that is probably not the kind of unwanted-ness meant in the above phrase. For clarity IMHO it is essential to acknowledge that "meaning" is not a property of the data, but attributed by the parties in a communication. For sound effects, or some experiments so-called white noise is very much wanted. Rbakels (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume it depends on the meaning of "random", "wanted", "data", and "meaning", as well as the context. Randomly generated numbers have little meaning but many uses. Hyacinth (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

article is a mess[edit]

The hatnote says the topic is "noise as an unwanted phenomenon", but the article is just random things. There's noise in film which is actually meaningful noises, and cellular noise that probably has some function and can hardly be unwanted. I'm going to do a big cleanup here unless anyone can explain why we need this mess. Bhny (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned it up. There is a noise (disambiguation) page already for other meanings. Bhny (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Noise (acoustic)[edit]

I propose that Noise (acoustic) be merged into Noise. As it is now the noise article is only about acoustic noise, so the two cover the exact same topic. Ulflund (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the term "noise" is more general than just acoustic noise. But as you point out, the scope of the article is limited to sound so it's a no brainer. I support the merge. The only issue is the title of the merged article. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
If we consider acoustic noise to be the primary topic for noise we should just merge Noise (acoustic) into Noise. If there is no primary topic we should move the disambiguation page to Noise and merge Noise into Noise (acoustic). According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
Although acoustic noise is what is most often meant by noise I'm not sure it fullfils either of the criteria above. E.g. Image noise has 7654 page views the last 30 days compared to 9124 for Noise. Ulflund (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The concept noise has a lot of meanings, as listed in Noise (disambiguation). The content of the article Noise is what one would expect in Noise (acoustic). Concluding I think both articles could be merged. I do not know the criteria for the most preferred title. Ellywa (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)