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.
No, I do not agree with the proposed merge. I feel that auditory masking is the larger theory and that sound masking is just one practical usage of the information. Another practical usage is in audio data compression, like in MP3s. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No. The Sound masking article is a very specific technology, and would at best be an "example" in this article. The reality is that it is in many ways the part that a layperson would care about, this article is very much about the underlying physics and biology. A "hatnote" or an early reference in the article to the "Sound Masking" page might be appropriate, though.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to at least try to cover these topics well. I'm not sure it makes sense to have separate articles. Each is not a large topic alone and there are interactions between the different effects. --Kvng (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
No to merge of spectral mask. This is an entirely different thing and inappropriate to merge. The last paragraph should be merged, however, as it is itself the result of a previous inappropriate merge of a stub into that article. SpinningSpark 21:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
No to spectral mask—absolutely not part of this topic. The other two articles on masking might be merged in a very comprehensive article, but I don't really see the driving need to do so. All kinds of masking can be mentioned here, even if the main article for each of the subtopics remains small. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that my suggesting Spectral mask merge was a mistake. Thanks for removing that. I'll do a little more cleanup. I don't see strong opposition to merging the other two. --Kvng (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)