Talk:Sound masking

message: Very copy and pasted - Here are some references that might help you out. Maybe read them over and try to reword some of your phrasing in your own way
Katz, J. (2011) Handbook of Clinical Audiology
Gelfand, S.A. (2007) Essentials of Audiology
Studebaker, G. (1967) Clinical Masking of the Nontest Ear. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, November 1967, Vol. 32, 360-371. doi:10.1044/jshd.3204.360
Ellyn Kuehne (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

message: Page has been wikified. --Pavithran 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikified

message: I'm really having a hard time making sense of this article.  I find it hard to believe that noise health effects can be reduced by adding more noise, whether or not you "notice" a noise less.  Even where annoyance is concerned, it seems like this assumes one is only annoyed by the observation of the masked noise - but the inability to hear is also a source of annoyance.  For example, there is something innately disturbing about concentrating on your work in an area where someone could easily come up behind you without you hearing them, and often subtle sounds help you to know if you're doing something properly.  I think that for this article to succeed it will need to address the issue of flat-out disbelief. 70.15.114.89 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but sound masking is a valid means of dealing with annoying noise (such as a loud noise in a narrow range of frequencies) by masking it with noise that has less annoying characteristics.  Pzavon 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The psychological effects are more subtle than hearing damage. I doubt if all people will find masking helpful - See Tinnitus ! Although Tinnitus masking can be effective, presumably if the symptom isn't white noise or pink noise. Paradoxical ?---19S.137.93.171 (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Skepticism

message: * Opposed As was noted in the other article's talk page, this is a practical application, that article is the underlying theory and leaving them as two separate articles seems more appropriate, though they should definitely reference each other.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Had:
The problem with speech privacy is that a PI of 50 is NOT halfway to the goal; the relationship is not a straight line.  The graph below shows the Privacy Index (measurable) plotted against the actual privacy (lack of understanding).   The heavy line is definitely not a straight.  When speech privacy is designed into an office, the process starts on the line at the lower left of the graph and proceeds along the line to the right.  The horizontal axis represents the physical improvements made in the room while the vertical axis represents what people think about the improvements.  It is clear that changes up to PI=60 do not get an approval rating from occupants.  It is this lack of appreciation for this fundamental fact that has resulted in bad designs.  To get this important point across, the various categories of speech privacy have been made analogous to school grades as shown in the table.
TODO:  NOTE: Privacy Index graph is missing, and needs to be added.
I deleted the overly confused text and reference to the mystery graph that I couldn't see existing for the past year or two.  The PI is nothing but 1-AI*100, and even that looks more complicated that just thinking of the distance AI is from 100...
Avé 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy Index 

message: These have been moved from the article, where they had been left as a wiki markup comment
:"Quite a lot of things wrong with the article but I can't be arsed (too tired, sorry) to figure out the correct tags. There's references to absent graphs and several double spaces (198 after I corrected probably ten), which might indicate copy/pasting from elsewhere. Might have to identify the source and figure out how much is still fair use. There's Too Much Jargon and general needlessly dry prose designed to shut out the layman instead of informing him. There's (badly done) tables that need a place in a work of reference. Probably other things. The measurements are now corrected. The metric units are placed first as proposed by http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/ASALIB-home/corp/standards/ANSI-Accredited_Operating_Procedures_2008.pdf , linked by http://acousticalsociety.org/standards/introduction_to_asa_standards_program (which is, at the time of writing, i.e. 2011-03-03, one of the two sources of the article)".
:
The above text was moved (but not written by) me --Greenmaven (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from an earlier editor – added for the record 

message: I don't know what to do, not a regular wikipedian, but lot's of this article is taken verbatum from here http://www.soundmasking.com/whitepapers/SecWhitePaper.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrozoan (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: Looking just at the section headings, one thinks "really?" I mean, "The Need For Sound Masking"? "The Fallacious Quest for Quiet"? "Why Use Sound Masking"?
EDIT: I added a NPOV tag. This article seems to read more like a persuasive essay on why sound masking is good, or like a how-to on how to install sound masking, then an encyclopedic article about sound masking.76.0.247.52 (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems more like a personal essay, as there is no real opposing argument and the tone appears like a personal essay. I added an ((essay-like)) tag (but also kept the other one). 108.95.137.192 (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Essay like implies personal musing, rather than technical exposition, and usually by someone one not versed in the subject matter.  The guy is obviously an expert, and the technical diction is good.  On the other hand, the principal author deleted the tag without comment in his edit description or discussion on the talk page.  Not good.Sbalfour (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

text: The copied text would in most circumstances be forbidden WP:MYTEXT.  I'm going to nominate it for speedy deletion.Sbalfour (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems Very Slanted 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Robert Chanaud (2008), Sound Masking Done Right: Simple Solutions for Complex Problems. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Why did someone remove all the content???101.178.163.19 (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a copyright violation and had to be removed. —C.Fred (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why