Talk:Noise

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The shock of disambiguation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: big bang noise

message: its now out of date since environmental noise has been merged into Noise pollution--Covalent 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: where does one edit the branch

message: What is a uV? A typo, a microvolt, or something else?AlmostReadytoFly 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Units of electronic noise

message: 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)
replies: text: What do you think about this? — Omegatron 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Summaries 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge and disambiguation? 

message: 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:
*http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:White_noise.ogg
I could easily upload an uncompressed WAV or AIF file with proper spectrum. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sound files 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "random unwanted data without meaning" 

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

message: I'd welcome views on the contents of the Further Reading section - are there are more to add? Are the references that are currently there useful? MJG639 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: I just made a big edit (copying contents from my sandbox) in the hope it solves a few points since frankly, the article was awful. It is still not great, but at least:
*The lead is both understandable and correct.
*The "science" and "artistic" parts are separated.
*Noise in a scientific context is mentioned.
*There are no longer any wild WP:OR passages like A mosquito can produce considerable disturbing sound, although it is comparatively quiet with a volume of only approx. 30 dB(A). An orchestra, by contrast, might produce very pleasant sounds, even if its volume amounts to nearly 90 dB(A).  (which, as true as it may be, does not reflect any source and is the prose of the editor writing it).
References are still lacking and the "science" description of noise deserves a better treatment. I might work on the latter later.
It could be that the OR passages are salvageable with some sourcing and rewriting effort. If one thinks so, please do re-add back the parts.
TigraanClick here to contact me 11:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Tigraan. Thank you for your work on this article. NIOSH has plenty of scientific resources on noise; let me know if you would be interested. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large edit with multiple goals (May 2016) 

message: Also noise may have (or not) different Fourier analysis characteristics than non randomized sound, but it depends on what is considered as "noise" (the sound of leafs can be perceived as pleasant sound or as annoying noise).
::: Well, everyday mono-words (not phrases) aren't analytical enough to solve this. Some wide spectrum randomized sounds, might be perceived as something pleasant if are heard by something you enjoy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4107:9B00:FD1D:4570:446D:E240 (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: child-talk

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: A filtered noise.
more accurately: a differently mapped spectrum of noise
(because filtering mimics that, but it's lossy and we want the same thing but lossless)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:88F0:DD00:F909:5E6E:802B:51E7 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We have Colors of noise. I have added a link to the See also section. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: ''make page'': [[Biased noise]]

message: This is the stupidest Wikipedia article ever.
https://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/162437-the-stupidest-wikipedia-article-ever 47.137.178.203 (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs revamp 

message: — Assignment last updated by JMgeorgetown (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Equity in Occupational Health