Talk:Equalization

message: I think that there needs to be some serious editing on the overview. and to move the classifications of an equalizer into other catergories.  
here is a suggestion:
The classifications of an equalizer are determined by the method it changes the tone and it's functionality.
tone control methods
:shelving
:passing
:peaking
:cut and boost
functionality
:sweeping
:parametric
:graphic
:paragraphic
Ab2kgj 03:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  types of equalizers 

message: *something about Baxendall
*something about George Massenburg 
Iain 01:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history to add

message: I agree to merge with equalization filter.--Lenilucho 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to keep the articles seperate. This one should discuss the piece of audio equipment while the other should ultimately be expanded to include an explination of various digital algo's and analog circuits to actually do the work. The other should be linked to in this article. 48v 03:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: the link for high pass links to a Lord of the Rings ArticleTjb891 16:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it and the rest of the filter's links.--Lenilucho 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Link 

message: Does "In passing through any channel, data is temporal/frequency spreading occurs. " make sense?
--82.25.174.136 19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was meant to mean that channel distortion is seen in both the time-domain and the frequency-domain, however, the article has been changed and no longer says that.  Time-domain distortion is a result of differential time-delay at different frequencies and the consequent change in phase relationships.  Time-delay and phase distortion are issues with long telecom lines, but not usually with mixing desks which is what this article seems to be primarily about.  Feel free to put that in though. SpinningSpark 10:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sense 

message: I have put a fact tag on this statement which I do not believe to be true;
:Telephone companies use equalization to reduce bleed-through or crosstalk between adjacent telephone wires
Crosstalk may certainly be reduced by the band-pass filter, but as the article says earlier, a filter performing complete rejection of a band is not an equaliser.  The main defence against crosstalk in telecoms is to maintain the balance of the circuit through the use of balanced lines, repeating coils and balanced topology in the filter and amplifier designs.  None of which has anything to do with equalisers.
I think the whole paragraph should be removed from the article but I have asked here first before any drastic deletion. SpinningSpark 10:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telephone crosstalk 

message: I am setting up a home thetre set up.  In the stack where does the equalizer go How connected.....  Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.157.15 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A better place to ask questions is WP:Reference desk/Science.  This page is for discussing improvements to the article. SpinningSpark 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to hook up 

message: Wouldn't it be relevant to at least link to the article on RIAA equalization, as I'm sure many new gramophone enthusiasts would appreciate a direct reference to hooking up their record players correctly? 93.166.114.170 (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If new gramophone enthusiasts can't find this information on the internet, they don't deserve to listen to vinyl platters. None of them need know about equalization; they just need to find a receiver with a phono input which already contains the circuit. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIAA-EQ 

message: I fixed some dead discussion links for the proposed merge from Smiley face curve to this article. We should (re)start the discussion.
*I support a merge. The Equalization article is incomplete. --Kvng (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're talking about is WP:SUMMARY. Normally this is used when an article on a broad subject grows too big. Would you argue that the topic is potentially large enough to eventually merit summary style and so might as well start off that way? --Kvng (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, summary style main article, covering equalization broadly but not too deeply. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Summary style is used for broad topics. Equalization is not clearly so broad. Summary is usually invoked once an article becomes too large. This article plus all the articles proposed to be merged into it would not add up to something large enough to merit summary style. --Kvng (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Smiley face merge

message: Material was duplicated here and in Equalization (audio). I moved and merged stuff that was clearly audio production and reproduction related to Equalization (audio). A also retargeted a couple of the proposed merges (Parametric equalization and Smiley face curve) to Equalization (audio). What's left here is general discussion and equalization topics related to communications. --Kvng (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but summary style means you should leave behind a summary of the material that was moved and a  hatnote linking to it.  If you really are going to delete all of the audio material in this article then it is a nonsense to have an audio mixing desk as the lede picture. SpinningSpark 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  also there is summary text in the lead. None of this is perfect but I hope it gives us a better platform from which to make improvements. --Kvng (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved-audio specific topics to [[Equalization (audio)]] 

message: Current organization of this topic appears to be as follows.
*Equalization topmost article Appears to be written as WP:SUMMARY. Needs improvement.
*Equalizer (communications) one of two child articles for Equalization. Appears to be written as WP:DISAMBIG but is not tagged as such. Needs to decide whether it is an article, summary or disambiguation.
*Equalization (audio) the other child article of Equalization. Written as regular article. Past and proposed merges make this a comprehensive article.
I propose a simplified organization that incrementally improves upon the current organization. I don't claim this is an optimum organization, just that it is an improvement. I assume my fellow editors appreciate the value of incremental improvement.
*Move any Equalization information not already present in linked articles into those articles. There are only 3 refs in Equalization so I don't expect this to be a lot of work.
*Convert Equalization into WP:DISAMBIG by merging Equalizer (communications) into it.
*No changes to Equalization (audio)
-—Kvng 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done work to tease apart audio (Equalization (audio)) and telecommunications (Equalizer (communications)) equalization topics. Hopefully this is an improvement. Additional improvements or comments are welcomed. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the dab page to Equalization in place of the redirect that was there so the dab has the prime title.  I have renamed Equalizer (communications) to Equalization (communications) for consistency and to better match the material that is now on that page.  I feel that Equalization (audio) is now slightly misnamed following the reorganisation.  Much of telecomms equalization is to do with audio but that material is now on a different page.  Something like Equalization (music) might be more appropriate. SpinningSpark 00:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Having looked at the very long list of incoming links to the dab page, I am now not so sure that this split was such a good idea.  In many cases it is going to be impossible to decide which article to link since the context of the source page could refer to either or both.  An alternative to remerging would be to create an overview article at Equalization and move the disambiguation page back to Equalization (disambiguation).  What do you think? I have archived a copy of "pages that link here"  to maintain visibility of the original list of links.  People are bound to try and "fix" these and inevitably get some wrong.  This would best be done after we have a stable structure. SpinningSpark 11:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will implement this in a few days time if there are no objections. SpinningSpark 16:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This area of coverage is a mess but I feel like we're on the right track. I've started disambiguating articles linked to Equalization and have not found anything I can't deal with. I've found more ambiguosity at Equalization filter and Equalizer. I believe that going through and clearing up these cases will improve the articles involved and make things less messy. Please point out any specific examples where you find disambiguation difficult and we can discuss further. ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I completed disambiguation. The only place where I couldn't resolve an audio/communications ambiguity was in Equivalent impedance transforms. ~Kvng (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite clear whether you are agreeing, or disagreeing, with my proposed changes. SpinningSpark 10:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I found only one case (Equivalent impedance transforms) where discussion was general enough that the equalization application (audio vs. communication) was not given in the context. If we created an overview article for equalization, I'm not sure what would link to it aside from Equivalent impedance transforms. ~Kvng (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equalization organization