Talk:Spectrogram

message: It would be nice if the exemplary sonograms were accompagnied by the corresponding sound files (.ogg) so that we could hear what we see :-) --Dipoar (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request soundfiles to sonogram examples 

message: I removed the parenthetical claim that AT used Coagula because this site that's in the links section says he used metasynth.  If anyone has a really solid reference, we can put it back up. --Hurtstotouchfire 02:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aphex Twin used Coagula

message: the picture is still visible in the mp3, just not as clear.  i just checked. Omegatron 06:35, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
:Depends on the MP3. Differently coded MP3s will lose different information. TMC1221 07:04, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
::true, true. Omegatron
::Not really. It's still the same acoustic signal, so the spectrogram will be the same, just with more noise in it. High MP3 compression would have a similar effect as high JPEG compression of the spectrogram. --129.94.166.204 (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Aphex Twin mp3

message: I think it should read 24Hz instead of 24Khz, could someone more knowledgeable than me check this ? Zeno 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VLF section 

message: I am suggesting that Waterfall plot be merged into the Spectrogram page.  They are essentially the same thing and the terms are interchangable.  A waterfall plot can be 2D with color being the third dimension.  A spectrogram can also be a 3D display.  The only issue is that the Waterfall Plot page has a focus on room acoustics while Spectrogram is more of DSP term. (Spectrogram 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Waterfall_plot 

message: I added a image of a FM spectrogram. The 'edit' link below it was moved over and I was unsure how to move it back.stemperm 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: How do people feel about a section regarding how to read spectrograms for speech analysis?  Subsection?  Separate article?  I'd be willing to contribute. --Coyne025 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a great idea but if it is heavy on details then it might be better if it was over at a place like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Phonetics. The problem with spectrogram analysis is that it is used in so many different fields, speech happens to be just one of them.  Don't want to give any particular usage too much coverage.  For example: there might be too much information about images being embedded in popular music (see the recent NIN entries).  While I think that those edits are great, they might be a bit too much. (Spectrogram 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading Spectrograms of Speech 

message: Where sonograph redirects to this page, sonography redirects to medical ultrasonography. This does not seem consistent, should we change this? --130.89.139.73 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sonograph vs. sonography 

message: These two voice spectrograms are awful, they use such a low frequency resolution that you cannot distinguish any of their sonorants, they appear all fused together, which is misleading, and doesn't show how the pitch of voice varies (doesn't show the pitch at all actually). --89.124.241.234 (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please supply some better ones :) Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful voice spectrograms 

message: This edit added the following to the lead section: "In the field of time–frequency signal processing, it is one of the most popular quadratic Time-Frequency Distribution that represents a signal in a joint time-frequency domain and that has the property of being positive."  Does that mean something to the regular contributors?  Maybe there's just a simple typo throwing me off, but as a first-time visitor here, even with some experience with signal processing, I can't understand a word of it.  For example, the terms "quadratic", "positive" and "distribution" are not defined, nor do they play much of a role in the article. Spiel496 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. 93.145.142.238 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  spectrograms are positive? 

message: They do not bear any apparent relation to the subject (spectrogram) or content of the article.  Did some previous editor get confused between cryptograms and spectrograms?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.216.14.162 (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the  navbox, as I could see no obvious relation between it and this article.  –Sparkgap (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there a group of "Hidden Messages" links at the bottom? 

message: According to  a spectrogram is a "A graphic or photographic representation of a spectrum" - which is what I always understood the general term spectrogram means. For example you could have a spectrogram of the light observed from a star. This article gives the impression that a spectrogram is always related to sound waves. You can also find scientific papers () citing the term spectrogram in relation to other spectra than just sound waves. 202.180.125.97 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I certainly use them for vibration, and I have seen them for radio spectra as well. I'll have  ago at removing the bias. The reason that many of these spectral analysis articles is stufffed is that the medical/speech boys think they are the only ones using them, and 'correct' any other usage (eg cepstrum). Greglocock (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this article claim that spectrograms are just for sound? 

message: When you click this link under "External Links", it links to a page that doesn't exist. Can someone fix this maybe?
2601:8B:4400:C180:2048:CDF2:690E:727 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: See an online spectrogram of speech or other sounds captured by your computer's microphone.