Talk:Acoustics

message: Cleanup Co-ordination	Cleanup Co-ordination
                     	This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:
*the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English. 
*the article has multiple overlapping problems. 
*the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article
For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.
===Recent Discussion===
After reviewing this page, I feel that it is in need of a major revision. I propose restructuring the entire article based around the following outline:
1. History 
2. Fundamentals 
*a. Simple Harmonic Oscillator 
*b. Waves in Simple Structures 
*c. Waves in Fluids 
3. Research Fields 
4. Applications and Influence
5. Links
6. Further Reading
Any general thoughts? Obviously this is open for discussion. Thanks. Spp143 (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that major revisions are needed.  The current article just seems to be a random hodgepodge of facts with a complete lack of a holistic approach to the field.  The only issue I have with the outline you propose is whether "Research Fields" and "Applications and Influence" would be sufficiently distinct.  ddomme  17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I would argue that "Research Fields" would incorporate a list of fields in acoustics (architectural, biomedical, physical, etc...) and that "Applications and Influence" would encompass topics that utilize portions of acoustics (i.e. sound engineers, recording engineers, audiologists, etc...). What do you think? Spp143 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  I also agree that the revision is needed.  In terms of the outline, I think that Research Fields and Applications should not contain too much detail but should give an overview of the wide range of topics within acoustics.  Each specific research field should really have its own wiki. Also, waves in fluids should include wave equation, reflection, transmission, enclosures, radiation and maybe more. This could probably be broken into several segments itself.Mic shep (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that major revisions are needed.  The current article just seems to be a random hodgepodge of facts with a complete lack of a holistic approach to the field.  The only issue I have with the outline you propose is whether "Research Fields" and "Applications and Influence" would be sufficiently distinct.  ddomme  17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I would argue that "Research Fields" would incorporate a list of fields in acoustics (architectural, biomedical, physical, etc...) and that "Applications and Influence" would encompass topics that utilize portions of acoustics (i.e. sound engineers, recording engineers, audiologists, etc...). What do you think? Spp143 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  I also agree that the revision is needed.  In terms of the outline, I think that Research Fields and Applications should not contain too much detail but should give an overview of the wide range of topics within acoustics.  Each specific research field should really have its own wiki. Also, waves in fluids should include wave equation, reflection, transmission, enclosures, radiation and maybe more. This could probably be broken into several segments itself.Mic shep (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It would certainly be an improvement ;) Gabriel Kielland (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's a great idea.  On earlier versions there was a lot of material about the physical principles that might be of interest, too.  It was deleted because of redundancy with other articles, but I still think that it has some place on this page.  In the mean time, I'm going to remove some of the redundancy. Joe056 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted your changes Joe and look forward to working with you on this, I'll try to draft something with the historical perspective on New Year's Day. Adrian Pollock (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm putting draft material on /temp. Comments and edits invited. This is intended to improve the article by using historical narrative to give a more structured account of how acoustics and its subfields developed. Adrian Pollock (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Re latest edit making acoustics a branch of "classical mechanics" rather than of "physics": interesting, but I'm concerned that this may seem to exclude branches of acoustics such as musical, physiological. I do agree that "physical acoustics" is well identified as a branch of "classical mechanics". So I may do a revert but more comments here invited. Adrian Pollock (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Great job putting it up, Joe !  I just fixed a typo (decibals/decibels).  As you say it's a huge improvement. There's so much else in Wikipedia on detailed acoustical topics, I really think this was the right choice to set up this central article basically as a switching/starting point. It could get longer but doesn't have to. Still a few ragged edges here and there that we can continue to work on, while seeing what others have to say.  Yes, it'll be good if you can improve the reference list (how ? Identify the top classics in the subdivisions ? Look for some good modern textbooks, maybe inexpensive ones, Rayleigh in paperback etc.??) I will pursue getting the "See also" list into columns. Anyway thanks, it's been a pleasure working with you ! Adrian Pollock (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point 

message: After reviewing this page, I feel that it is in need of a major revision. I propose restructuring the entire article based around the following outline:
1. History 
2. Fundamentals 
*a. Simple Harmonic Oscillator 
*b. Waves in Simple Structures 
*c. Waves in Fluids 
3. Research Fields 
4. Applications and Influence
5. Links
6. Further Reading
Any general thoughts? Obviously this is open for discussion. Thanks. Spp143 (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that major revisions are needed.  The current article just seems to be a random hodgepodge of facts with a complete lack of a holistic approach to the field.  The only issue I have with the outline you propose is whether "Research Fields" and "Applications and Influence" would be sufficiently distinct.  ddomme  17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I would argue that "Research Fields" would incorporate a list of fields in acoustics (architectural, biomedical, physical, etc...) and that "Applications and Influence" would encompass topics that utilize portions of acoustics (i.e. sound engineers, recording engineers, audiologists, etc...). What do you think? Spp143 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  I also agree that the revision is needed.  In terms of the outline, I think that Research Fields and Applications should not contain too much detail but should give an overview of the wide range of topics within acoustics.  Each specific research field should really have its own wiki. Also, waves in fluids should include wave equation, reflection, transmission, enclosures, radiation and maybe more. This could probably be broken into several segments itself.Mic shep (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Discussion

message: |}</div>
Not clear just why this was flagged.  The main problem I see is that the list, though good (insofar as it comes from an authoritative source) is very long and could look formidable to non-acousticians approaching the subject. It's hard to introduce such a broad and diverse subject and the present introductory section is somewhat bitty. My suggestion is that a summary of the historical development of this field of knowledge might be the best structure for giving a new reader a feeling for its scope.  R. W. B. Stephens' 800-page textbook has such a 10-page historical introduction.  I'm considering making a precis of it, as short as reasonably possible, and introducing it as a perspective lead=in to the list. Whaddya think ? Adrian Pollock (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would certainly be an improvement ;) Gabriel Kielland (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's a great idea.  On earlier versions there was a lot of material about the physical principles that might be of interest, too.  It was deleted because of redundancy with other articles, but I still think that it has some place on this page.  In the mean time, I'm going to remove some of the redundancy. Joe056 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted your changes Joe and look forward to working with you on this, I'll try to draft something with the historical perspective on New Year's Day. Adrian Pollock (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm putting draft material on /temp. Comments and edits invited. This is intended to improve the article by using historical narrative to give a more structured account of how acoustics and its subfields developed. Adrian Pollock (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Re latest edit making acoustics a branch of "classical mechanics" rather than of "physics": interesting, but I'm concerned that this may seem to exclude branches of acoustics such as musical, physiological. I do agree that "physical acoustics" is well identified as a branch of "classical mechanics". So I may do a revert but more comments here invited. Adrian Pollock (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Great job putting it up, Joe !  I just fixed a typo (decibals/decibels).  As you say it's a huge improvement. There's so much else in Wikipedia on detailed acoustical topics, I really think this was the right choice to set up this central article basically as a switching/starting point. It could get longer but doesn't have to. Still a few ragged edges here and there that we can continue to work on, while seeing what others have to say.  Yes, it'll be good if you can improve the reference list (how ? Identify the top classics in the subdivisions ? Look for some good modern textbooks, maybe inexpensive ones, Rayleigh in paperback etc.??) I will pursue getting the "See also" list into columns. Anyway thanks, it's been a pleasure working with you ! Adrian Pollock (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Older Discussion

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Acoustics article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 01:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about astro-acoustics...neverming 22 google hits...then planetary acoustics. Well, there is a study of observing sounds on other planets as well as earthquakes...I mean marsquakes and it should be related to acoustics. –Gnomz007(?) 02:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you, Gnomz, and congratulations if you are the person who coined the word "astro-acoustics" - awesome subject, I have had some original thoughts but zero communications about it until now. Regarding marsquakes - glad to see your mention, there were interesting moonquake antecedents in the 1970's. Strong links of course, between  seismology and acoustics. Adrian Pollock (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Acoustics|Link suggestions]] 

message: Shouldn't this term read "Physiological Acoustics", if we're talking about "the study of the mechanical, electrical and biochemical function of hearing in living organisms"?
("Psychological Acoustics" could appear as another name for "Psychoacoustics"?)
Kapadia58.167.192.143 06:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychological Acoustics 

message: User:Skoban has suggested that the list of disciplines needs to be cleaned up. I agree and would do it, but am at a lost about how to make it better. Any suggestions? pheon 13:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List clean up 

message: I think there should be a mention of archaeoacoustics somewhere on this page. --Max 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaeoacoustics 

message: Someone put an external link to 
*Calculations - Ohm's law as acoustic equivalent
While this is an interesting link, it is not tied to anything on this page apart from being in the same general topic area. It might fit on the Sound page if there were a discussion of impedance pheon 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: In order to shorten the "see also" section, I'm going to try to link to some of those articles in the text of the article.  Let me know if you don't like the idea, we can just revert it. Joe056 (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the See Also section 

message: Are there any schools that offer acoustics as a feild of study.?
I know of Penn State.  that is it.
--- Please refer to the Acoustical Society of America Web site: http://asa.aip.org/asagrad/gpdir.cm.html
That website is not very complete or up to date.  The acoustics task force is working to add an up-to-date list to this wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mic shep (talk • contribs) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: go to Academic Programs in Acoustics and you'll find information about lots of education opportunities in acoustics.  Mic shep (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Schools

message: Any larger companies that do acoustical research/testing?
----
There are several schools which give a degree in acoustics.  Penn State, University of Southampton, and, I believe, another European school (Germany?).  In addition, there are multiple schools with programs with concentrations in acoustics, University of Texas at Austin, George Washington University, UCLA, etc.  The Acoustical Society of America has, in the past, compiled books on the schools offering graduate programs. HerbK (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Career

message: Hi, I wonder whether people have time to look in at Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/When_Johnny_Comes_Marching_Home. It's a matter of balancing what I see as a poor musical performance with any historical value the recording has (yet to be justified by the nominators). The criteria are here. TONY (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured sound candidate 

message: There is a disconnect in this article from some of its core applications. If we just look at marine applications, the only reference to sonar mentions "a submarine using sonar to locate its foe", yet there is no mention about the more widespread use of sonar by other naval vessels to locate submarines. Nor is there any mention of hydrographic vessels mapping underwater topography, let alone the extensive use of sonar among commercial and recreational fishermen to detect fish. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Acoustics has applications

message: I took out two graphic images that were each 1000 pixels wide, mainly because the topic is not necessarily about musical notes in the Western scheme. Acoustics can be about noise, about non-Western musical heritages, and about general ranges of frequencies. 
*:Image:Frequencies of the audible range on a twelve and eight equal tempered scale.jpg
*:Image:MusicalNoteFrequencies.png
Unneeded. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piano note equivalencies in chart 

message: Substituted at 06:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Acoustics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131225161706/http://librarum.org/book/2513/1 to http://librarum.org/book/2513/1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Acoustics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730104616/http://www.apl.washington.edu/projects/ASA-UATC/index.php to http://www.apl.washington.edu/projects/ASA-UATC/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103180745/http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~bbard/savtc.html to http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~bbard/savtc.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, I am a member of https://sound2020.org/news/wiki4yearofsound2020/  and invite everyone to join this effort to improve the articles related to sound and acoustics, mostly those which are rated as C  (c-rated articles). 
````LEO FUKS
See Also https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/National_Institute_for_Occupational_Safety_and_Health/Wiki4YearofSound2020/home TMorata (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  improvement of this page 

message: In the middle of the page there is a picture of a little loudspeaker.
The footer says : "An inexpensive low fidelity 3.5 inch driver, typically found in small radios".
Why "driver", should it not be simply "loudspeaker"? Seppesol (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  driver