Talk:Signal-to-noise ratio

message: What is meaning of A_c W N_0 etc in formula?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.94.41.89 (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: SNR for various modulation systems

message: In the article, this was placed without context:
* In Audio Coding there are terms like
** NMT 
** TMN
** SMR
These links don't really go anywhere or appear to be much use, so I removed them. --Twinxor 04:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: * 10(2n-1) \cdot \log_{10}(2)+10\log_{10}(3) 
* 20 \log_{10}(2^{n-1} \sqrt{6})
* 20 \log_{10} \left ( {2^n \sqrt{12} \over 2 \sqrt{2}} \right )
* 20 \log_{10} ( 2) \cdot n + 20 \log_{10} ( \sqrt {3} / \sqrt{2})
* 2n\cdot10\log_{10}(2)+10\log_{10}(3/2) Totally forgot we have a derivation over at Talk:Quantization_noise#Thesis — Omegatron 02:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A million different equivalent equations 

message: The article says "In image processing, the SNR of an image is usually defined as the ratio of the mean pixel value to the standard deviation of the pixel values" but that sounds confusing to me. I guess it involves time series (thus every pixel in a static image is acquired several times, and its standard deviation can be assigned to noise) or a constant (homogeneous) image; but the way it's written suggests that the standard deviation is calculated over all the pixels in a single frame image, whatever it is. The latter is of course false: the variability of different pixels in an image can be due to the object being imaged, and not all of it is just noise. Default007 13:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNR in image processing 

message: I, too, usually just revert small uncommented changes to new or anonymous editors.  But in this case, the removal of the square from the amplitude ratio was correct.  It's taken care of by the 20 instead of 10 multiplying the log of the ratio.  Editors, please use edit summaries to tell us what your edit is about, so it can be distinguished from drive-by vandalism. Dicklyon 14:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "unreferenced driveby edit"

message: At NPR (disambiguation), someone had added an entry for Noise Power Ratio, though we don't seem to have such a page. It seems to me that this should probably redirect (if at all) to here, Signal-to-noise ratio.  Do other editors agree? Or is a separate page needed?  References are here: Thanks, Elonka 04:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In books, it does seem to be a genuine term and acronym.  Better read some of those books and see what it means. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPR

message: What's good; anything over 100. Is 105 dB good? Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A 100 dB SNR would be exceptionally high, and very unusual; hard to imagine even, in any kind of sound or image system.  Speech is easily intelligible at 0 dB SNR, and perfectly intelligible at 20 dB, and sounds very clean at 40 dB.  So what do you mean by good?  For what?  Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Damaging your hearing, maybe. Atypicaloracle (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It's common in audio analysis to treat 60 dB as roughly-as-good-as-silent, e.g. when analysing how long reverb lasts. --mcld (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Good level

message: SINAD is a variant on Signal-to-noise ratio with total signal (as opposed to wanted signal) in the numerator. The concept is the same. The math is slightly different. I think it would be more efficient to cover both in the same article. -—Kvng 14:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the resulting merged article would be too long, I don't think the length of the existing articles is pertinent to a merge decision. I don't think it makes sense to have a separate article on a topic which is "slightly different". -—Kvng 18:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should phrase my comment slightly differently then. Look at the ratios section in the noise box at the bottom of the article. Should all of these ratios be merged into the SNR article? I don't think so. Most users of SNR have never heard of SINAD (I certainly hadn't until I found it on WP). It's a very specific, well-defined term, used by a relatively small group. I do think length is important - if the SINAD page was a single line, I'd agree to merge it here, but I think the article stands in its own right, which is why I oppose the merge. I don't see a persuasive argument to merge. GyroMagician (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked in both articles and I can't find the noise box of which you speak. -—Kvng 15:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have been clearer. I mean the box with all the links to noise-related articles, found at the bottom of the page. You can also see it here: Template:Noise GyroMagician (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the context. Doesn't look like a merge is a good idea. I have taken down the banners. -—Kvng 17:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[SINAD]] 

message: I have just undone the changes made by Comfr to the SNR in dB section under the definition. While made in good faith, I think this edit was more confusing than helpful. That the signal and noise are expressed in mW, or any other (power) unit, does not make any difference to the ratio SNR, so made the section unnecessarily restricted. Also, discussion about how to manipulate results in dB doesn't really belong on the SNR page - it should be on the (linked) dB page. Comfr - I hope you understand my reasoning, and I'm happy to discuss further. GyroMagician (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you GyroMagician for reviewing my "improvements" to the article, which I also feel concerned about for much the same reasons.  I modified the article, because of its jumps in reasoning.  The first equation under Decibels is partly based upon how a decibel is defined, and partly derived from the quotient rule for logarithms. The article also failed to explain why taking the difference between two measures of power results in a pure number expressed in decibels. I will continue working on the article while taking your concerns into account.  Please continue making helpful comments.  Comfr (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I added a derivation to the article, which does not restrict applicability or introduce new notation.  I looked for, but could not find, anything in the decibel article on manipulation of ratios.  Thanks again for taking the time to review my changes, revert, and explain your concerns.  Please let me know, if you still have concerns.  Comfr (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: SNR in dB

message: I'd like to request the addition a section on the SNR of multiple elements, because I can't find anything in my library on this topic. An example of this would be: Given an SNR of a single (e.g. transducer) element of X dB, what would be the SNR of M identical elements in an array? My Other Head (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNR of Multiple Sources 

message: I understand why SNR would be linked from the series on antennas, but it doesn't seem appropriate to have this box on the SNR page.  While SNR is important to antennas, it is only one small application out of a great many...  Should this box maybe be removed? Jazzlw (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Removing it. Dicklyon (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antennas?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Signal-to-noise ratio. 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/20060522134626/http://www.techonline.com/community/related_content/20771 to http://www.techonline.com/community/related_content/20771
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) 05:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello all! 
This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.
Thank you! Remagoxer (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive