Talk:Colors of noise

message: This article seems to focus only on noise in terms of sound and maybe electronics. Where should something be included about noise (as a source of error) in making measurements - whether from technical or experimental source material? Of course, the same power/frequency concepts apply. Pat Heslop-Harrison 07:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Measurement 'noise'

message: we could expand all of these to use the 1/fβ notation, where β = something, as used in some of these examples. — Omegatron
"The Federal Standard 1037C Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunication Terms defines four noise colors (white, pink, blue & black) and is considered the official source."
:An official source, perhaps but any one nation's standards can't be taken to be the standard.  Is there any ISO standard, for example?  I'd have thought a lot of this information is worth putting onto the main page, BTW.  --Douglas 4 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
::It's better than a newsgroup posting.  Here are the official definitions:
; white noise : Noise having a frequency spectrum that is continuous and uniform over a specified frequency band. (188) Note:  White noise has equal power per hertz over the specified frequency band. Synonym  additive white gaussian noise. 
; pink noise : In acoustics, noise in which there is equal power per octave. 
; black noise : Noise that has a frequency spectrum of predominately zero power level over all frequencies except for a few narrow bands or spikes. Note: An example of black noise in a facsimile transmission system is the spectrum that might be obtained when scanning a black area in which there are a few random white spots. Thus, in the time domain, a few random pulses occur while scanning. 
; blue noise : In a spectrum of frequencies, a region in which the spectral density, i.e. , power per hertz, is proportional to the frequency. 
— Omegatron 01:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Ogg Vorbis files is Wikipedia policy. There's a handy help link next to each one that will tell you how to configure your player to play them. Wikipedia uses Vorbis because it's not patent encumbered, the standard is totally open, and therefore it is the most likely to a) be usable far into the future when current formats die out, b)have a player for virtually any platform a user might be using, and c) isn't patent encumbered and thus Wikimedia can legally use any free encoders that exist --Ktims 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real definitions 

message: red = brown (1/f2) definition:  
A mean reverting stochastic process http://riskinstitute.ch/00012612.htm
A stationary and causal Gaussian first order autoregressive (AR(1)) process {Xt} with mean zero (a real oceanographic definition) http://faculty.washington.edu/dbp/PDFFILES/red-noise.pdf
Geophysical processes, for example, are often characterized by red noise backgrounds. For red noise, the variance decreases with increasing frequency. In some cases, the overall noise trend can be approximated by a first order AR model. http://www.systat.com/products/TableCurve2D/help/?sec=1080
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~csi/REF/pdfs/ensomjo.pdf
I have a feeling red and brown are actually the same, and red/brown is used as a model for oceanographic research.  In other words, the ocean-filtered noise is not red, but is modeled by red? - Omegatron 15:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Why put up examples that can't be played with Quicktime, Real or MS?
: Using Ogg Vorbis files is Wikipedia policy. There's a handy help link next to each one that will tell you how to configure your player to play them. Wikipedia uses Vorbis because it's not patent encumbered, the standard is totally open, and therefore it is the most likely to a) be usable far into the future when current formats die out, b)have a player for virtually any platform a user might be using, and c) isn't patent encumbered and thus Wikimedia can legally use any free encoders that exist --Ktims 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red 

message: "Bounded Brownian noise" - http://www.dxarts.washington.edu/courses/565/clm-2/green.cl
"the mid-frequency component of white noise" - http://www.engr.uky.edu/~dllau/Halftone/HtmlFiles/paper2.html
Used in halftone dithering
More definitions in the footnotes here:  — Omegatron (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green 

message: http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm
is the glossary.  Each colour is in its alpahabetical place.
DavidLJ (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Asked For

message: Great article, folks :-) Is anybody working on a sample of grey noise to complement the others - cause otherwise I might try to create one. Peter S. 10:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh.  I was going to do that.  Must have forgotten.  Feel free.  I was just going to take white noise and FFT filter it in cool edit/audition, plugging in values from the weighting filter a-weighting equation.  There's probably a better way.  — Omegatron 13:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, just go ahead, I would have to search for an ogg encoder first, you seem to be already set up. Cheers :-) Peter S. 14:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'll try to remember to do it tonight.  — Omegatron 16:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, many happy thanks :-) Peter S. 17:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I remember why I never did this.  Since it's the inverse of a weighting filter, and a weighting filter tends towards −∞ dB, the signal will tend towards +∞ dB at the frequency extremes.  So I didn't really know how to weight it and still have a decent signal level.  If I chose the range from 10 Hz to 20 kHz, for instance, the level at 10 Hz would be 0 dB, and the level at 1 kHz would be -70 dB.  — Omegatron 21:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. (EDIT) I'd create a version of 20Hz-20kHz@16bit (19Hz would be the lowest frequency great cinema subwoofers output). At this range, you've got 55 dB between 20 Hz and 1kHz, plenty enough in 16bit space (~96dB). 24bit would give you a better s/n ratio, of course, but is it really necessary to have a low noise floor on a sound file that is essentially noise? :-) And in any case, add that disclaimer to the article. At least that's what I would do. Cheers! Peter S. 23:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, here it is. Sounds good, many thanks :-) Peter S. 09:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, these are just approximations.  I guess it all gets lost in the ogg conversion anyway, so it doesn't matter, but I was thinking of making it perfect, taking real random numbers from random.org, converting to sound file (I got this far last night before realizing it wasn't really worth it), making gaussian distributed, save as white noise, integrate in matlab or something (instead of FFT filter approximation), normalize, save as brown noise, etc. etc.    If we could upload WAV files as well as listenable files I could see how this could be useful for posterity kind of reasons; do everything exactly so other people can use the files for other purposes, but for now it's silly overkill.  — Omegatron 14:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can indeed upload lossless files, I have discovered, by encoding as ogg FLAC.  I might go through and do it again sometime with perfect random numbers and mathematical accuracy.  But not today.  I'm not sure what it would accomplish, even, but it would be interesting to do... — Omegatron 00:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grey noise sample? 

message: Doesn't the OGG encoding of the samples use psychoacoustic modelling? And wouldn't that severely distort the result, considering that grey noise is based on psychoacoustics itself? Using uncompressed or losslessly compressed sample would IMO be vastly preferable. --Brazzy 11:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  I have the original wav files still, but Wikipedia only accepts ogg.  It's not a bad approximation for now. — Omegatron 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: forgive my stupidy on the subject.. but in using psychoacoustic modelling surely it would _sound_ the same to a human and that's what's important right? if you were going to use them for anything wouldn't you have software / equipment to generate them? --Streaky 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Theoretically, yeah, but psychoacoustic modelling isn't really meant for pure noise, and throws away information that distorts the sound.  Apparently you can pack pure WAV files into the ogg container, so I might do that if I get around to it someday and upload it separately... — Omegatron 04:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sample encoding 

message: Why do you keep removing it? Its a legit WP construct is it not? Pls resond on Project Electronics as we have the same problem of organising our articles. If we dont start it soon, it will become a massive task--Light current 05:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branchlist 

message: So where does shot noise fit in this scheme? I have reservations about the color-to-name scheme because I personally have heard only about white noise and pink noise (especially the uniform spectrum part). And what about Johnson noise, for that matter. What if these articles don't have a cited noise-to-color correspondence? --Ancheta Wis 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Johnson-Nyquist_noise#Explanation, it's white.  Shot noise doesn't specify, but this external link says it's white as well.  The colors have nothing to do with the process that produced the noise; they're just descriptions of the frequency spectrum produced. — Omegatron 00:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See Talk:Electronic noise. — Omegatron 04:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beware that the power spectrum does not define the sinal; many completely different signals have identical power spectra. Shot noise in particular has a time-domain description that makes it very different from white noise even though it too has (or may have) flat power spectrum. Also, "noise" for this article means "a meaningless random signal", whereas in other signal processing articles it means "an unwanted distortion of a signal"; which need not be the addition of some "meaningless random signal". --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shot noise 

message: How did this whole spectrum → color thing start, anyway?  Was "white noise" coined first, to make an analogy to white light with all the colors of the spectrum present?  Was "Brownian noise" coined first, named for Brownian motion, but then corrupted into a color abbreviation and followed by others? — Omegatron 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: The term 'DC' is not defined and I could not quickly determine its meaning via google or the disambiguation page here on wikipedia... could any help?
Kinser 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct current, or a signal with a frequency of zero. — Omegatron 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does 'DC' mean in the explanation of Brown noise? 

message: Sorry for being a party pooper, but I've removed the mains hum section. I'm sad to say, but it is not a colour, as the title of the article tells me, and there is an article named Mains hum. Also, it isn't a pure noise (i.e., it isn't "a random signal", as the first paragraph of the article says), I hope everyone is okay with that. I'll move the relevant discussion to Talk:Mains hum now. +mwtoews 08:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk content moved. +mwtoews 08:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with that change. — Omegatron 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed ''Mains hum'' section 

message: Funny as some people may have found it, I have removed the comment about orange noise being generated by a class of first graders on plastic recorders. It was a dumb joke, insulting to a real musical instrument, and factually incorrect. Thee strikes and that comment is out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eijkhout (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the original newsgroup posting.  I wonder if the definition itself should be removed. — Omegatron (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orange noise and first graders 

message: i thought colors of noise were used to differentiate between levels of structured or erratic noise. did i believe another ghost then?· Lygophile has spoken 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  structuredness 

message: Sorry if I'm being dumb here, but I'm struggling to understand how the graphs, particularly of white v pink noise, relate to their descriptions. White noise is described as having a flat frequency spectrum in linear space, but the graph shows a (roughly) flat spectrum with a logarithmic scale. Pink noise is described as being "flat in logarithmic space", but its graph shows a downward trend on the same log scale. I'm guessing that the y-axis of the graphs (dB) is not what they are "flat" in (ie power?), but it all seems horribly confusing. Also the slight rise in the white noise graph is attributed to it being a log rather than linear scale, but that can't be right, if it were on a linear scale it would surely slope downwards dramatically -- so it seems more like the slight rise is an aberration and this isn't true white noise (hardly surprising if it was generated from an OGG file...) Can anyone shed some light? Thanks. 217.169.15.38 19:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are quite correct. The plots are obviously wrong, and should be corrected or removed. Furthermore, a grey noise curve can only be correct for one absolute level in dBSPL (e.g. dB(A) is only valid for 40dB@1kHz, or -54dBPa@1kHz) and will look more like the white noise as the absolute level increases. Therefore it is questionable if such a graph is of any help without a more stringent (correct) explanation.— DrD 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphs meaning for laymen 

message: In some aspects sound and light are not even considered to have any relationship, but in some cases the two phenomena can be represented with similar models. An example of the latter case is that a sampling in the time domain of the respective field variables of the both phenomena could be Fourier transformed to the frequency domain and be represented as (e.g.) energy distribution vs frequency. Since different distributions of light energy vs frequency can be interpreted as different colours (which is a very obvious interpretation), it is very tempting to do an analogy with sound. But, since sound and light are perceived totally different, it does not make much sense to do a translation of colours to sounds, apart from in some (actually very few) cases: 
Evenly distributed noise (in a linear sense, i.e. perfectly random noise) can be called white and the logarithmically distributed counterpart can be called pink in order to suggest that the energy in the low frequency region is dominating in the latter case. The same line of reasoning can be applied for blue light/noise (a domination of high frequency contents) and for black light/noise (absense of energy throughout the whole frequency range, which does not seem as much of a "help" for visualising the nature of the noise - it is kind of obvious anyway). These definitions can be seen as "standard" definitions, are more or less well-established and give a good picture of how the noise is distributed in each case.
But when it comes to the other colours than these mentioned it is not possible to make an obvious and unique interpretation. Neither will these interpretation be of any help. In the best of scenarios we have some academic interpretations that will not help by giving any "feeling" of what kind of noise it is. A nonsense name would be equally sufficient. In the worst scenario we have some childish and far-fetched attempts to make analogies that are both misleading and non-intuitive. 
For example: 
Brown noise is not even an analogy to the corresponding colour. Furthermore, if brown noise is considered as a result of Brownian motion, then the energy distribution is a result of how you implement the random walk amplitude and frequency wise. The resulting distribution can be totally different from what is stated here (the definition here is as meaningful as claiming that the top speed of a car is twice the top speed of a bus). Also the usefulness of such noise can be doubted. Nevertheless, this definition has some merits, mostly because it has been around for some time. 
Red noise actually implies absence of high frequency contents (dark pink had been more appropriate...)
Purple noise is maybe relevant, but it should in that case replace the blue noise definition, which in analogy to the pink noise actually should be called light blue...
The grey noise definition contradicts the notion of white noise being perceived as white. Furthermore, its energy distribution should, according to how it is defined here, be a function of the absolute sound pressure level. It will therefore be meaningless nonsense in a file, as a electrical signal and so on unless it is played back at a corresponding calibrated level.
These colours, plus orange, green and so on, are all more or less unnecessary constrained constructions.
Thus, if there is no motive to invent new non-standard noise-colour analogies: Please refrain from creating or promoting personal home-made definitions! It only gives too much importance to an analogy which is not inuitive - does anyone really think there is a common notion of, for example, how "green" would sound? –– DrD 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These abrownre not "home-made definitions".  They are taken right out of Federal Standard 1037C.  I changed the "brown" heading to "red" because it fits in more with the colors theme. — Omegatron (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, there are some definitions that are established. I have no problem with them. I had to check in Federal Standard 1037C (http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm), and I did find the ordinary "white", "pink", "blue" and "black" definitions in their A-Z list. No "brown", "green", "red", "violet" et cetera. Being in the Telecom biz myself, I find it hard to imagine why Federal Standard 1037C should bother to distinguish between e.g. "green", and "orange" noise. Still I find reason to discuss and write about e.g. "brown" and "red" noise. But my point was that I think there is no merit in taking the sound and light analogy too far, since there is so much assumptions to be made before you actually get e.g green, or purple light when you make a translation from sound energy.192.16.134.69 (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of analogies between sound and light 

message: I started the process of re-generating all the noise audio samples from scratch in GNU Octave.  So far I've just got :Image:White noise.ogg (uniformly distributed) and :Image:Gaussian white noise.ogg (normally distributed).
The Gaussian file sounds about 4.5 dB quieter than the uniformly-distributed file, while SoX says they are actually 8.4 dB different.  Is this psychoacoustics or did I measure something wrong? — Omegatron (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  White noise amplitudes 

message: ^ a b c d e Joseph S. Wisniewski (07 Oct 1996). "Colors of noise pseudo FAQ, version 1.3". comp.dsp. (Web link). Retrieved on 2008-05-04.
The above reference links to an email address...Dbutler1986 (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad reference 

message: It would be nice if the article explained what this is all about. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! The article explains the WHAT but it does not explain the WHY. Why are these colors important? How are they used in the audio industry or academia? —Noah 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huhh? 

message: White audio noise sounds like a high-frequency hiss; white image noise looks like static and can perceptually be removed with a low-pass filter. Could someone explain the difference between the definition of white noise and this intuitive sense that white noise is a high-frequency noise? I assume it has to do with the difference between energy and amplitude of a frequency band and that blue or violet noise would be perceptually uniform across the spectrum (and so wouldn't be removed easily by a low-pass filter). —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equal energy versus equal perceptual ammount 

message: "red noise" has ended up linked from a cliamte page. But the defn here is far far too specific. "red noise" (no-one uses brown) from the climate point of view is just noise with more power at lower frequencies. None of this 6-db-per-whatever stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too specific 

message: I'm not questioning whether the entirety of the "black noise" description is a joke, just a part of it.  The article says:
:Used in modeling various environmental processes. Is said to be a characteristic of "natural and unnatural catastrophes like floods, droughts, bear markets, and various outrageous outages, such as those of electrical power." Further, "because of their black spectra, such disasters often come in clusters."</blockquote>
and cites Manfred Schroeder's book _Fractals, chaos, power laws_.  I don't have this book and Amazon won't let me search it.  Basically I'm wondering if this description is some kind of joke about power outages during natural disasters.
-- Theclapp (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the quote quoted in another book: Google book search. It even includes the bizarre word choice of 'outrageous'. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Theclapp (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Rose plays with language, has fun with words, and uses "black noise" playfully rather than in a way that can help define the term. Rose does not define it. She also uses the term TRSOB; another playful bit that is not helpful to an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I do not see any solid definition of black noise in the source. There is only a mention in passing, and we have no other sources. To bring "black noise" into this article would require proof of wide use of term. There is no such use. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

text:  Got it! Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black noise -- a joke? 

message: What noise is heard on FM radio tuned to clear frequency?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boskoigic (talk • contribs) 19:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly white, I think. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

text: That is not really white noise. FM in-between-station noise is shaped by variables that differ by FM frequency, receiver location, the number of radio stations packing the airwaves, receiver circuit design, loudspeaker capability, etc... a wide range of elements all having an affect on the noise. Sometimes there are voices or music faintly detectable amid the noise—the frequency is not really clear. Most relevant is that the sound will be reproduced by loudspeakers or headphones when you hear it, meaning that it will be band-limited to the frequency range of the playback system. As well, the noise will have a steep filter preventing sounds higher than 16 kHz, typical of FM reception. There's no particular color assigned to this kind of noise. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What noise is heard on FM tuner? 

message: brown noise can refer to noise that is a frequency that moves the bowels, this should be under unofficial colours 188.223.18.19 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that notional noise is brown note and it has its own page. It is not real, so it does not need to be mentioned here. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  brown noise 

message: As a general rule, the name of a Wikipedia article should be a singular noun.  E.g. the article about pigs is called "Pig" rather than "Pigs", even though it talks about all the billion pigs in the world and all the umpteen breeds of pigs.  That rule is useful for readers and editors alike, since it helps them guess the right name of the article. So this article should preferably be renamed "Color of noise" or "Noise color", without changing its contents. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name should be "Noise color" or "Color of noise" 

message: The colours of third-octave noises are missing in this article. These are frequently used for audio analysis. See also: Third-Octave Filter Banks --Bautsch (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What colors? Dark? Warm? Brilliant? Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third-octave noise 

message: "Pink noise is the only power-law spectral density that has this property: all steeper power-law spectra are finite if integrated to the high-frequency end, and all flatter power-law spectra are finite if integrated to the DC, low-frequency limit."
Wouldn't this apply to blue noise, too?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.69.35 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrating 3 dB/oct spectrum 

message: What kind of bounds are meant to be applied? Most likely the process should be bounded in the space or amplitude domain (i.e., the position of the particle undergoing Brownian motion is constrained within some "container"), but another definition of green noise mentions bounding of white noise in the frequency domain, so I want to make sure.
I noticed that this is the only green-noise definition that currently lacks a citation. A previous discussion on this talk page mentioned http://www.dxarts.washington.edu/courses/565/clm-2/green.cl, but that looks like a dead link (returns HTTP 200 after redirecting to the domain without www, but "There are no courses listed on our site that meet your filtering criteria."). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green noise as bounded Brownian noise 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Colors of noise. 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/20060522073646/http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=93 to http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=93
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430151608/http://www.ptpart.co.uk/colors-of-noise to http://www.ptpart.co.uk/colors-of-noise/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050720074308/http://mv.lycaeum.org/M2/noise_ahf.html to http://mv.lycaeum.org/M2/noise_ahf.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) 00:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It should give examples of noises by color that people commonly hear in everyday life. PlanetStar 19:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand ANY of the article, you need to beware confusing "noise" with "sound". What people commonly hear is "sound" as explained briefly in the article. Wordwood (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of noises

message: The introductory paragraph gives an overview with mentions of "power" and "power spectrum", with those terms linking to their corresponding Wikipedia entries. However, these entries are generic explanations of these terms as used in physics and engineering, and not helpful in understanding how they are applied to sound, and specifically to noise color. Each subsequent technical definition for specific colors of noise refer to the power for each frequency band but it is still a mystery to the layman, even a reasonably well-informed layman, exactly what is meant by "power" here. A layman's explanation of this term specific to the topic of noise color would be much appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6StringJazzer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of "Power"

message: Quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field in the vacuum are blue noise, are they not? (3D blue noise power being proportional to f^3, just like 3D pink noise is proportional to f^-3). This should be added. 97.116.77.170 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Vacuum energy

message: For example, the description of white noise makes you expect either a graph in logarithmic frequency space that slopes up as the frequency increases, or a graph in linear frequency space that stays flat. Currently it has a graph in logarithmic frequency space where the power stays flat, which seems wrong, but many commercial music production spectrometers graph white noise similarly, so it can't be completely wrong.
I wonder if the difference between these methods is measuring the power of single frequencies along the spectrum which leads to a flat graph regardless of the type of frequency space, versus measuring the average power of ranges of frequencies that correspond to equal width sections in the graph, which would lead to a sloped graph in logarithmic space. :shrug: 80.220.73.154 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphs might need an explanation 

message: To my understanding Brownian noise is not the same as red or brown noise: 
Brownian noise has memory, like the random walk of moving molecules, and is normal-distributed. While red and brown noise don't have memory, - they are the result of filtered equal distributed white noise. The confusion might happen because for experiments mostly the spectral density is the only importance, together with the similar naming. 93.237.16.85 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red vs. Brown vs. Brownian 

message: There are some legit sound deisgn co. that points towards an existence of Green and Orange Noise. See https://emastered.com/blog/different-types-of-noise 183.179.53.41 (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orange Noise?