![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
I have removed the stuff about PPMs and soft tape compression. This cannot be true because the PPM was developed in the 1930s, long before the existence of magnetic tape (except the early steel stuff with DC bias), let alone an understanding of tape compresssion. None of the BBC sources (Pawley, and the Engineering Training Supplement on PPMs) mention tape compression as a factor. Harumphy 07:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've recently added stuff about the ABC and CBC scales based on info in an AES preprint. But I've also seen references to an "ABC east coast scale", and "ABC west coast scale" and an "IEEE scale". Does anyone have any info on these or other exotic flavours? -- Harumphy ( talk) 09:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion was originally on user talk pages.
You've entirely reverted my edits to Peak programme meter. Did you find nothing useful in my contributions? I appreciate all the work you've put into the article over the past year. Articles usually can be improved further if more than one editor is contributing. -- Kvng ( talk) 14:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Robert.Harker originally proposed this merge and it looks like a good idea to me. ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Done ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Harumphy: please have a look at MOS:CAPS. We don't use a lot of caps on Wikipedia. You may want to use italics for "precise, defined terms" but caps are not appropriate unless the term is a proper noun. ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Harumphy has reverted my layout improvement. Yes, the change adds whitespace to the right of the TOC but that's arguably better than text wrapping around and distracting readers from the TOC. In any case, this is how all Wikipedia articles have been formatted. Why should this one be formatted differently? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm hoping for an answer. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@ RJLamont In addition to the -1, +1, -1, +1, +1, -1, +1, -1 pattern, which can reach arbitrary intersample heights, there is also the +1, -1, -1, +1, -1, -1 asymmetrical pattern that reaches +4.4 dBFS, and which is bandlimited (and various other more realistic signals in between). Anyway, VST plugins and the like can generate things that aren't bandlimited, and a true intersample peak PPM can help detect that. — Omegatron ( talk) 00:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
I have removed the stuff about PPMs and soft tape compression. This cannot be true because the PPM was developed in the 1930s, long before the existence of magnetic tape (except the early steel stuff with DC bias), let alone an understanding of tape compresssion. None of the BBC sources (Pawley, and the Engineering Training Supplement on PPMs) mention tape compression as a factor. Harumphy 07:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've recently added stuff about the ABC and CBC scales based on info in an AES preprint. But I've also seen references to an "ABC east coast scale", and "ABC west coast scale" and an "IEEE scale". Does anyone have any info on these or other exotic flavours? -- Harumphy ( talk) 09:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion was originally on user talk pages.
You've entirely reverted my edits to Peak programme meter. Did you find nothing useful in my contributions? I appreciate all the work you've put into the article over the past year. Articles usually can be improved further if more than one editor is contributing. -- Kvng ( talk) 14:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Robert.Harker originally proposed this merge and it looks like a good idea to me. ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Done ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Harumphy: please have a look at MOS:CAPS. We don't use a lot of caps on Wikipedia. You may want to use italics for "precise, defined terms" but caps are not appropriate unless the term is a proper noun. ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Harumphy has reverted my layout improvement. Yes, the change adds whitespace to the right of the TOC but that's arguably better than text wrapping around and distracting readers from the TOC. In any case, this is how all Wikipedia articles have been formatted. Why should this one be formatted differently? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm hoping for an answer. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@ RJLamont In addition to the -1, +1, -1, +1, +1, -1, +1, -1 pattern, which can reach arbitrary intersample heights, there is also the +1, -1, -1, +1, -1, -1 asymmetrical pattern that reaches +4.4 dBFS, and which is bandlimited (and various other more realistic signals in between). Anyway, VST plugins and the like can generate things that aren't bandlimited, and a true intersample peak PPM can help detect that. — Omegatron ( talk) 00:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)