This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 17 October 2016 for a period of one week. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Interfering noise was copied or moved into Noise with this edit on 18:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Noise (acoustic) was copied or moved into Noise with this edit on 20:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The contents of the Noise (audio) page were merged into Noise. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2016-10-19) |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 5thMDSS. Peer reviewers: 5thMDSS.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rsousa13.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
a really good candidate for DISAMBIGUATION...psssss....
I've added material, sectionalised it, and shortened the intro to the bare essentials. I think this can now stand as a page in its own right functioning also for disambiguation. I note the translation problem, but in English one word does cover all these things. Maybe in other languages you now split this page into two under different words, deleting sections as appropriate. Any number of specialist pages can now follow, some of which I've recently created, as each area listed is complex. Some links, like A-weighting, are appropriate to both acoustics and electronics. -- Lindosland 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I worked for many hours yesterday extracting from my brain everything I knew about noise, and ended up exhausted and surprised by what I had created. Today my text is scattered across Wikipedia, with no mention of me! I'm not sure I'm complaining. It's just another revelation about how Wikipedia can work!
I did feel that the page I created had value as it stood in enlightening people regarding the many meanings of noise, while being still quite short. I think I would prefer to keep it as it was, but I have no desire to remove all the other pages, which I had foreseen anyway given time. Can we keep the original, as well as the improved disambiguation? -- Lindosland 16:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking further into this, I find that the important area of Environmental noise has been lost, with the link going to a lot of stuff about avant guarde music! It can all be sorted, but I'm reverting with the suggestion that noise is perhaps not a true candidate for disambiguation as in some sense all the examples do have a common meaning of either 'unwanted' or 'random'. Disambiguation has created problems such as the fact that people looking up 'Evironmental noise', may actually have factories in mind, yet all forms of environmental noise monitoring share a common basis that is perhaps best explained in the root page. Please leave the page and help perfect the links. Disambiguation has taken away many of the useful links to weightings, equal loudness curves etc, which need to be restored to each specialist page. -- Lindosland 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
To make this easier to sort out, I've removed the disambiguation tag but added into the original all the new links. Some of these may be better turned into redirects. For example, the original meaning of what I wrote on Noise (Acoustic) has been distorted, because Acoustic noise was part of a hierarchy not a thing on its own. Environmental noise is acoustic noise, but that was no longer clear after the article was broken up! All this convinces me that Noise is not a subject for disambiguation, but better kept as starting page for introducing noise and its many specialisations. -- Lindosland 17:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Cant we get rid of big bang noise. I couldnt even find one link back to that topic. this page really needs streamlining....i think i can figure out how to get rid of acoustic noise as well ...any other ideas for streamlining the electronics side? cheers Anlace 06:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
its now out of date since environmental noise has been merged into Noise pollution-- Covalent 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It's easier now, since I renamed all the branchlist templates using a scheme described at Wikipedia:Root page incorporating the root and hub page names. You either enter Template:Branchlist/Noise into the search box. Or for a full view of all branchlist templates that you can just click on to edit, go to Category:Branchlist. This link is at the top of Wikipedia:Root page for convenience. Sorry I'm a bit late replying. -- Lindosland 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What is a uV? A typo, a microvolt, or something else? AlmostReadytoFly 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This page is missing descriptions of psychological noise and physiological noise.
Editors, please follow guidelines regarding edit summaries. Most of us have, and it goes a long way towards preventing reverts of good edits. If the diffs look like vandalism to me on first or even split-second glance, and the edit summary is completely blank, then chances are, I'm going to revert it. --黒雲 user:Qaddosh 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been proposed a month ago that signal noise be merged into this article. User:Camembert proposed a disambiguation earlier. I propose to combine both ideas: Leave the disambiguation section of this page and merge the rest into the appropriate articles (mostly signal noise). Should the links to white noise, etc. also go to signal noise or remain on the disambiguation page? — Sebastian 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I support the merge. Signal noise is a small article, containing information relevant to noise. I'm not sure about the white noise links. — I am a lemon 05:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the white noise sound file because its frequency spectrum fell precipitously by about 24 dB at about 17 kHz, staying at that greatly reduced level up to 22 kHz where it reached its Nyquist limit. Is there a low-bit sound file type that is suitable for Wikipedia, one which will preserve the full white noise frequency range up to Nyquist? One more problem I had with that file was its level which was a very hot -4 dB relative to 0 dBFS. Casual users would be blasted out of their seats upon clicking on the sample. I imagine that an average level of -18dBFS, standard broadcast level, will suffice.
I complained about the sound file here:
I could easily upload an uncompressed WAV or AIF file with proper spectrum. Binksternet ( talk) 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess the word "random" is redundant in this phrase. A periodic disturbance may not comply with the common parlance definition of "noise", but technically it is just another disturbance of the communication. Likewise, I wonder whether conceivably wanted data without meaning could exist. Unwanted data with meaning does exist (e.g. the messge "you are fired"), but that is probably not the kind of unwanted-ness meant in the above phrase. For clarity IMHO it is essential to acknowledge that "meaning" is not a property of the data, but attributed by the parties in a communication. For sound effects, or some experiments so-called white noise is very much wanted. Rbakels ( talk) 06:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The hatnote says the topic is "noise as an unwanted phenomenon", but the article is just random things. There's noise in film which is actually meaningful noises, and cellular noise that probably has some function and can hardly be unwanted. I'm going to do a big cleanup here unless anyone can explain why we need this mess. Bhny ( talk) 02:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I propose that Noise (acoustic) be merged into Noise. As it is now the noise article is only about acoustic noise, so the two cover the exact same topic. Ulflund ( talk) 10:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The concept noise has a lot of meanings, as listed in Noise (disambiguation). The content of the article Noise is what one would expect in Noise (acoustic). Concluding I think both articles could be merged. I do not know the criteria for the most preferred title. Ellywa ( talk) 21:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd welcome views on the contents of the Further Reading section - are there are more to add? Are the references that are currently there useful? MJG639 ( talk) 18:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I just made a big edit (copying contents from my sandbox) in the hope it solves a few points since frankly, the article was awful. It is still not great, but at least:
References are still lacking and the "science" description of noise deserves a better treatment. I might work on the latter later.
It could be that the OR passages are salvageable with some sourcing and rewriting effort. If one thinks so, please do re-add back the parts.
Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Also noise may have (or not) different Fourier analysis characteristics than non randomized sound, but it depends on what is considered as "noise" (the sound of leafs can be perceived as pleasant sound or as annoying noise).
The result of the move request was: Not moved — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Noise → Noise (acoustic) – To make way for a broad-concept article at Noise, listing the topics currently listed (inappropriately) at Noise (disambiguation)#Random or unwanted signals. — swpb T 14:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A filtered noise.
more accurately: a differently mapped spectrum of noise
(because filtering mimics that, but it's lossy and we want the same thing but lossless) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:88F0:DD00:F909:5E6E:802B:51E7 ( talk) 14:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
A noise generator becomes biased to represent a specific wave function. All amplitudes to be measured should originate from the same noise generator.
When you build it (the computer program) you might make mistakes, but you try to mimic an actual quantum system.
The statistics of the results should obay quantum mechanics.
You have to see if your system creates wrong sub-bias , wrong small biased regions on the spectrum of the results.
It is doable.
An old MIT idea. Many universities have quantum simulations.
They have many uses.
Mathematical randomness is necessarily studied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:88F0:DD00:F909:5E6E:802B:51E7 ( talk) 14:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the stupidest Wikipedia article ever.
https://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/162437-the-stupidest-wikipedia-article-ever 47.137.178.203 ( talk) 10:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 March 2023 and 25 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JMgeorgetown ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by JMgeorgetown ( talk) 21:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 17 October 2016 for a period of one week. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Interfering noise was copied or moved into Noise with this edit on 18:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Noise (acoustic) was copied or moved into Noise with this edit on 20:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The contents of the Noise (audio) page were merged into Noise. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2016-10-19) |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 5thMDSS. Peer reviewers: 5thMDSS.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rsousa13.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
a really good candidate for DISAMBIGUATION...psssss....
I've added material, sectionalised it, and shortened the intro to the bare essentials. I think this can now stand as a page in its own right functioning also for disambiguation. I note the translation problem, but in English one word does cover all these things. Maybe in other languages you now split this page into two under different words, deleting sections as appropriate. Any number of specialist pages can now follow, some of which I've recently created, as each area listed is complex. Some links, like A-weighting, are appropriate to both acoustics and electronics. -- Lindosland 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I worked for many hours yesterday extracting from my brain everything I knew about noise, and ended up exhausted and surprised by what I had created. Today my text is scattered across Wikipedia, with no mention of me! I'm not sure I'm complaining. It's just another revelation about how Wikipedia can work!
I did feel that the page I created had value as it stood in enlightening people regarding the many meanings of noise, while being still quite short. I think I would prefer to keep it as it was, but I have no desire to remove all the other pages, which I had foreseen anyway given time. Can we keep the original, as well as the improved disambiguation? -- Lindosland 16:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking further into this, I find that the important area of Environmental noise has been lost, with the link going to a lot of stuff about avant guarde music! It can all be sorted, but I'm reverting with the suggestion that noise is perhaps not a true candidate for disambiguation as in some sense all the examples do have a common meaning of either 'unwanted' or 'random'. Disambiguation has created problems such as the fact that people looking up 'Evironmental noise', may actually have factories in mind, yet all forms of environmental noise monitoring share a common basis that is perhaps best explained in the root page. Please leave the page and help perfect the links. Disambiguation has taken away many of the useful links to weightings, equal loudness curves etc, which need to be restored to each specialist page. -- Lindosland 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
To make this easier to sort out, I've removed the disambiguation tag but added into the original all the new links. Some of these may be better turned into redirects. For example, the original meaning of what I wrote on Noise (Acoustic) has been distorted, because Acoustic noise was part of a hierarchy not a thing on its own. Environmental noise is acoustic noise, but that was no longer clear after the article was broken up! All this convinces me that Noise is not a subject for disambiguation, but better kept as starting page for introducing noise and its many specialisations. -- Lindosland 17:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Cant we get rid of big bang noise. I couldnt even find one link back to that topic. this page really needs streamlining....i think i can figure out how to get rid of acoustic noise as well ...any other ideas for streamlining the electronics side? cheers Anlace 06:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
its now out of date since environmental noise has been merged into Noise pollution-- Covalent 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It's easier now, since I renamed all the branchlist templates using a scheme described at Wikipedia:Root page incorporating the root and hub page names. You either enter Template:Branchlist/Noise into the search box. Or for a full view of all branchlist templates that you can just click on to edit, go to Category:Branchlist. This link is at the top of Wikipedia:Root page for convenience. Sorry I'm a bit late replying. -- Lindosland 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What is a uV? A typo, a microvolt, or something else? AlmostReadytoFly 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This page is missing descriptions of psychological noise and physiological noise.
Editors, please follow guidelines regarding edit summaries. Most of us have, and it goes a long way towards preventing reverts of good edits. If the diffs look like vandalism to me on first or even split-second glance, and the edit summary is completely blank, then chances are, I'm going to revert it. --黒雲 user:Qaddosh 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been proposed a month ago that signal noise be merged into this article. User:Camembert proposed a disambiguation earlier. I propose to combine both ideas: Leave the disambiguation section of this page and merge the rest into the appropriate articles (mostly signal noise). Should the links to white noise, etc. also go to signal noise or remain on the disambiguation page? — Sebastian 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I support the merge. Signal noise is a small article, containing information relevant to noise. I'm not sure about the white noise links. — I am a lemon 05:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the white noise sound file because its frequency spectrum fell precipitously by about 24 dB at about 17 kHz, staying at that greatly reduced level up to 22 kHz where it reached its Nyquist limit. Is there a low-bit sound file type that is suitable for Wikipedia, one which will preserve the full white noise frequency range up to Nyquist? One more problem I had with that file was its level which was a very hot -4 dB relative to 0 dBFS. Casual users would be blasted out of their seats upon clicking on the sample. I imagine that an average level of -18dBFS, standard broadcast level, will suffice.
I complained about the sound file here:
I could easily upload an uncompressed WAV or AIF file with proper spectrum. Binksternet ( talk) 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess the word "random" is redundant in this phrase. A periodic disturbance may not comply with the common parlance definition of "noise", but technically it is just another disturbance of the communication. Likewise, I wonder whether conceivably wanted data without meaning could exist. Unwanted data with meaning does exist (e.g. the messge "you are fired"), but that is probably not the kind of unwanted-ness meant in the above phrase. For clarity IMHO it is essential to acknowledge that "meaning" is not a property of the data, but attributed by the parties in a communication. For sound effects, or some experiments so-called white noise is very much wanted. Rbakels ( talk) 06:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The hatnote says the topic is "noise as an unwanted phenomenon", but the article is just random things. There's noise in film which is actually meaningful noises, and cellular noise that probably has some function and can hardly be unwanted. I'm going to do a big cleanup here unless anyone can explain why we need this mess. Bhny ( talk) 02:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I propose that Noise (acoustic) be merged into Noise. As it is now the noise article is only about acoustic noise, so the two cover the exact same topic. Ulflund ( talk) 10:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The concept noise has a lot of meanings, as listed in Noise (disambiguation). The content of the article Noise is what one would expect in Noise (acoustic). Concluding I think both articles could be merged. I do not know the criteria for the most preferred title. Ellywa ( talk) 21:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd welcome views on the contents of the Further Reading section - are there are more to add? Are the references that are currently there useful? MJG639 ( talk) 18:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I just made a big edit (copying contents from my sandbox) in the hope it solves a few points since frankly, the article was awful. It is still not great, but at least:
References are still lacking and the "science" description of noise deserves a better treatment. I might work on the latter later.
It could be that the OR passages are salvageable with some sourcing and rewriting effort. If one thinks so, please do re-add back the parts.
Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Also noise may have (or not) different Fourier analysis characteristics than non randomized sound, but it depends on what is considered as "noise" (the sound of leafs can be perceived as pleasant sound or as annoying noise).
The result of the move request was: Not moved — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Noise → Noise (acoustic) – To make way for a broad-concept article at Noise, listing the topics currently listed (inappropriately) at Noise (disambiguation)#Random or unwanted signals. — swpb T 14:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A filtered noise.
more accurately: a differently mapped spectrum of noise
(because filtering mimics that, but it's lossy and we want the same thing but lossless) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:88F0:DD00:F909:5E6E:802B:51E7 ( talk) 14:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
A noise generator becomes biased to represent a specific wave function. All amplitudes to be measured should originate from the same noise generator.
When you build it (the computer program) you might make mistakes, but you try to mimic an actual quantum system.
The statistics of the results should obay quantum mechanics.
You have to see if your system creates wrong sub-bias , wrong small biased regions on the spectrum of the results.
It is doable.
An old MIT idea. Many universities have quantum simulations.
They have many uses.
Mathematical randomness is necessarily studied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:88F0:DD00:F909:5E6E:802B:51E7 ( talk) 14:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the stupidest Wikipedia article ever.
https://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/162437-the-stupidest-wikipedia-article-ever 47.137.178.203 ( talk) 10:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 March 2023 and 25 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JMgeorgetown ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by JMgeorgetown ( talk) 21:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)