Jump to content

Talk:Weighting filter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lindseykoehn. Peer reviewers: Seanhov.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First section[edit]

I propose this entire article be moved to Frequency weighting or something, which will address all the different types. - Omegatron 01:39, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Moved. - Omegatron July 1, 2005 22:13 (UTC)

I noticed that Frequency weighting redirects to this page. Is there another page with more information on frequency weighting? I also think it could be beneficial to go into more detail beyond just A-weighted. Lindseykoehn (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC) I have been looking for new citations to add some more information and credibility to this page. Let me know your thoughts on the following links. https://www.explainthatstuff.com/soundlevelmeters.html, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/acont.html, http://www.acoustic-glossary.co.uk/frequency-weighting.htm. Lindseykoehn (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk until someone points out the relevance:

Note: The use of F1A-line or HA1-receiver weighting must be indicated in parentheses as required. A sound level of 0.63 pascal 1000 Hz tone will read +90 dBA, but the same sound pressure as white noise, randomly distributed over a 3 kHz band (nominally 300 to 3300 Hz), will read +82 dBA, due to the frequency weighting.

Probably just cruft from Federal Standard 1037C. - Omegatron July 1, 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Note that this is Omegatron's first ever use of the word cruft. - Omegatron July 1, 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Sound and Loudness measurements with weighting filters section[edit]

Hi everyone. I added these two sections today and added more to Loudness measurements. I did this in an attempt to not only describe weighting filters more in depth in an auditory context, but to also make the page a little more generalized away from telecommunications. I also added 5 references and lots of links to other Wikipedia articles in an attempt to increase the validity of the page. Please let me know your thoughts. Lindseykoehn (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which curve at which loudness?[edit]

From the article: "The curves approximate the human ear at different loudnesses". So each curve of those 4 curves stands for the ear response at different loudness, right? Shouldn't we add the respective absolute loudnesses in dBs for each of the curves, where each of them are applicable? Or have I understood something wrongly here? Peter S. 23:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that would be good info. In practice everyone just uses A-weighting for most things. I don't know what the values are. — Omegatron 01:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The value of 40 Phon (40dB SPL at 1kHz) is stated in the article. This is correct (according to ISO), though many sources wrongly give other figures like 30 or 60. I don't think it is meaningful to quote a level for the other curves - they are just intended for higher levels but not necessarily derived exactly from any Fletcher Munson curve. Even if they were, the recent revisions in the ISO standard (see Equal-loudness contours because of supposed experimental errors, render precise association invalid. --Lindosland 14:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

generalized weightings[edit]

i think this article should be about audio filters only... — Omegatron 02:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have made some major revisions to this page. I do not agree that this page should be about audio filters only, because that would not be true to the general heading of Weighting filter. I do think a separate page should be made for A-weighting (currently linked to this) and the information on this page split so that all the detailed stuff on A-weighting is separated out. I have just put up a page on CCIR (ITU) 468 noise weighting to cover my comments regarding this more thoroughly. -- Lindosland 24 Oct

It's fine to move the bulk of this content to audio weighting filter and the rest to just weighting, but I think the audio field has plenty of content for its own article. I disagree with splitting out A-weighting from the others. — Omegatron 13:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction appreciated. I think we can probably agree on this, though I need to look more carefully at what is there already. I think Noise weighting filter should perhaps cover A,B,C,D, ITU-R468, Psophometric (telephony)reasonably fully, but then more detailed individual pages are probably warranted for each of these (I can add detailed graphs,specs for time constants etc in due course and would also like to see comparison of old and new A-weightings in the detailed A-weighting page). Weighting filter/curve should stand separately to cover all types of weighting. Lindosland 00:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas. — Omegatron 00:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma correction[edit]

Is gamma correction used in TVs and VDUs (monitors) considered a weigthing. If so it should be included.--Light current 18:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spell checker split up micropascals--Light current 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this, and decided that gama correction is an example of 'weighting' but not a 'weighting filter' which tends to be a physical realisation, either electronic or optical. Gamma correction uses s set of three numbers, applied to the three colour channels - there is no spectrum involved. Lindosland 16:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment!--Light current 16:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't quite get that right, and I realised later that my mind was on the three weightings applied to RGB signals to derive chrominance and luminance components. My conclusion holds though. Gamma correction is the application of a non-linear function to a single variable (brightness). While you might think of a function used to compress or expand in this way as a form of 'weighting' (over the range of values) it's really too basic to call weighting, and weighting normally refers to signals with a spectrum or a number of separate parts. Lindosland 22:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to merging[edit]

I do not agree that this page should be merged with A-weighting for the simple reason that A-weighting is not a weighting filter, it is just one of many weightings (a weighting is a mathematical concept while a filter is usually a physical realisation) that might be used in the creation of a weighting filter. I went to some trouble to emphasise this, and separate the concepts, in the past. A-weighting deserves its own page as it is an important subject. It is also commonly misunderstood and so keeping it on its own page avoids encouraging further misunderstanding. --Lindosland 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that little of the information in this article is addressing the filter aspect, but mainly targets (merely) weighting. Most of the relevant information is only a repetition of what is already stated correctly in A-Weighting and other articles. And unfortunately the article is flawed by incorrect information (e.g. dBrn adjusted is NOT a synonym to dB(A) - a typical mistake done by someone, not knowing the field, spotting in a list of designations that dBa - which is NOT the same as dB(A) - also is denoted dBrn), doubtful personal interpretations of facts (e.g. 'and so noise measurement on appliances should state "at 1 m in an open field" or "at 1 m in anechoic chamber' - in open fields and anechoic environments such a measurement value could be totally useless or misleading without an accompanying radiation pattern), omission of relevant facts (e.g. a long informal section on noise measurements of electrical appliances without even mentioning that there are relevant standards, as IEC 704-1), personal opinions (e.g. "when, for example, hum is present at 50 or 100 Hz at a level above the quoted (weighted) noise floor this is of no importance because our ears are very insensitive to low frequencies at low levels, so it will not be heard", which cannot be generally stated) or obscure information without references (e.g. "the best 468-weighted results are in the region of −68dB relative to Alignment Level (commonly defined as 18 dB below FS)"). Therefore, I suggest a total revision of the article or a removal and merging of applicable parts into other articles on weighting, filters and so on (it seems most correct and relevant information is already available in related articles, though). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove dBrn[edit]

This article has several flaws, which are pointed out above, but please at least remove the strange statement that dBrn adjusted is a synonym to dB(A). It is simply wrong and such false statements undermines the credibility of Wikipedia, particularly since it has been pointed out before here but still stands uncorrected. dBrn adjusted is a synonym to dBa which is not the same as dB(A) and "a" has nothing to do with A-weighting here ("a" denotes "adjusted"...). Check out http://www.tiaonline.org/resources/telecom-glossary (as an example I paste the dBa definition):

dBa Abbreviation for decibels adjusted. Weighted absolute noise power, calculated in dB referenced to 3.16 picowatts (-85 dBm), which is 0 dBa. (188) Note: The use of F1A-line or HA1-receiver weighting must be indicated in parentheses as required. A one-milliwatt, 1000-Hz tone will read +85 dBa, but the same power as white noise, randomly distributed over a 3-kHz band (nominally 300 to 3300 Hz), will read +82 dBa, due to the frequency weighting. Synonym dBrn adjusted.

The good thing is that someone with any knowledge in this area can tell that this was written by someone who did not have a clue himself, which makes the reader more cautious (which obviously and unfortunately is needed here...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, at last! However, the whole article should be rewritten. Almost everything is OT, with plenty of errors etcetera, but hardly no references. Everything that is good and correct you can find on other pages. Wiki at its worst, which is quite sad...

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Weighting filter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]