Talk:Audio signal

Impedance quote
"In professional audio, the lower the impedance of a circuit, the better."

That's quite the sweeping statement, and clearly incorrect in any number of situations. Maybe someone would like to put a more accurate version of that back in. Tabby (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Digital equivalent SPDIF
"Digital audio signal being sent through wire can use several formats including optical (ADAT, TDIF), coaxial (S/PDIF), XLR (AES/EBU), and ethernet, especially for large digital audio consoles."

I'm a bit confused on this issue. Is the S/PDIF standard applicable to both optical mediums as well as coaxial mediums? Xetxo (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * TOSLINK is the optical version of S/PDIF. I have reworked the paragraph to be more complete and to more clearly explain the dimensions. ~Kvng (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Merging audio signal and audio signal processing seems like a very good idea.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is good form to explain why you think a merge is a good idea. I can be convinced that Audio signal is not enough to write an article on. I'm not convinced that the solution is to merge Audio signal processing into it. --Kvng (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think audio signal is fine as an article separate from "signal", but it seems that the only reason why anyone would generate an audio signal would be for the purpose of audio signal processing.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, an audio signal does not always require processing. For instance, the audio signal that comes from an amplifier to energize a loudspeaker may not encounter any crossover elements; it may be transmitted in pure form straight from the amplifier to the loudspeaker driver with only speaker wire as the medium. I think the audio signal article can stand on its own. Binksternet (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That doesn't sound right to me. If there were no processing happening, then the signal received by the amplifier would never have been transformed from sound to electric current back into sound.--Atlantictire (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The signal from the amplifier is an audio signal. We can ignore any processing upstream of the amplifier in this example.
 * Regarding the merge, only just now did I go take a look at the Audio signal processing article (for the first time) and it is crap. Perhaps a merge would be a good idea, to bring any salvageable material from that article into this one. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither article is in great shape, in terms of content or presentation. Might as well fold them together into a single stub. If it ever grows beyond 40k or 60k bytes, then it could be time to split signal processing out again as an article on its own. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The answer is not clear to me. I have no strong opinion. I'm inclined to leave the merge banners up until such time as the articles have developed further and give a better indication of where this should go. --Kvng (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that anyone has connected their reason for merging with the Merging. The quality of content is not listed as a reason to merge. Some people have argued there is (1) duplication or (2) overlap and this is true. However, tracking of 'raw audio signals' and signal processing may be and are divided, despite the fact that practically, "such divisions will always be artificial": recording practice is holistic and "tracking [and] signal processing...cannot be separated" in practice. "They are easily excised in theory, though." As such it would appear that merging is not necessary or appropriate. Quotes from Hodgson, Jay (2010). Understanding Records, p.xii. ISBN 978-1-4411-5607-5. Hyacinth (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)