Talk:Ringing artifacts

Illustrate it
All the graphs in the world aren't any help to this article when it doesn't just provide a simple illustration of the effect at issue. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * &lt;teasing&gt;Didn’t your mother teach you manners? “Please [add an image]” and “thank you [for the article so far]” go a long way.
 * I mean, do you do anything around here?
 * (*Checks edits*. Oh, I guess you do. Moving right along…) (^.-)&lt;/teasing&gt;
 * Being unable to find an existing illustration, I was hoping kind Wikipedians would do it while I slept, but I suppose I needed to do it myself, which I’ve now done; see [ this revision].
 * I suppose it does help – the body of the article is rather mathematical, so starting with pretty pictures (which do, in fact, clarify the topic) is probably worthwhile.
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pre-echo Heard / Not Heard
About "Thus only the (anti-causal) echo before the transient is heard" in the section on pre-echo. In commercially released music there is usually severe pre-echo before a sharp percussive transient. However, according to main-stream science, that ringing is inaudible to humans because the ringing occurs at 22 kHz. With a sharp cutoff filter at 4 kHz, the effect is likely very audible. Whether or not the pre-echo is heard depends on the cutoff frequency, and that distinction should be in the article. I don't want to change it right now because there might be a back-and-forth discussion, which I believe is what the talk page is for in the first place. Ohgddfp (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)