Talk:Table-lookup synthesis

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 2015 February 25. The result of the discussion was converted to an article.

Future plan

This redirection will be later converted to a proper article (based on Curtis Roads 1996, p. 87, and/or possibly other reliable sources). For details, see Talk:Wavetable. best, --Clusternote (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of article.

This article has just been discovered. It is both totally unnecessary and displays (and attempts to canonize in Wikipedia) the ignorance of the inventor of the article. Nowhere is the term "Table-lookup synthesis" used by anyone in the field. Googling "table lookup synthesis" gets pages with "Wavetable synthesis", "Fixed waveform synthesis", "Sound Synthesis Theory/Oscillators and Wavetables", etc. The closest page title was "Table Lookup Oscillators Using Generic Integrated Wavetables ..." but that is still not called "Table-lookup synthesis". It is a component part of Wavetable synthesis.

The use of LUTs for oscillators in music synthesis has nothing to do with Karplus–Strong string synthesis nor digital waveguide synthesis. Nothing at all, except they're all music synthesis techniques. And it needn't be forked from either lookup table nor numerically-controlled oscillator nor direct digital synthesis, which have other, not necessarily musical, applications in electrical engineering and signal processing.

It is clearly a creation of User:Clusternote's personal vision of reality, not what reality is. Wikipedia articles should be about verifiable reality, not one editor's made-up redefinition of terminology 65.183.156.110 (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now I'm consulting to administrator about a continuous stalking for over two years by this IP user 65.183.xxx.xxx. (possibly a banned user) --Clusternote (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clusternote, the Wikipedia policy is " do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." You have created this article. It is not up to you to remove the tag yourself. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: although sufficient amounts of reliable sources are already cited in References section of article, I'll try to summarize these in here for this IP user (65.183.156.110) because he can't read these:

Table-lookup synthesis is described as "the core of most synthesis algorithm" by Curtis Roads on his book "The Computer Music Tutorial" published in 1996, page 87.
Karplus-Strong string synthesis is described as "One standard synthesis technique is the wavetable synthesis algorithm. ... All the algorithms described in this paper produce the variation in sound by modifying the wavetable itself." by Kevin Karplus in section "Wavetable synthesis" on their paper "Digital Synthesis of Plucked-String and Drum Timbres published in 1983.
Digital waveguide synthesis is described as "a set of extensions in the direction of accurate physical modeling while maintaining the computational simplicity reminiscent of the Karplus-Strong algorithm." by Julius O. Smith III on "Viewpoints on the History of Digital Synthesis" first published in 1991, then reviced with Curtis Roads in 1992.

As you can see, the first claims by this IP user (65.183.156.110) are proven to be the falsehoods contrary to the reliable sources, at now ! --Clusternote (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point at issue seems to be whether the article contains original research, in the sense of WP:OR. The discussion therefore really should be based on reliability of sources, and whether WP:SYNTH applies. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, as a professional working in the field, I have no particular problem with "table lookup synthesis", but the article itself points out how abused the terminology has become around table lookup oscillators, wavetable oscillators, and wavetable synthesis. In my opinion, you are unlikely to achieve any definitive consensus as to what exactly those terms mean. Adopting a single source (such as Roads) as authoritative doesn't solve the problem, since you similarly won't get consensus about which authority should be trusted on a given issue. For each source thrown up here demonstrating one way of using the words, I could find others using them to mean something else. Beyond this confsion, this article doesn't add anything substantive to the discussion of the underlying techniques, and instead proposes one of many possible ways to establish definitions for the various terms used. I support deletion.Electricdruid (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricdruid: This article have been already kept on later deletion requests, and this thread have been already closed. best, --Clusternote (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Note that this article is not the "WP:Articles with a single source" at all. The uses of a generic term "wavetable synthesis" in the meaning of table-lookup synthesis (instead of a specific (multiple) wavetable synthesis developed by McNabb & Palm, used on PPG Wave), are also seen on the numerous papers including: Puckette 2002, Karplus & Strong 1983, Horner & Beauchamp 1993, Scheirer 1998, as seen on References section of article.
And tentatively, the relationship between each class of sound-synthesis is shown on the disambiguation page, Wavetable. --Clusternote (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]