User talk:Spectrogram

Please do not remove reputable sources from articles

I noticed that you removed the Proc. IEEE review article from the Cepstrum article because it is not freely available online. This is a mistake; the sources for Wikipedia articles are most certainly not limited to materials available online at no cost.

Wikipedia's policy is to Wikipedia:Cite sources and in particular to cite Wikipedia:Reliable sources wherever possible. Citations of review articles in reputable peer-reviewed journals (and Proc. IEEE certainly qualifies), not to mention authoritative textbooks, etcetera, are not only permitted, they are encouraged. Most of these sources are not freely available online, but they can be found through libraries and so forth.

(It is also a common misconception that sources are only cited to tell what you used to write an article, like in a school homework assignment. In professional writing and in Wikipedia policy, sources are also used for many other purposes, for example to direct readers to sources of further information, and to help editors validate the article. Directing readers to appropriate articles in reputable journals and books in a "Further reading" section is certainly appropriate whether or not those articles are freely available online.)

—Steven G. Johnson 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove a "reputable source." It was tagged as "further reading" and since it is not a freely available, I cannot read it. So it is not reputable and it is not a source. (Spectrogram 07:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

spectrogram movie

Hello,

You removed a movie I made from the spectrogram article with the note that it's not a spectrogram. Why not? According to the definition in the article:

The spectrogram is the result of calculating the frequency spectrum of windowed frames of a compound signal. It is a three-dimensional plot of the energy of the frequency content of a signal as it changes over time.

That all seems to check out: it is windowed frames and a compound signal. It is 3 dimensional (time being the third dimension) and it plots the change over time. So where is the problem? If it's not a spectrogram, then what is it? Where does it belong? The output of my software is bound to be useful as an illustration somewhere on Wikipedia and finding a copyright clear song to do analysis of is kind of a chore. Thanks for your response. Triddle 07:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your fine Hz vs. dB 2D movie was that of a real-time spectrum analyzer. Time was not an axis in your plot but it was "real-time." In a spectrogram, dB is usually a color or brightness intensity or a pseudo mountain landscape. Maybe the clarity of the wording on the spectrogram page needs to improved to reflect this definition? Spectrograms can be real-time (animated scrolling) but they don't have to be, and in fact most aren't. I also commented in my edit summary: "and even if it was (a spectrogram) I don't think it would be appropriate here." What I meant by that was I don't think a movie of a spectrogram adds any value to the article. The movie film reel icon seems to complicate comprehension instead of improving it. (Spectrogram 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Ah thank you for educating me. I thought that spectrograms were a family of graphs that included the output of a spectrum analyzer. Well thanks for keeping Wikipedia accurate. Just for the record, I did seek another opinion before that edit since it was out of my league of experience. Thanks again :-) Triddle 08:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)