Talk:Wave field synthesis

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics: Acoustics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Acoustics Taskforce.

Holophony

Holophony (acoustic holography) was invented (and the term coined) by Maurice Jessel of CNRS in Marseille in the 1970's. Jessel did a PhD under the supervision of Louis de Broglie (the Physicist) in Paris in the 1960's. de Broglie wanted Jessel to generalise the work of David Bohm in Quantum Mechanics and de Broglie's own Pilot Wave Theory. This Jessel did (using a generalised version of Huygens Principle), but chose to make his career in acoustics and is considered to be the father of Active Acoustic Absorption and Wave Field Synthesis. These subjects are covered very poorly in Wiki. I knew Jessel, and visited him in Marseille, and have worked in the area (on the Theoretical Physics side, although I know about the acoustics) myself. I will undertake to try to improve these Wiki entries but it will take me some time. Keithbowden (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Building up the site

Hello, I am Helmut want to open the discussion about the wfs- site. She was empty too long i I have formed a base text. Two problems on this matter: As east german i have some problems with the english language, because we have only a education in russian. If enyone show misstakes, please edit! Second, i dont know, how extensive it should be. The matter has a huge volume, but if it useful to describe all details here? Its possibly the wrong place. But shold we including the truncation effect or the related Kirchhoff-Helmholtz-equation and raileygh integral ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.49.1.112 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

By my www.syntheticwave.de site is the procedure described a little more elaborate. Should be that also in WIKI?--Oelwiki (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue and Prod

The biggest issue here is that it seems to be original research. WP:OR governs this, and anything on wikipedia needs to be cited directly to avoid the issue. It's best to get diverse sources to reference (none of them should be your own work). There are also many WikiProjects that work on making translations, perhaps an article on the German Wiki would be appropriate. I hope that this will help. Adam McCormick (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's OR? Meanwhile, I've asked one of the contributors if he's sure if it's not OR. hydrogenaudio forums --Kjoonlee 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I draw my conclusion from the description of the main source as "my website" above. Adam McCormick (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he just says it's described in more detail there. --Kjoonlee 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, in the article, it is stated as a source. I am assuming good faith, but that doesn't excuse incorrect action. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where specifically? I'm afraid I don't see it.. Please reread WP:AGF; it's not just about incorrect actions but also about fixing things and moving on. --Kjoonlee 07:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:AGF has anything to do with how things are fixed, and it specifically says that newcomers should be corrected when they are wrong. I'm not assuming that this article is purposely wrong, only that it is not acceptable as it stands and that is good faith. I tried to give simple advice on how the article should have been written, I stated my concern and nothing you've said has refuted it. He uses his site as an external link, but most of the information in the article is posted there. I've located several other sources of the information but none of them are used. I have tried to locate the other two references and have been unable to locate a free copy so I can't verify that any of the information is presented there, and the English is bad enough that I'm having difficulty verifying any of it. Thus it seems like original research. If you don't agree, that's fine, but since neither of us have the ability to correct the article (or I presume you would have done so rather than arguing my state of mind), and there seems to be only one major contributor, I have a hard time with doing nothing and hoping someone else will fix it for me. Adam McCormick (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I translated AGF into Korean in May last year, I assumed "newbies make mistakes; correct them, but do not scold" (words not verbatim) to mean correct the mistakes. If it is possible that it is not OR, then you should assume that also IMHO, in good faith. --Kjoonlee 09:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to refute your concerns; I'm merely trying to say that you could be wrong. Just because you can't verify it doesn't mean nobody else can either. You could have put on {{cleanup}} or {{refimprove}} instead of prodding, which IMHO is contrary to AGF or POINT. --Kjoonlee 09:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, where specifically is the site being used as a source, rather than an external link? --Kjoonlee 09:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem; the wiki content must be resting upon reliable sources. My linking upon own site wasn’t intended to prove the article; it should only shown a more elaborated issue of the same stuff. If that not allowed, we can remove the link, possibly linking onto the according patent description: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE102005001395&F=0 , but the animated description seems my more helpfully for the wiki- users. The wiki- text described the state of the art, its not original research. Many published sources available. We should insert the following links:

http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/theile/Theile_DAFX.PDF

http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/HW/Wittek_thesis_201207.pdf

http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/salles/WFS_WEBSITE/Index_wfs_site.htm

Possibly other users improve the text, which should in all cases better as one major editor and would improve the English phrase. But erase the topic would cause a lack of information in wiki regarding of, besides ambisonics, one of the most sophisticated practical realised audio rendition procedures.--Oelwiki (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to help simply improve this article, but I don't understand most of what's here so it is very difficult for me to edit it. The best option would be if you could find a native or completely-fluent english speaker who was in this field who could help rewrite the article. The issue isn't just sources, a lot of it is the english. The audience you need to be writing for is not scientific or professional, and thus the language needs to be formal but without jargon. It need to be accessible to the average reader. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read more WIKI guidelines now. It should be possible for my to improve the text according the standard, but only by my russian english. Then I search a native tongue translator, think it should be possible in one or two weeks.--Oelwiki (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I have set up the relaunch, hope is o.k. now.--Oelwiki (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks to User Nettings for help, is much better :) --Oelwiki (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]