Talk:Reverberation

	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.

Propose inclusion of source describing reverb

The lead gives a description of reverb, but does not mention that some degree of reverb adds qualities to a sound that are considered desirable. A book on applied physics for engineers states that reverb adds "richness and fullness" to the sound:

Reverberation in an auditorium adds "richness and fullness" to the sound of speaking or music, which may be considered desirable; however, if a hall produces too much reverberation, this "...decreases clarity."^[1]OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OnBeyondZebrax That isn't what reverb is. The edit makes no sense what so ever. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Neeraj, Mehta. Applied Physics for Engineers. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. p. 979.

this editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OnBeyondZebrax is adding to the opening, material that is not what the opening is about. The opening is about what Reverb is. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for deleting the "Electronic reverb" section

As far as I can tell, the "Electronic reverb" section was entirely redundant. The electronic reverbs it speaks of surely all use springs as in the above section, or digital formulae, as in the below section. In other words, "electronic reverbs" is a more general term that encompasses plate, spring, digital and convolution reverbs, rather than being a separate method in its own right, disqualifying it from being a separate item in the list. I've therefore [removed] it. I'm leaving this rationale here so anyone can freely sanity-check it. ZoeB (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split

@Onel5969: I believe this article should be split because it covers two separate concepts:

Reverberation, the acoustic phenomenon
Reverb effects, the audio effects used in sound and music engineering

They're not really the same thing. If you're reading an article about an album that mentions the use of reverb on a guitar sound, for example, you don't expect to be follow that wikilink and get an explanation of what reverberation is as a physical property in the universe. You're expecting an article about reverb effects. See WP:ASTONISH, You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. A link should not take readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would go..

I think there's more than enough material that can be written about reverb effects to justify a separate article.

I completely agree that the coverage of reverb effects is lacking citations per WP:VERIFY, and that this is a critical problem. But it's a problem with this coverage right now anyway, whether we keep it in Reverbation or place it in a separate Reverb effect article. In any case, I'm happy to do the work to find sources to restore the separate Reverb effect article. Popcornfud (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornfud, I agree that it's an issue re VERIFY either way. I thought about marking it reviewed and removing uncited material, but that would gut the article, taking out about 80% (rough approximation). If you want to add the sources, I have no objection to the split, cause I think WP:CONSPLIT might apply. My biggest issue was the VERIFY one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, thanks. I'll see about adding some reliable sources and probably rewriting what there is. I have faced opposition to removing uncited material from audio articles so there may be some pushback. Popcornfud (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornfud, there should be zero opposition to removing uncited material. That's one of the pillars of WP, as per WP:VERIFY, if you remove it and it gets re-added without citations, that's contrary to WP:BURDEN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, see Talk:Delay_(audio_effect)#RfC_on_alternate_versions for a current discussion on this matter. Popcornfud (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, I've rewritten the reverb effect section with reliable sources and deleted the uncited claims. Would you object to me splitting this out again now? Popcornfud (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornfud, nice job. No concerns with the split, except be sure that you fix the redirects and hatnote under spring reverb. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Neeraj, Mehta. Applied Physics for Engineers. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. p. 979.

[1]