Talk:Wavetable

Redirect destination for Wavetable

The term Wavetable is a generic term on signal processing. Especially in the sound synthesis context, it have been already used at latest in 1977, before Palm Products GmbH implemented Wavetable synthesis in 1978, as following:

• H.G. Alles; Pepino di Giugno (November 1977). "A One-Card 64 Channel Digital Synthesizer". Computer Music Journal. 1 (4): pp. 7-9. FIGURE 1 ... 16 K × 14 BIT WAVETABLE {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

The issue described on Wavetable synthesis#Confusion with sample-based synthesis is not for "Wavetable" but for "Wavetable synthesis". The current redirect on the term "Wavetable" into the article "Wavetable synthesis" may cause increase the unnecessarily confusion. It is better to change the redirect destination into Sample-based synthesis. --Clusternote (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The all articles once using this redirection (Wavetable) as a meaning of "Wavetable synthesis", have been all rewritten to direct link. At now, the generic term "wavetable" which have been used before the invention of "wavetable synthesis" in 1977, is free from it. Thus, the destination of redirection was changed to Sample-based synthesis. --Clusternote (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My comment is that if "wavetable" is ambiguous, this page needs to be turned into a disambiguation page. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews: Yes, I think so, too. I'm glad for your valuable advice. --Clusternote (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Clusternote: Hi there. I'm trying to retroactively clarify your actions here. I'm double checking that it was correct, because I'm kinda familiar but I'm not an expert. The whole point of having a disambiguation link is to give multiple choices. But you seem to have made exactly one choice for all of them. Is that correct or did I miss something? Are you absolutely sure that everything from Neo Geo to NES uses sample-based wavetable and not just normal synthesis? And, you are linking them to a redirect, which is odd. Did you realize that? So in the case of this, you have two different consecutive wikilinks to the same target article. Please use {{reply to | Smuckola}} so I'll see it. Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smuckola: Sorry for my late response.

As for sample-based synthesis, I think it is slightly minor, and possibly improper term. However, here on English Wikipedia, it seems to be used as an umbrella-term for all-kind of synthesis using:

1. classical waveform table-lookup method (including several sound chip with programmable waveform generators)
2. wavetable synthesis in narrower meaning (wavetable synthesis especially described on Robert Bristow-Johnson 1996 (User:Rbj on music-dsp ML), typically used on PPG Wave and Waldorf Music's products),
3. arbitrary synthesis using waveform table or sample table (wavetable in wider meaning) (for example: Creative Wave Blaster, Microsoft GS Wavetable SW Synth),
4. arbitrary synthesis using samples in arbitrary length (including sampler (musical instrument), Rompler)

(see also: Template:Sound synthesis types).

On the other hand, the term wavetable synthesis is, possibly you think it as if a generic term for several range of synthesis using waveform tables, however it seems not widely accepted in English Wikipedia. Several users want to exclusively use the term only for a method typically used on PPG Wave, and they have claimed the other uses of the term are all "incorrect", as written on the article "Wavetable synthesis".

Note that I'm not agree with them, so I'm trying to resolve the issue. --Clusternote (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Clusternote: Well that's a bummer, isn't it? I grew up with an Apple //gs with the Ensoniq wavetable chip, and the SNES, so I am a fan but I'm not an expert. I don't know what to say about that, except to make an expert request for an audio engineering scientist. I can only optimize the article's existing contents, nod, and back away. So the subject of the actual content is one thing. But on the other subject of wiki formatting, what do you say the disambiguation and the redirect and the link I gave? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smuckola: I'm glad if you wrote the comment in plain word.

Of course I'm recognizing the ugliness of the expressions like a "'wave table' sample-based synthesis", however, another solution couldn't find for several years, due to the exclusive occupancy of the article wavetable synthesis by the PPG Wave-family instruments. --Clusternote (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Clusternote: No, it's not ugly. It's redundant. It's two different wikilinks to the same article. Go ahead and click them! Also, I originally asked you if you are totally sure that all these links go to the correct target at all. I somewhat understand what you're saying about the disagreeable content of the articles. But still, even just by the article's title, you're saying that a NES specifically uses sample-based wavetable synthesis. Are you sure about that? Are you sure that all the systems use sample based wavetable synthesis? I'm not an expert, but I know that a NES can use wavetable synth and I know it can use samples, but I'm just checking. I know a lot of NES experts, so I'll ask them too. Thank you sir. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smuckola: Thanks for your kindly comment in plain English! Both problems can be resolved by writing a new article (or new section) dedicated for the generic "table-lookup synthesis" (Curtis Roads 1996, p. 87), instead of the current article dedicated for PPG Wave family. However, it might be slightly hard task in the requirement of reliable sources (a famous IP user tends to complain bitterly for anything even if reliable sources are cited. really he has a nice guts).

Otherwise, first link should be redirected to the disambiguation page, as you said. As for the (possibility of) contradiction on a notion like a "sample-based wavetable synthesis" pointed out by you, I have no idea to resolve it without any new article/new section ...

Anyway, thanks for your comment. --Clusternote (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)