Talk:Wow and flutter measurement

Citation needed for this claim

"Several recent (2006) DVD releases have utilized a system developed by Plangent Processes that substantially reduces wow and flutter of very high rates to extremely low levels, with a substantial improvement in quality, and without adding distortion or extra cycles of sound." If this is the case then a citation for this is needed, otherwise it just comes across as an advertising claim.Jezwells (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

General Comment

I apologize for not having time to find citations for all of these items, but they should all be verifiable if someone had the time. As an audio professional, I concur with what has been written. The article appeared well written and well explained to a general audience and covered most if not all of the major points. I did slightly modify the Scrape Flutter section "Stiction" refers to the need for a force to break an object loose from rest, as I understand it, and "stick-slip" refers to a moving object intermittently locking with a surface it is passing over and then releasing. I also added the link to Dale Manquen's website which is a good place to look for in-depth flutter information, especially scrape flutter. Rlhess (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Citations

I'm pleased to see that you concur with what has been written. I wrote most of the content, but in the past I have been told off for citing material from my own work or the Lindos Electronics website as Wiki rules don't allow this. You could however cite it easily. The Lindos Electronics site contains articles such as the one below which support typical figures for w&f based on extensive measurements. See for example http://www.lindos.co.uk/test_and_measurement/SOURCE=Articles/SOURCE=Articles%7CVIEW=full%7Cid=9 Lindosland (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

While there could certainly be more citations here, I objec to the frequent labelling of pages as having no citations when they in fact contain standards information. Standards are the ultimate source for a topic like this, and are referenced clearly in the text. While they may be objected to as 'primary sources' this is silly, because they are indisputable, being the very definition of the subject. Secondary sources only detract from this authority and are often unreliable.

"Listeners [who?] find flutter most objectionable when the actual frequency of wobble is 4 Hz"

Sound with a frequency of 4Hz (a sound wave that repeats four times per second) is inaudible, the lowest frequency tone that humans can hear is about 20 Hz. Perhaps the author meant to type 4kHz (4,000 Hz) which IS audible. Maybe I misunderstand what the author is saying, maybe he's saying that a 'wobble' which repeats four times per second sounds more objectionable than a 'faster' wobble/waver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C102:60B0:6DBB:5DD9:75B4:36B2 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)