Talk:Peak programme meter

Magnetic tape

I have removed the stuff about PPMs and soft tape compression. This cannot be true because the PPM was developed in the 1930s, long before the existence of magnetic tape (except the early steel stuff with DC bias), let alone an understanding of tape compresssion. None of the BBC sources (Pawley, and the Engineering Training Supplement on PPMs) mention tape compression as a factor. Harumphy 07:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

PPM scales

I've recently added stuff about the ABC and CBC scales based on info in an AES preprint. But I've also seen references to an "ABC east coast scale", and "ABC west coast scale" and an "IEEE scale". Does anyone have any info on these or other exotic flavours? --Harumphy (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration

This discussion was originally on user talk pages.

You've entirely reverted my edits to Peak programme meter. Did you find nothing useful in my contributions? I appreciate all the work you've put into the article over the past year. Articles usually can be improved further if more than one editor is contributing. --Kvng (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your message on my talk page, I reverted your contribution to this article because (a) for clarity, it's best if each sentence contains one fact. By introducing an extra term (QPPM) it makes comprehension harder - the reader has to read further down to find out the difference between a PPM and QPPM and then go back to the first sentence to find out what either of them do! The difference between the two types is a subtle one and we don't need to introduce it in the first sentence. (b) I think your suggestion that PPMs are mainly used to prevent clipping/overload is wrong. That is one of several uses - they are really at least as much for programme balance in broadcast production, and for (e.g.) comparison of signal levels at different points in a broadcast chain.--Harumphy (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that I have created redirects so that readers may also get to this page searching for Quasi-peak programme meter, QPPM and the like. It is generally considered good style to mention the major redirect terms in boldface in the lead. This was one of the things I was trying to accomplish in my edits. Perhaps you have a suggestion how to accomplish this without hindering comprehension. --Kvng (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

People who get to the page via one of the QPPM redirects will either already know what a QPPM is or they won't. If they do, they don't need the info, and if they don't, it's explained early in the article anyway. So what exactly is the problem? --Harumphy (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I fear you make unfounded assumptions about readers. People frequently use Wikipedia to look up acronyms they are unfamiliar with. With the new redirect, a search for QPPM leads you directly to this article. We want the article to immediately answer the question, What does QPPM stand for?

Fair enough. I've expanded the intro. HTH. --Harumphy (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Peak-reading

Robert.Harker originally proposed this merge and it looks like a good idea to me. ~Kvng (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure peak-reading says anything that could be usefully merged into this article. Maybe just delete it.Harumphy (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

We would delete it if we didn't think anyone ever used this term. Based on my own experience and a Google search, I don't think that's the case. If there truly is no useful material, we could just WP:REDIRECT here. Ideally we'd add the alternate term to the lead to help orient readers who arrived through the redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I really don't want to do that. This article is about a specific type of peak audio level meter. It isn't a beginners' guide to audio meters. Perhaps it would be better to merge peak-reading into amplitude instead. They're both pitched at about the same introductory level.Harumphy (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Amplitude but perhaps Peak meter would be a workable target. Or perhaps we don't want to do any merging. ~Kvng (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree peak meter is a suitable target.Harumphy (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Caps

@Harumphy: please have a look at MOS:CAPS. We don't use a lot of caps on Wikipedia. You may want to use italics for "precise, defined terms" but caps are not appropriate unless the term is a proper noun. ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the style guides ages ago to see if this type of usage had been considered. It appears not to have been, either at the time or more recently. I feel it's important for comprehension to make clear that these terms are used with the precise meaning given in ITU-R BS.645. (After all, a lot of this article is about standards and precision so it needs to avoid terminological inexactitude.) I don't think italics would be appropriate, because italics are used for other purposes such as emphasis, which is not the desired effect here, and such a change would reduce clarity. Until there's an explicit WP guide for this particular usage (or not) of capitalization, I'd prefer to leave it as it is. The clarity of the article is more important than zealous compliance with WP rules, which in any case encourage tolerance of reasonable exceptions. Harumphy (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

TOC formatting

Harumphy has reverted my layout improvement. Yes, the change adds whitespace to the right of the TOC but that's arguably better than text wrapping around and distracting readers from the TOC. In any case, this is how all Wikipedia articles have been formatted. Why should this one be formatted differently? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm hoping for an answer. ~Kvng (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, adding whitespace to the right of the TOC is arguably better. It's also arguably worse. It's a matter of opinion. My opinion is informed by commercial experience in graphic design. The TOC template was created for this kind of use. It's been in this article for years and nobody else has objected. As for why should this article be different - all articles are different. If it looks right, it is right. Please apply some taste and discernment and don't be such a jobsworth. Harumphy (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

First off, jobsworth is not a complementary term. Second, I'm glad you see potential benefit in my edit. In addition to optimizing articles individually, I think it is also important for the encyclopedia to have layout consistency from article to article. This gives a more professional presentation and helps readers navigate more easily. Though you deem the revert better for this article, I think we should be considering things a bit more broadly. But you seem to WP:OWN (not a complementary accusation, I'm aware) this article and I've got more fun things to do on WP than try and foster a more collaborative spirit here. ~Kvng (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Intersample peaks

@RJLamont In addition to the -1, +1, -1, +1, +1, -1, +1, -1 pattern, which can reach arbitrary intersample heights, there is also the +1, -1, -1, +1, -1, -1 asymmetrical pattern that reaches +4.4 dBFS, and which is bandlimited (and various other more realistic signals in between). Anyway, VST plugins and the like can generate things that aren't bandlimited, and a true intersample peak PPM can help detect that. — Omegatron (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)