Talk:POW-R

Okay, I think it's about there. Yes, not everything is cited, but hopefully the overall tone is now neutral enough for this not to cause problems. Please check over for accuracy and correct any factual errors, but equally please, don't paste in anything about birdies or motorboating :). There are a few TODOs in the source text, one of which (the picture) must be acted on before the article can go up.

Cheers, Rob. 87.112.34.45 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Give me a few days to discuss this with others and get back with you. Tks. Audio77 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rob, one of the key elements of POW-R is that it does avoid the drawbacks of look-up-table-based WLR processes (motorboating, birdies). I don't know where these kinds of issues can be found in the literature, but any experienced mastering engineer will confirm it. POW-R avoids these kinds of spurii by design. This is an important distinction. How do you suggest we handle this? Audio77 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

With difficulty :-) WP rule: `any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation'. Stating or implying that a commercial offering is better than another offering (commercial or otherwise) is `likely to be challenged'. Some possibilities: 1) don't worry about it; anyone for whom the look-up-table info would be enlightening will click through to the data-sheet and find it there anyway. 2) Enhance the market-share aspect with some verifiable figures so that the word "dominates" (or similar) can be used, and let this fact speak for itself. 3a) Obtain a reliable independent source for the merits of POW-R w.r.t. spurii; one acceptable possibility for this would be a consensus discussion on Gearslutz (where all the MEs hang out--I'm sure Bob K would chip in with his thoughts). 3b) At the very least, if lack of look-up-tables is to be mentioned, a citation would be needed to indicate that not avoiding look-up-tables causes spurii; thus the statement becomes one of design (rather than the consequences of design) which is much less contentious. HTH, Rob. 87.112.34.45 (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the graph mentioned in the article? "The graph to the right shows the frequency response of the orchestral music algorithm variant (POW-R3, a 9th order filter)." This should either be deleted or, better, that graph should be put in. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.255.7.72 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)