Talk:Sound masking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wikified

Page has been wikified. --Pavithran 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skepticism

I'm really having a hard time making sense of this article. I find it hard to believe that noise health effects can be reduced by adding more noise, whether or not you "notice" a noise less. Even where annoyance is concerned, it seems like this assumes one is only annoyed by the observation of the masked noise - but the inability to hear is also a source of annoyance. For example, there is something innately disturbing about concentrating on your work in an area where someone could easily come up behind you without you hearing them, and often subtle sounds help you to know if you're doing something properly. I think that for this article to succeed it will need to address the issue of flat-out disbelief. 70.15.114.89 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but sound masking is a valid means of dealing with annoying noise (such as a loud noise in a narrow range of frequencies) by masking it with noise that has less annoying characteristics. Pzavon 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The implication of the author having problems of disbelief in masking as a solution is that masking noise is loud and disruptive in and of itself. In fact, sound masking background noise levels are on the order of 46 dBA, roughly the level associated with a quiet suburban neighborhood during the day (see Cowen, J., "Architectural Acoustics Design Guide," McGraw-Hill, 2000) and significantly lower than many existing working environments. Sound masking for reduction of distractions in quiet open offices is a very well established technique, dating back to the 1960's, for which designs are provided by virtually every acoustic consultant in the US. In the year 2007, the benefits of sound masking in terms of improving the office acoustic environment are simply not questioned and have not been for 40 years. The author owes it to himself to do a little research in both the technical an popular literature. If he does so, his skepticism will be quickly eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.44.177 (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

• Opposed As was noted in the other article's talk page, this is a practical application, that article is the underlying theory and leaving them as two separate articles seems more appropriate, though they should definitely reference each other.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)