Talk:Bass management

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 July 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bass management article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed nonsense

The first paragraph of this article is nonsense created by a known wikivandal, so I removed it. (It was a slightly clever spoof of corporate management speak, but certainly not encyclopedic.) I applaud the contributors for actually adding meaningful content to this page, seeing as how it started as a vandal's dig at the Wikicommunity. Ddama 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added as link at subwoofer

This article has become somewhat visible because of this link. I have no idea what Ddama removed some years ago, but what has been left (largely unchanging) is one person's opinion about bass crossovering in surround sound (including LFE) systems. it is a sufficiently complex field (with multiple suppliers of hardware and software and multiple suppliers of varying competence of source material), that a single paragraph is ipso facto not adequate coverage, whatever your particular approach to such matters. Without references to external sources, whether one imagines the claims made here are adequate or accurate, it's headed right into deletion territory.

Those interested in the subject should make an effort, now that the article has become somewhat prominent to clean it up, lest someone add it to the deletion pile. ww (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this. Since User:Ddama removed the initial nonsense, the stub has contained uncontroversial, accurate, and useful information. The only controversial claims contained in the cited note are about how to mix using the LFE, and these claims are not contained in this stub. I agree the topic is worthy of more than a single paragraph, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. I am confident that if this stub was ever cited for deletion, the consensus would be keep. HairyWombat 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of LFE crossover

I did not propose the merging of LFE crossover into Bass management (proposed on July 10, 2010), but I support it. They are different names for the same thing, so having separate articles does not make sense. HairyWombat 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later. Done, although the only bit worth merging was Category:Film sound production. HairyWombat 20:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Article On Complex Topic

This is a weak and confusing article. It lacks most content, and the table is downright mystifying--why would the LFE signal be "merged" with the sub after base management? It still exists, and is still directed over the .1 connection. It might make more sense to say that the L+R low frequency is "gone" (having been merged with LFE). Definitely not up to wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]