Talk:Acoustics

Proposed name change
I'd like to change all the subpages of this book so that they begin with "Acoustics/" rather than "Acoustics:" to make it in line with the current naming convention. I trust such a change won't be controversial, but note it here in advance to allow for comments, Jguk 07:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Science and Technology
I support distinguishing science from technology. Technology changes rapidly from month to month; yesterday's technology will be obsolete tomorrow. Scientific principles may grow in complexity and understanding, but never lose validity. Understanding science requires studying mathematics and acquiring knowledge slowly but surely, in the form of laws and theories; but understanding technology requires following trademarks, products, licensing, and copyrighted names and details which apply primarily to commercial products. Technology, while important, is expensive. Science is free. Technology is driven by the motive of making profits. Science is open and motivated by intellectual curiosity. But above all, when people are seeking information, they can usually determine in advance which they are looking for, and making this elementary distinction helps them decide, and information providers determine, where it belongs. The distinction may involve complications, but I believe it's worthwhile. D021317c 05:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the point or purpose of your comment... Can you please make the connection? Stevenmitchell (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Support name change
Agree with Jguk that Acoustics/ is better, considering current conventions. Wildtornado 06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Books getting vandalised
Why not show the approved versions of books (rather than the drafts) that have links from the main page so that the vandalism is not as noticeable

Duplicated topics
Many chapters of this book were simply copied from an earlier book called "Engineering Acoustics" with no reference or acknowledgement. The chapters were cosmetically altered but are obviously copies of the original. This is plagierism, and there should be something to prevent such thing. The chapters in question should have been replaced by links to the original page. The authors would have been better off editing the original and cleaning it up.

PDF
I would like to request that a PDF version of this book be made. It would be very useful.

DONE --Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 10:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No References, Citations or even a Bibliography
Why would this book have been recommended as an open book? There are no references, no citations or notes - not even a bibliography. As mentioned above by a contributor under the section entitled "duplicated topics", that user believes that this is information hijacked from a book entitled, "engineering acoustics". I have no idea if that is correct or not, but the fact that it uses or cites no references whatsoever, should be alarming to Wikipedia, especially for it to be a "featured book". Without any form of reference, the likelihood to have been plagiarized at the very least in parts if not all is very high... For any writing to take place, there are source materials that provide the base of the article or book. Who writes an authoritative non-fiction text without sources? No one. This should have been a red flag to Wikipedia... Stevenmitchell (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Music production
This excellent book and its subject material would be extremely important--some might say vital--to music producers and audio engineers as well as to physicists. As it crosses a boundary between two very distinct fields (one an art, one a science) I think it should be listed in the musical category, as well as tucked away in the sciences. I hope this will make sense, and that I'm not stepping on any toes by already making the appropriate change. I am a new Wikibookian and just want to give assurance that I'm not just editing away senselessly.--AJRussell (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Similarity to Engineering Acoustics
Some of the pages in this book appear to have been copy-pasted from Engineering Acoustics by 82.67.9.77 and Booby, for example: Acoustics/Acoustics in Violins and Engineering Acoustics/Acoustics in Violins, Acoustics/Sealed Box Subwoofer Design and Engineering Acoustics/Sealed Box Subwoofer Design, Acoustics/Noise from Cooling Fans and Engineering Acoustics/Noise from cooling fans, etc.

It seems redundant to have the exact same content on both books. In fact I'm not sure what the difference between the two books is, as both go into a fair amount of technical information. Sonicwave32 (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)