Synthesizer was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
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
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A waveform generated by a synthesizer
This isn't very informative. It appears to be a bass sawtooth wave without any modulation added. As a result, it doesn't explain much about synthesizers. There should be something more suitable than this, but I couldn't immediately find anything after looking around on Commons.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Ianmacm, yeah it sucks. It requires someone capturing a good range of sounds to demonstrate different modes of synthesis, which would take a bit of thought. Popcornfud (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
"First mass produced synthesizer, the Yamaha DX-7"?
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I reckon Roland, Korg, Oberheim and even Yamaha themselves would have a few things to say about that. SamXT (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it's plausible, depending on what you consider "mass produced". From the DX7 page: The DX7 was the first commercially successful digital synthesizer and remains one of the bestselling synthesizers in history. According to Bristow, Yamaha had hoped the DX7 would sell more than 20,000 units; within a year, orders exceeded 150,000, and it had sold 200,000 units after three years. It was the first synthesizer to sell more than 100,000 units. Yamaha manufactured units on a scale American competitors could not match; by comparison, Moog sold 12,000 Minimoog synthesizers in 11 years, and could not meet demand.
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
It shouldn't take expert knowledge of synthesizer technology to understand the lead. If there are technical terms, then they ought to be tersely explained, at least by explanatory footnotes, especially if the wikilink'd articles are written like this article. — Occurring (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to Synthesizers generate audio through methods including subtractive synthesis, additive synthesis, and frequency modulation synthesis. These sounds may be shaped and modulated by components such as filters, envelopes, and low-frequency oscillators. These are indeed technical terms, but I think it's sufficient for the lead to merely say they are means of generating audio and means of shaping and modulating the sounds; readers don't have to understand all of them at this point. The article body (and the linked articles) go into greater explanatory detail about what they mean and how they work. Popcornfud (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort to make the article more readable, but I don't think the change is an improvement.
"an electronic musical instrument that generates audio signals elecronically" - apart from the typo, it's tautological to say an electronic instrument produces audio electronically.
It removes important information about the article subject from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the article body. These concepts are referred to extensively in the article so we shouldn't leave them out of the lead. It's right to include them as they are critical synthesizer concepts - they explain how synths produce sound.
As a random point of comparison, look at the Albert Einstein article. The lead there references several complex ideas, such as These outlined the theory of the photoelectric effect, explained Brownian motion, introduced special relativity, and demonstrated mass-energy equivalence, which the average reader cannot be expected to understand or know about. But this is just a summary, so it's OK - the reader has opportunities to learn about these things in detail by reading the article or following the wikilinks. Popcornfud (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think that edit cut too deep. This is an encyclopedia, not "My Little Golden Book of Musical Instruments", for Pete's sake. Hyperlinks are IMO the best thing ever introduced for technical writing; they provide easy opportunity to look into unfamiliar terms, while not cluttering the text with wordy inline explication. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Bill. My edit was bold and hasty. I still think the second sentence that is basically a stack of technical terms is tough to get through. Is there a way to summarize this without listing and hyperlinking all possibilities? ~Kvng (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I should be thanking you for the systematic review process you've been chipping away at. I've got an idea or two, but the sun is just now coming up here, and it may take a while to put together something coherent. Cheers! Just plain Bill (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
4th paragraph of the intro and the start of impact are very similar/directly copied
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think the 4th paragraph of the intro could be removed or altered so that it separates the content that only fits well in the impact