Talk:Stopband

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Sounds like a bandpass filter? Could somebody define the difference? Thanks.--Jondel 07:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. the opposite. this would be created by a bandstop filter 2. it refers to the actual band, not the filter. "the bandstop filter had a stopband 1 kHz wide" - Omegatron 11:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like stop-band analysis involves taking a closer look at the actual band you are rejecting, or stopping, in a band-reject filter (I use the term band-reject filter because that is the term used when in school). Is this correct?

-- Peterfelts September 14, 2006

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tessiro.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Band-stop filter

This article should be merged with Band-stop filter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.Harker (talk • contribs)

Yes; go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some caution is in order here. We also have passband (not to mention baseband and others) which should be given consistent treatment. Obviously related, but not the same thing. Stopband is a concept from signal processing. It is a purely theoretical construct. Band-stop filter, on the other hand, is a physical piece of hardware, or at least firmware. There is also the issue that both articles have numerous incoming links, sometimes both in the same article. In order to give both sets of links a target in the merged article, it would need to be constructed in two distinct parts. It might be easier just to leave it as two articles.

At the very least this merge discussion should be advertised before doing anything with {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} templates on the relevant articles linking to a discussion at a central location. Passband and band-pass filter (and possibly also baseband and low-pass filter) should also be tagged and linked to the same discussion so we get the same consensus on all related articles.

As you can probably tell, I am not very enthusiastic about this. Spinning Spark 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 dB points and reverted edits

I have just reverted a recent series of edits by user:Tessiro. I appreciate the attempt to improve the article, but it ended up introducing a lot of misinformation which was just too difficult to copyedit out, so sorry, I have reverted. In particular, stopbands are pretty much never defined by the 3dB points. That is where passbands are commonly defined (but even then not always—the Tchebyscheff filter passband is normally defined to match the specified ripple). Stopband limits are defined at much higher attenuations. The version I reverted to has the correct information along with the relationship between passband, stopband, transition band, and shape factor (though perhaps not as clearly as it could be). None of the references added supported a stopband definition of 3dB. They are all referring to passbands, hence have no relevance to this article. SpinningSpark 16:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]