Don Pearce writes:
[...]
My definition of white noise is that equal bandwidths contain equal
energy, whatever their centre frequency. Certainly over the full
extent of the audio band, and as I say a very long way beyond, that is
true for shot noise.
I agree that shot noise is constant in some bandwidth around a centre
frequency that extends "a very long way beyond" the audio band. What I
am saying is that, even though the term "white noise" is used
colloquially to mean "constant power over some large bandwidth," that
usage is wrong according to the definition.
It would be useful to coin a new phrase for such bandlimited noise;
"bandlimited white noise"?
There is a sentence in that paper that shows the limitation of
Papoulis's theory in that it cannot of itself show that white noise
has a zero mean (no DC component).
That was the point of both sections: neither Papoulis' nor Brown's
definitions imply zero mean.
I think the pragmatic definition is probably the more useful and
easily understood.
I would agree that myself and pretty much everyone else here understands
what is meant by "white" in this context.
What I do not agree with is when someone such as Jordan is careful with
the terminology and meets with resistance. Jordan is not wrong for using
the term "white noise" in its proper form!
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com