Am 28.11.2020 um 14:48 schrieb Paul B Mahol:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:46 PM Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:24 PM Michael Koch <astroelectro...@t-online.de>
wrote:
Am 28.11.2020 um 13:44 schrieb Paul B Mahol:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Koch <
astroelectro...@t-online.de>
wrote:
Am 28.11.2020 um 12:57 schrieb Paul B Mahol:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 12:41 PM Michael Koch <
astroelectro...@t-online.de>
wrote:
Am 27.11.2020 um 20:50 schrieb Paul B Mahol:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 8:24 PM Michael Koch <
astroelectro...@t-online.de>
wrote:
Am 27.11.2020 um 19:25 schrieb Paul B Mahol:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Koch <
astroelectro...@t-online.de>
wrote:
Hello,
I have a few questions about the asubboost and asupercut filters.
-- In asubboost it's not yet clear how the block diagram of the
filter
looks like. Especially the "decay" and "feedback" options are
unclear.
What's the input of the the delay line? Before or after the low
pass
filter? Where does the feedback go to? Before or after the
lowpass
filter? I have attached a sketch of a possible block diagram, but
it's
only a wild guess.
This filter just adds delayed sub frequencies set by cut off
frequency
back
to output. Decay sets decay of old sub echo in buffer and feedback
sets
how
much
new sub frequencies are added to the delay buffer.
I did try to reverse engineer the asubboost filter from its output
signal. Is the attached sketch correct?
It seems the "feedback" parameter is unnecessary because it does
exactly
the same thing as "wet".
No, your reasoning is invalid.
I do not have time to draw graphs or do consulting for free.
When you swap the values of "wet" and "feedback", the output does
always
remain the same.
If you think that I'm wrong, please show an example to prove the
opposite.
Make sure that you take into account decay parameter, delay buffer is
still
used.
When you swap the values of "wet" and "feedback", the output does always
remain the same, regardless which values you use for "dry", "decay" and
"delay".
As can be shown with this example:
set "A=0.4"
set "B=0.7"
ffmpeg -f lavfi -i aevalsrc='0.5*gt(t,0.1)':d=1 -lavfi
asplit[a][b];[b]asubboost=dry=0.3:wet=%A%:decay=0.4:feedback=%B%:delay=50[c],[a][c]join,showwaves=draw=full:s=800x300:r=1
-frames 1 -y out1.png
ffmpeg -f lavfi -i aevalsrc='0.5*gt(t,0.1)':d=1 -lavfi
asplit[a][b];[b]asubboost=dry=0.3:wet=%B%:decay=0.4:feedback=%A%:delay=50[c],[a][c]join,showwaves=draw=full:s=800x300:r=1
-frames 1 -y out2.png
ffmpeg -i out1.png -i out2.png -lavfi vstack -y out.png
Red is input step signal, green is output step response of the asubboost
filter. In the lower half of the output image the "wet" and "feedback"
values are swapped.
What we said previously about delay buffers and that above command?
It was literally less than 24h.
The previous example was "showfreqs" which has a frequency domain
output. Not suitable for analyzing filters which contain delays.
Now I'm using "showwaves" which has time domain output. That's a
different thing. Of course delay lines can be analyzed in time domain.
That command can not show you the action of delayed input as it is not
designed for it.
A step signal contains all frequencies and is the best possible source
for analyzing unknown black boxes that may contain delays. You can
replace the input by any other source, but you will never find any
difference in the two outputs. It's a fact, "wet" and "feedback" are
interchangeable.
Michael
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
