It's right that it's not a lot, but I think it's important. As an
example, a standard 10 or 15Hz high pass filter would be nice, as no
one is able to ear such frequencies, so why encoding them?
A 10kHz filter, IMHO, would be a bad idea. Even in poor listening
conditions with less than
What is the purpose of this high-pass filtering ?
You said that it would affect only 2 MDCT coeficients, that is
less than a percent of them all, so what gain do you/we expect from it ?
In the tuning of the 44.1kHz voice option (I know that this option should be
updated now for other
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:06:26PM +0100, Gabriel Bouvigne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
...
It's right that it's not a lot, but I think it's important. As an
example, a standard 10 or 15Hz high pass filter would be nice, as no
one is able to ear such frequencies, so why encoding them?
A 10kHz
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:20:03 -0800
From: Monty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a frequency resolution of only 22050/576 = 38Hz. So the accuracy of the first
few coefficients is questionable, and a highpass filter at 50Hz would
only effect the first 2 MDCT coefficients. I dont know how big a
Robert Hegemann wrote:
Thank you Ross for the info about radio frequencies.
Coding FM quality with sharp cutoff would look like:
lame --highpass 0.05 --highpass-width 0
...etc
May I make a case for --highpass 0.016 ? FM Radio usually goes down a bit
lower than 50Hz. The lowest note on a
