Frank Sheeran,
From my reading of wikipedias page on phase distortion synthesis, my method
is definitely related. The main differences are that I use two modulators
(master oscillators), and a cos^2 window instead of a triangular wave form.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Casio CZ synthesis was
tl;dr version: The justification for DSP (equi-distant samples) is the
Whittaker-Shannon interpolation formula, which follows from the Poisson
summation formula plus some hand-waving about distributions (dirac delta
theory). Am I right?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Ethan Duni
Douglas Repetto:
The digest doesn't go by number of messages, it goes by size. It was
set at 10k to trigger a new digest, I just upped it to 10k. Let me
know how that feels.
Thank you! That's much better, now there's 17 mails
in the latest digest.
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list
Dither theory is way cool. The problem with quantization noise is that it's
correlated to the signal. This is the reason it sounds so horrible. When
you're doing 1 bit dsp, dither (and noise shaping) is an absolute
requirement. When rendering to 8 bits you definitely benefit from
dithering. 16
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Emanuel Landeholm
emanuel.landeh...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
16 bits and above though... Color me a skeptic. I'm sure it kind
of makes sense to apply some form of dithering when rendering a critically
sampled mix to 16 bits. This way you can turn the volume knob
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
...
and in my opinion, a very small amount of hand-waving regarding the
Dirac delta (to get us to the same understanding one gets at the
sophomore or junior level EE) is *much* *much* easier to gain
understanding than farting around with the Dirac delta as a
rb-j, you wrote
again, all you really need is
+inf +inf
T SUM{ delta(t-nT) } = SUM{ e^(i 2 pi k/T t) }
n=-inf k=-inf
Precisely, and one way to get there is by starting from the Poisson
Summation Formula and taking f(n) = T dirac(t-nT)
On 3/28/14 12:25 PM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
my opinion is: above 14bit, dithering is pointless (other than for
marketing reasons),
14 bits??? i seriously disagree. i dunno about you, but i still listen
to red-book CDs (which are 2-channel, uncompressed 16-bit fixed-point).
they would sound
On 2014-03-28, Charles Z Henry wrote:
Probably everybody knows that you lose something when you mic a bass
drum and send the output to a vented box subwoofer. It lags a little
bit behind and the tone gets smeared out in time by the resonance. A
successful loudspeaker like this would be able
It will depend on you monitoring/listening equipment and situation.
I can easily hear the difference between a 192 or 96kHz 24 (or 22 bits +
exponent) bit and downgrading to 48 or 44.1 / 24 bit OR to 192 or 96 kHz
16 bits. Let alone both, easily audible.
It becomes ridiculous when using
my opinion is: above 14bit, dithering is pointless (other than for marketing
reasons), and all of the demonstrations will always make you hear 10bit
worth of audio in a 16bit file tell you to crank the volume to death
-Message d'origine-
From: Emanuel Landeholm
Sent: Friday,
..but can we hear that?
I'd really like to be convinced by, in the same 32bit float wav file,
something (anything, as long as it's to be listened at normal levels) in its
original form, then 16bit truncated, then 16bit with dithering.
Really, this shouldn't have anything to do with CDs, nor
Not to be overly antagonistic, but:
I can easily hear the difference between a 192 or 96kHz 24 (or 22 bits +
exponent) bit and downgrading to 48 or 44.1 / 24 bit OR to 192 or 96 kHz 16
bits. Let alone both, easily audible.
If you are hearing obvious differences between those settings, it's a
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Emanuel Landeholm
emanuel.landeh...@gmail.com wrote:
Except for 1812 Overture. That sinks rather near DC at substantial
amplitude, given the live cannon in the percussive section.
As a human being, I tend to view DC as a non issue. I can't hear it so it
may
You think I'm stupid or something? I can truncate, use a very similar DA
convertor solution, that isn't difficult.
You could argue, if the reconstruction is good, it shouldn't matter much
to go from 48 to 44.1 for instance sure. Go try.
You could argue: my music is fine, even 128kbps mp3:
On 2014-03-28, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
14 bits??? i seriously disagree. i dunno about you, but i still
listen to red-book CDs (which are 2-channel, uncompressed 16-bit
fixed-point). they would sound like excrement if not well dithered
when mastered to the 16-bit medium.
I'd argue
First, it's meaningless to talk about bit depth alone
I agree with the points you raise and I'd like to add that you can also
trade bandwidth for bits.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote:
On 2014-03-28, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
14 bits??? i seriously
On 2014-03-28, Emanuel Landeholm wrote:
I agree with the points you raise and I'd like to add that you can
also trade bandwidth for bits.
Totally, and you don't even need to go as far as to apply noise shaping.
High sampling rates and linear filtering already raises that question.
Okay, in
Possibly on topic: Some people like to apply insane compression with a lazy
attack/release to their bass drums. Then they amplitude modulate the rest
of the mix with that. They call it house music.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote:
On 2014-03-28, Charles Z
On 2014-03-27, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
the *sampling* function is periodic (that's why we call it uniform
sampling), but the function being sampled, x(t), is just any
reasonably well-behaved function of t.
Ah, yes, that much is true. But in fact, if you look a bit further,
actually
Quick idea about the dithering matter, without suggesting to shed a lot
of light sending myself in such subjects: making sure the bit depth is
properly used is understandable, even though it may well be the
difference between a straight AD-converted signal of 16 bits, coming
from a natural
On 29 March 2014 03:31, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote:
On 2014-03-28, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 3/28/14 12:25 PM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
my opinion is: above 14bit, dithering is pointless (other than for
marketing reasons),
14 bits??? i seriously disagree. i dunno about you,
that doesn't matter a single bit, *unless* you're raising your listening
volume during quiet parts of a song (are you?), or you're running a
compressor (most likely not on classical music)
and if the whole song isn't mixed very loud, it can still be 12dB quieter (
your listening level 12dB
23 matches
Mail list logo
