L = ((1+w)L + (1-w)R)/2
R = ((1+w)R + (1-w)L)/2
0<=w<=2
0 = mono
1 = normal
2 = full wide
Tom
On 07-Feb-12 11:20, Ross Bencina wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Does anyone know if there's a "standard" way to calculate pan laws for
stereo-wide panning ?
By "stereo-wide" I mean panning something beyond t
On 04-Nov-13 18:10, Phil Burk wrote:
A different approach is to have two filters in parallel. You can be
listening to one while setting up the other. When the other filter is
stable just cross-fade from one to the other.
And cross-fade both the input and output with a sine/cosine after
zeroin
4. the only problem with the filter cross-fade scheme is knowing how
long to wait before you can ping-pong back to the other filter. it's
like you have two filters running simultaneously on the same input
with ostensibly the same coefficients (most of the time) so their
outputs should be th
On 6/18/2018 6:42 PM, gm wrote:
I find that in practice a cosine/sine fade works very well for
uncorrelated signals.
Likewise.
Tom
___
dupswapdrop: music-dsp mailing list
music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/musi
I've done many resamplers over the decades (48<->32, 24,16,8) and always
used FIRs for these reasons.
Tom
On 7/23/2018 6:25 PM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
Some articles on my website:
http://www.earlevel.com/main/category/digital-audio/sample-rate-conversion/,
especially the 2010 articles, but the A
Adding zeros is an advantage as then you don't need to calculate their
multiplication, as 0 x coefficient = 0
The filter order will be the same with zeros or repeated samples.
Tom
On 7/24/2018 4:37 PM, rolfsassin...@web.de wrote:
Hello Nigel
could you please say a word more to what you mean
On 7/26/2018 2:27 AM, rolfsassin...@web.de wrote:
Regarding Tom's remark: Using the copied samples also requires no
additional multiplcation since the value is already stored and in use (?)
No, they require multiplication and addition as, while the samples are
the same, each coefficient is d
