On 14 November 2013 15:26, Lubomir I. Ivanov neolit...@gmail.com wrote:
you can take a look at the algorithms FastTwoSum (by Neumaier based on
Dekker) and FastAccSum (it has variations).
actually it seems Neumaier reinvented the same algorithm.
lubomir
--
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp
On 14 November 2013 14:56, Ross Bencina rossb-li...@audiomulch.com wrote:
I calculate that the error signal could be recovered for aproximately 30
additional single-precision floating point additions (!) (there are 5
acumulator operations using TwoSum_Knuth, plus another 5 normal additions to
On 14 November 2013 16:20, Lubomir I. Ivanov neolit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 November 2013 14:56, Ross Bencina rossb-li...@audiomulch.com wrote:
I calculate that the error signal could be recovered for aproximately 30
additional single-precision floating point additions (!) (there are 5
On 14 November 2013 16:50, Ross Bencina rossb-li...@audiomulch.com wrote:
On 15/11/2013 1:20 AM, Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote:
here is also the kohan algorithm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_summation_algorithm
to me it looks like it does 4 flops per accumulation.
That's better. And one
Hi Ross,
Well…that's part of what I mean by, Of course, the alternative is to roll your
own, whether fixed or floating point—in this case doing the calculation then
undoing it to see what the error was. But that's just the summation. There is
error in the multiplies as well, since they are
On 14 November 2013 19:45, Nigel Redmon earle...@earlevel.com wrote:
Hi Ross,
Well…that's part of what I mean by, Of course, the alternative is to roll
your own, whether fixed or floating point—in this case doing the calculation
then undoing it to see what the error was. But that's just the
Oh yeah?
Well you'll never be able to model these!
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
/sarcasm
:D
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, STEFFAN DIEDRICHSEN wrote:
On 13.11.2013, at 12:54, Vadim Zavalishin
vadim.zavalis...@native-instruments.de javascript:; wrote:
So, after we have
You just need to convince SPICE to leave out components connected to identical
nodes ….
;-)
Steffan
On 13.11.2013, at 13:08, Dave Gamble davegam...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh yeah?
Well you'll never be able to model these!
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
/sarcasm
:D
--
I sellotaped a bag underneath an old behringer mixer, and now it sounds
like an early Neve.
My greatest regret is that I didn't make that website. It's poe's law. I
suspect the owner is on here somewhere.
Use the power of quantum mechanics to improve your audio!
Dave.
On Wednesday, November
While I think of it, could I just throw in that double precision analysis
is MUCH more interesting to anyone implementing on a modern CPU?
For embedded stuff, single precision and fixed are obviously the big
options (though I can't remember when/why I would have tried implementing a
Actually, I'll go one further: In 2013, single precision is just time
wasting. It's a pathological case for analysis, but it shouldn't
represent
real-world usage.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with my PhD supervisor 12 years ago,
when showing him some source which caused him to
On 12/11/2013 7:40 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
some real-world benchmarks from the csound community imply a performance
difference of roughly 10% [1].
Csound doesn't have a facility for running multiple filters in parallel
though does it? not even 2 in parallel for stereo.
4 biquads in
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Vadim Zavalishin wrote:
On 12-Nov-13 09:05, Dave Gamble wrote:
Actually, I'll go one further: In 2013, single precision is just time
wasting. It's a pathological case for analysis, but it shouldn't represent
real-world usage.
I'm reminded of a conversation I
On 12-Nov-13 09:53, Dave Gamble wrote:
PS. Time-varying performance is another word. Nonlinearities is the
third one.
Not criticisms I'm at all familiar with, I'm afraid. Can you expand?
As we are talking about inferiority of DF compared to ZDF, I just
mentioned the other two, which are
Heya,
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Vadim Zavalishin wrote:
On 12-Nov-13 09:53, Dave Gamble wrote:
PS. Time-varying performance is another word. Nonlinearities is the
third one.
Not criticisms I'm at all familiar with, I'm afraid. Can you expand?
As we are talking about inferiority of
On 12-Nov-13 10:01, Dave Gamble wrote:
Because switching from double to float will bring extremely small
performance gains in CPU cost, and potentially sizeable problems with
numerical issues.
I'd be very careful with statements like that. There are people with
exactly the opposite
Hi Ross,
The exact answer depends on the exact hardware. It's pretty trivial on the 56k,
of course (the 56-bit accumultor works automatically with the MAC instruction,
quantization happens automatically when saving to 24-bit, just take the
difference and feed it back for the noise shaping). If
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Vadim Zavalishin wrote:
On 12-Nov-13 10:01, Dave Gamble wrote:
Because switching from double to float will bring extremely small
performance gains in CPU cost, and potentially sizeable problems with
numerical issues.
I'd be very careful with statements like
On 12-Nov-13 10:10, Dave Gamble wrote:
So let me go out on a limb here: if you take some single precision code and
up it to double, and things get WORSE then there is something very strange
about your original code that merits investigation.
It's very easy. As I mentioned in my other email,
In some cases error feedback methods for floating point would be interesting
if they exist.
The problem is that the error is lost in the floating point hardware—you put in
two floats and get back float of the same size. Something fell into a bit
bucket that you don't have access to.
One word: SIMD
well, when benchmarking my performance code, about 2% of the CPU time is
spent in vector code, while about 60% is spent in scalar filter code.
Hi Tim
I can't believe vector code is running 30 times faster than the scalar
code :-D :-D :-D
scalar/vector parts of the same
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:40:25 +0200, Tim Blechmann t...@klingt.org wrote:
well, when benchmarking my performance code, about 2% of the CPU time is
spent in vector code, while about 60% is spent in scalar filter code. of
course one can run 4 parallel single-precision filters or 2
double-precision
costy than the benefits of course.
-Message d'origine-
From: Dave Gamble
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:40 AM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated optimised SVF v2
Hi,
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Vadim Zavalishin wrote
would seriously consider singles, as long as packing/unpacking
isn't more costy than the benefits of course.
-Message d'origine- From: Dave Gamble
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:40 AM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Trapezoidal integrated
On 12.11.2013, at 10:16, Vadim Zavalishin
vadim.zavalis...@native-instruments.de wrote:
It's very easy. As I mentioned in my other email, switching from float to
double halves the number of available SIMD channels, which means you need to
run your code twice as many times.
Right. But with
On 6 November 2013 11:45, Andrew Simper a...@cytomic.com wrote:
Here is an updated version of the optimised trapezoidal integrated svf
which bundles up all previous state into equivalent currents for the
capacitors, which is how I solve non-linear circuits (although this
solution is just the
Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote:
On 6 November 2013 11:45, Andrew Simper a...@cytomic.com wrote:
...
actually trapezoidal is all over quantum mechanics because, say in
comparison to midpoint you will get those control and state variable
intermediates that mess calculation quite badly in cases that you
On 11-Nov-13 01:09, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 11/8/13 6:47 PM, Andrew Simper wrote:
It depends if you value numerical performance, cutoff accuracy, dc
performance etc etc, DF1 scores badly on all these fronts,
nope.
and this is even in the case where you keep your cutoff and q
On 11.11.2013, at 02:21, robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com
wrote:
On 11/10/13 5:12 PM, Urs Heckmann wrote:
On 11.11.2013, at 01:33, robert bristow-johnsonr...@audioimagination.com
wrote:
but you cannot define your current output sample in terms of the current
output
Urs Heckmann wrote:
...
Hehehe, I'm sorry, but this sounds an aweful lot more like a cleric's point of
view than a scientist's one ;-)
While I agree that zero delay feedback filters have been advertised to death
(mea culpa), I don't think it's wise to use that as a proof of their
On 11-Nov-13 13:04, Theo Verelst wrote:
Alright, simply put: the paradigm used to work with digital filters is
at stake
Funnily enough, it's a mathematically trivial fact that in the LTI case
the 0df filters are mathematically equivalent to the DF BLT filters. So,
the only non-scientific
On Monday, November 11, 2013, Urs Heckmann wrote:
On 11.11.2013, at 01:33, robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com
wrote:
but you cannot define your current output sample in terms of the current
output sample.
But that, with all due respect, is what has been done for quite
On Monday, November 11, 2013, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
So delay-free is a pointless expression to me,
it has been used to discuss or advertise delay-free feedback which, to me,
still remains an impossibility for discrete-time systems.
and i've seen the papers. when it all boils
On 11-Nov-13 17:33, Dave Gamble wrote:
At some point, the process of using algebraic rearrangements [...]
got dubbed the delay-free or zero delay filters movement.
Hi Dave
I think this is exactly the source of the confusion. As the distinctive
feature of those filters were zero-delay feedback
On 11 November 2013 08:09, robert bristow-johnson
r...@audioimagination.com wrote:
On 11/8/13 6:47 PM, Andrew Simper wrote:
On 9 November 2013 08:57, Tom Duffytdu...@tascam.com wrote:
Having worked with Direct-Form I filters for half of my
career, I've been glossing over this discussion as
Andy makes a good point—DF1 is indeed pretty poor, extremely sensitive to
quantization error at the low end. With 24-bit fixed point, 56-bit accumulation
of the moto/freescale family, which I know Robert is extremely familiar with,
and a natural for implementing DF1, it's still not good enough
On 09.11.2013, at 01:57, Tom Duffy tdu...@tascam.com wrote:
To paraphrase, all are good enough if the frequency
is low ( pi/3); Simpsons is the best, but blows
up above 0.8 pi
Note that Andys approach uses trapezoidal integrators just as that -
integrators. While the whole structure of the
Hi Douglas,
No worries, I couldn't have started my business without this list, it was an
important factor in my career - for the very reason that it isn't strictly
academic. I would love to give back if it's of anybody's help.
(if we ever find the time to write that damn paper ;-)
Thanks,
-
as a longtime lurker, it's really nice to see this list heating up
again, and to see mr. simper's comments finally make it through.
cytomic is wonderful stuff and i for one certainly appreciate the
sharing.
there's a non-technical thread of discussion interleaved here, which
is about education
On 11/8/13 6:47 PM, Andrew Simper wrote:
On 9 November 2013 08:57, Tom Duffytdu...@tascam.com wrote:
Having worked with Direct-Form I filters for half of my
career, I've been glossing over this discussion as
not relevant to me.
It depends if you value numerical performance, cutoff accuracy,
If you look at Figure 3.18 of said book, there’s a delay in the feedback path.
But it’s done in an elegant way, so no insult here.
;-)
Steffan
On 08.11.2013, at 10:21, Vadim Zavalishin
vadim.zavalis...@native-instruments.de wrote:
Hi Urs! I don't believe this. So, you think that The art
On 08.11.2013, at 10:21, Vadim Zavalishin
vadim.zavalis...@native-instruments.de wrote:
Hi Urs! I don't believe this. So, you think that The art of VA filter
design book doesn't cover it?
Regards,
Vadim
Hi Vadim,
No offense meant, I wasn't aware that your book was considered a
On 08-Nov-13 12:13, Urs Heckmann wrote:
No offense meant, I wasn't aware that your book was considered a
standard dsp lecture. If you know of any university that uses it in
their curriculum, please let me know and I'll recommend that
university.
Damn, you got me there ;-)
--
Vadim Zavalishin
+1
Am 08.11.2013 um 19:55 schrieb Theo Verelst:
Just a short suggestion: the field at hand has been acknowledged to
be let's say classic (for the sake of decorum) EE subjects, which
at the time were hard to do, and interesting a integration POV.
Of course I agree that even people, for
The issue is not the imparting of knowledge (the more the merrier), it's
the attitude towards others; the style. If you call people dumb all
the time (however much you think it is justified), almost as a matter of
principle (so anyone who happens to like tribal dances is ipso facto
dumb) they
Having worked with Direct-Form I filters for half of my
career, I've been glossing over this discussion as
not relevant to me.
I went back and re-read it, and if you can get past
the scribbled diagrams and a few hand-waving / bypassed
steps, I can appreciate that Andrew has derived a
useful
On 9 November 2013 08:57, Tom Duffy tdu...@tascam.com wrote:
Having worked with Direct-Form I filters for half of my
career, I've been glossing over this discussion as
not relevant to me.
It depends if you value numerical performance, cutoff accuracy, dc
performance etc etc, DF1 scores badly
I think the distinction is that SCIENCE is open-minded.
Scientists, OTOH, are only open-minded if they choose to be.
But then, the closed-minded ones aren't really scientists, now are they? ;-)
David Reaves
Recklinghausen, Germany
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 22:34:51 +, David Hoskins
Andrew Simper wrote:
On 6 November 2013 22:13, Theo Verelst theo...@theover.org wrote:
That's a lot of approximations and (to me !) unclear definitions on a row.
Ok, please let me know the first one you don't understand and I'll
break it down for you! The only approximation made is the
Dear Theo,
I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful.
Respectful disagreement is welcome. Insults are not. Please stop.
Thank you,
Phil Burk
On 11/7/13 8:22 AM, Theo Verelst wrote:
most of what you're oresenting is boring old crap, that isn't worth
working on unless you'd
Phil Burk wrote:
Dear Theo,
I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful.
.
Fine. He insulted run of the mill academic EE insights from decades ago,
i merely stated facts, which should be respected, but here are still not.
The theory is quite right, and I've taken the
+1
On 7 Nov 2013, at 17:16, Phil Burk philb...@mobileer.com wrote:
Dear Theo,
I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful.
Respectful disagreement is welcome. Insults are not. Please stop.
Thank you,
Phil Burk
On 11/7/13 8:22 AM, Theo Verelst wrote:
most of what
I too appreciate Andrew's input. I'm sure that most here do as well.
On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:11 AM, STEFFAN DIEDRICHSEN sdiedrich...@me.com wrote:
I think, that’s not fair. Andrew has created some great products, just look
at his website http://www.cytomic.com.
To me, it’s an really interesting
Theo,
How can one insult theory? If you think, Andrew is wrong, it won’t hurt to get
the details. Now, you’re just insulting Andrew, which is not nice nor helpful.
Steffan
On 07.11.2013, at 18:29, Theo Verelst theo...@theover.org wrote:
Phil Burk wrote:
Dear Theo,
I found Andrew's
+1!
On 07/11/2013 17:30, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
+1
On 7 Nov 2013, at 17:16, Phil Burk philb...@mobileer.com wrote:
Dear Theo,
I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful.
Respectful disagreement is welcome. Insults are not. Please stop.
Thank you,
Phil Burk
--
On 11/7/13 9:29 AM, Theo Verelst wrote:
Phil Burk wrote:
Dear Theo,
I found Andrew's postings to be very interesting and helpful.
.
Fine. He insulted run of the mill academic EE insights from decades
ago, i merely stated facts, which should be respected, but here are
still not.
The
If popularity is a major point here: good manners are popular. They are simple
to be put to good use, all of the time, under all circumstances.
A typical application for them would be to keep criticizm or disagreement
constructive.
Inversely, bad manners have proven to obscure what otherwise
On 8/11/2013 4:29 AM, Theo Verelst wrote:
Fine. He insulted run of the mill academic EE insights from decades ago,
i merely stated facts, which should be respected, but here are still not.
The theory is quite right, and I've taken the effort of correcting a lot
of misinterpretations. I suppose
Andrew Simper wrote:
Here is an updated version of the optimised trapezoidal integrated svf
which bundles up all previous state into equivalent currents for the
capacitors, which is how I solve non-linear circuits (although this
solution is just the linear one that I'm posting here). The only
On 6 November 2013 22:13, Theo Verelst theo...@theover.org wrote:
That's a lot of approximations and (to me !) unclear definitions on a row.
Ok, please let me know the first one you don't understand and I'll
break it down for you! The only approximation made is the numerical
integration scheme
60 matches
Mail list logo
