On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 05:50:24AM -0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > Can you give me a little more idea why you feel using FFT in this method > is more likely to return atrifacts than the equivalent convolution? Is it > simply because there is more data being crunched to get to the end result? Again, the choice is not between 'FFT' and 'convolution'. Jamin performs convolution, and uses an FFT to do it. The problem is that what Jamin does is *cyclic* convolution which produces artefacts and is not the same as filtering. Filtering requires *linear* convolution, which would actually be simpler, if you take into account the steps that Jamin takes to reduce the ill effects of the cyclic convolution. As explained above, the difference is in step (6) which for cyclic convolution is allowed to wrap around (meaning that part of the output ends up where it shouldn't be), while in linear convolution this is avoided by limiting the size of the inputs. Unless you want the detailed maths I don't think I could explain it any more clearly. Ciao, -- FA There are three of them, and Alleline. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
