On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 06:43:42PM -0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > Perhaps an easier way to do this in the future is to just present your > evidence up front instead of trashing other peoples hard work with vague > off hand and out of context remarks. Where did I do that ? For your reference, this is the original message in which I referred to Jamin's FFT-based EQ as a vocoder: <http://lalists.stanford.edu/lau/2010/05/0321.html> And when I wrote that remark - 'a vocoder being used as a filter', which is technically accurate - I just assumed that the developers would be aware of that, that it was their intention to make the EQ work in that way. They were certainly aware that the filter had it's problems and was not really working like a linear filter - that is why the overlap factor was increased from the original 2 to the much higher value (8 or 16) used today. Regarding the current discussion, it started with others quoting this message quite inaccurately, and me trying to correct these remarks. Followed by a (I think) a clear expose of what IMHO is wrong with this filter and why I call it a vocoder. 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
