On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:57:07AM -0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > On Thu, September 30, 2010 2:22 am, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > 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 ? > > Here's the greatest hits: > > "It's a good example of textbook DSP being applied blindly > and without understanding the consequences. " > > "But it's a kludge, and a solution to a > problem that shouldn't exist in the first place." > > "As said, there are two issues with the EQ. The first is that the > implementation is subobtimal and introduces artefacts that have > to be (and are to some extent) hidden by changes added after the > initial release. The second is that this type of filtering allows > and invites to do things that do indeed 'destroy' the sound from > a purist POV, while adding nothing useful from any other POV." > > and I suppose this was just plain vindictiveness > > "Don't know where you get this, but I assume it's not the result > of your own intellectual efforts and so I can just say 'bullshit' > (the pure liquid variety actually). > > I won't even comment on the rest, as I'd have to be at least > as rude :-) " > > > Don't know why I got the impression you were being rude or anything... > > Must be just me. indeed. you started arguing against fons. you still dont seem to accept his arguments. thats ridiculous. he has more DSP experience than all of the LADs combined. > > > > > > 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. > > > > It is great that you have taken the time to explain the issues that you > have spotted. As you rightly said I do not have the experience that you > have and I appreciate you taking the time to explain in detail so that we > could all have the opportunity to learn something new about jamin and DSP. we didnt learn enough. we only got the weaknesses pointed out. the question is how we should solve it. jamin is still sitting in a cvs. would be nice if the repo could be migrated to git, or at least svn -- torben Hohn _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
