R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: It's about freakin time !!!  (Read 16119 times)

WFTurner

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: It's about freakin time !!!
« Reply #45 on: April 23, 2004, 10:00:01 pm »

I've followed your forum in silence for the most part for three and a half years in a quest for knowledge. I'll continue my quest here.

Thanks for everything. Glad you're continuing you're good work.
Logged

Lee Tyler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
Re: It's about freakin time !!!
« Reply #46 on: April 25, 2004, 01:03:31 am »

Congratulations on your new "home", George. Looking forward towards the continuing "string of pearls".  Smile

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ee-JeyMOnvAJ:www.sofieloafy.net/pearls.jpg
Logged
Nurse to doctor: "Doctor, there is a man in the waiting room who thinks he's invisible".

Doctor to nurse: "Nurse, tell him I can't see him"

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: It's about freakin time !!!
« Reply #47 on: April 25, 2004, 02:42:54 am »

Pleased to meet you- I never got around to spending much time in the EQ forums, and when you suggested I call you and chat, I talked myself out of it Wink
Maybe this will be a better way. Power of the internet and all. I'm keeping busy in the same way that attracted your attention, as always- for today, it was rehacking a slew clipping routine so it became a soft clip- if threshold is X and going beyond the threshold is X+Y, it became X + sqrt(Y). Yesterday it was setting that threshold to within X of the previous sample. Formerly (embarrassingly, on CAPE and the last WOMP) it was having the threshold clipped to zero instead of to the previous sample- ouch, crunchy...
Got a hell of an improvement off even the hard clipping version, surprisingly one of the primary things it does is define bass better. The soft clip version REALLY defines bass better. And the effect in the highs is as intended very much like acoustic distance being present. I wish I'd had this debugged even a month ago... wonder if I should be coming up with a test file, seeing as the forum appears to be allowing the uploading of a file?
Anyway, working- and more than happy to belatedly chat, better late than never.

punkest

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
Re: It's about freakin time !!!
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2004, 01:06:29 pm »

George, as many have said, it is really great to have you here.


Good luck


Hans
Logged

Imagine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
Re: It's about freakin time !!!
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2004, 02:49:36 am »

Welcome back George! Good to see you back in action.

Cheers,
Dean

George Massenburg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: It's about freakin time !!!
« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2004, 06:29:43 pm »

chrisj wrote on Sun, 25 April 2004 01:42

Pleased to meet you- I never got around to spending much time in the EQ forums, and when you suggested I call you and chat, I talked myself out of it Wink
Maybe this will be a better way. Power of the internet and all. I'm keeping busy in the same way that attracted your attention, as always- for today, it was rehacking a slew clipping routine so it became a soft clip- if threshold is X and going beyond the threshold is X+Y, it became X + sqrt(Y). Yesterday it was setting that threshold to within X of the previous sample. Formerly (embarrassingly, on CAPE and the last WOMP) it was having the threshold clipped to zero instead of to the previous sample- ouch, crunchy...
Got a hell of an improvement off even the hard clipping version, surprisingly one of the primary things it does is define bass better. The soft clip version REALLY defines bass better. And the effect in the highs is as intended very much like acoustic distance being present. I wish I'd had this debugged even a month ago... wonder if I should be coming up with a test file, seeing as the forum appears to be allowing the uploading of a file?
Anyway, working- and more than happy to belatedly chat, better late than never.


Well, the SQRT function is the right way to go, but I wonder if it should be more continuous - there's clearly a more-or-less sharp break even for nominal values of Y.  I'd suggest a continuous function - perhaps cobble one together from a Taylor series expression.

You didn't mention how you were fabricating this?  Is it in data domain?  Or analog?

Thanks for the stimulating thought,
George
Logged

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: It's about freakin time !!!
« Reply #51 on: April 28, 2004, 01:22:06 am »

George Massenburg wrote on Tue, 27 April 2004 18:29


Well, the SQRT function is the right way to go, but I wonder if it should be more continuous - there's clearly a more-or-less sharp break even for nominal values of Y.  I'd suggest a continuous function - perhaps cobble one together from a Taylor series expression.
You didn't mention how you were fabricating this?  Is it in data domain?  Or analog?
Thanks for the stimulating thought,
George


All in the box, it is. Data domain. Actually if I was going for a continuous function (and maybe that would be a Good Thing for the next iteration) I might want to go with a sine-based function. I did a 'drive' control once that essentially mapped values to other values with some variation of a sine/cosine thing- values close to 0 got greatly amplified, values out by 32767 were hardly touched, and the break was literally as soft as you could get. I could see that being useful for the slew clipper, actually- softest break possible, since even the sqrt() was a nice improvement over a totally sharp clipping threshold.

Thanks- I bet you anything that would be another quality jump. Must implement. Maybe make some test files depicting each algorithm's effect...

It's surprising how musical things sound even if you refuse to let anything slew more than a bit (increment of 1 out of 65536 output 16-bit sample values) per sample! It does strange things to the sound, not like simply EQing, because it's sensitive to the amplitude of the frequency, not just the frequency itself. You could do a mock-up by simply tracking the waveform with a value that only adds or subtracts one if the source audio is greater or less than the value (rather like SACD only at 44.1K). Or, you can allow it to add or subtract more up to a point- which would duplicate the functionality of the crudest form of slew limiter, and illustrate the effect. I found this interesting stuff because I'm allergic to glarey digital- and it neatly de-glares even the glariest digital, when that glarey digital is happening through really hot high frequency transients stressing the converters. You can do a real case of converter valium Wink

Chris Johnson
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up