On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 20/03/16 00:48, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 19/03/16 21:57, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
>>> <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21.04.2015 02:20, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:07:14PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Claudio Freire 
>>>>>>> <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
>>>>>>>> <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The long version:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ath should approximate the shape of the absolute hearing 
>>>>>>>>>>>> threshold, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, it's best if it really uses the minimum, since that will 
>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>> clipping of the ath curve and result in a more accurate threshold
>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree with my patch fixing minath?
>>>>>>>>>>> Or would you prefer a version with:
>>>>>>>>>>>     minath = ath(3410 - 0.733 * ATH_ADD, ATH_ADD)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, that's not really closer to the minimum (a few tests with 
>>>>>>>>>> gnuplot say).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you sure your plots were done correctly?
>>>>>>>>> Because I'm quite sure this is the correct first order approximation
>>>>>>>>> of the minimum.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For ATH_ADD = 4 this gives 3407.068, which is quite close to 
>>>>>>>>> Michael's value
>>>>>>>>> (3407.080774800152).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I checked the formula several times, but still, I could have made a 
>>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is what I did if you want to check it out (maybe you spot the 
>>>>>>> mistake)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gnuplot> ath(f,a) = _ath(f/1000.0, a)
>>>>>>> gnuplot> _ath(f,a) = 3.64 * f**(-0.8) - 6.8 * exp(-0.6 * (f-3.4) *
>>>>>>> (f-3.4)) + 6.0 * exp(-0.15 * (f-8.7) * (f-8.7)) + (0.6 + 0.04 * a) *
>>>>>>> 0.001 * f * f * f
>>>>>>           ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> missing * f
>>>>>
>>>>> Much better now :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So yes. I'd say it's a good change.
>>>>
>>>> OK, patch attached.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> Is this patch still needed?
>>>
>>
>> Should be ok to merge it.
>
> Actually it seems in.

Oh right I missed it (110f7f35fb615b97d983b1c6c6a714fddd28bcbe)
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

Reply via email to