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
