On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 13:35 -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Roman Haefeli wrote: > > > I hope I'm not confusing dynamic range compression with wave shaping. > > Actually, depending on the compressor settings (short attack times, > > etc.) a dynamic compressor indeed acts a bit as a wave shaper. > > It can also act exactly like a waveshaper, if you give it the most extreme > settings. > > Similarly an echo effect and a comb filter are the same thing, but when > people talk about an echo effect, they usually don't mean an echo effect > configured to act as what is usually meant when people say a comb filter. > And vice-versa. > > If you pick compressor settings that cause their cutoff wavelengths to be > longer enough than the sounds you are compressing, they will cause no > (or little) distorsion in the perceived frequencies, and thus it will not > sound like a compressor.
Di you mean: "[...] thus it will not sound like a wave shaper"? > > > Instead of constant amplitude signals think of signal with ever changing > > amplitudes which I believe what we call music normally belongs to, > > But constant-amplitude sound can also be music, can't it ? Sure, though I don't know any, I guess. Also it wouldn't be interesting to detect compression in it. > > The problem with calculating an average with peak amplitude is that > > peaks by definition occur only at certain points in time. > > A square wave is entirely made of peak points. > > What is it that makes you use such a flawed definition of peaks ? Yeah, that came out totally wrong. I was trying to say that often (you're correct: not always) the peaks themselves don't form a continuous signal by themselves. The continues signal that represents the 'peak' of the measured signal (think of a peak meter at a mixing desk) needs to be constructed. Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list