good god. know an alternative source for calculating the
coefficients? Bill?
The classic article, in this context, is
Digital Waveshaping Synthesis
Marc Le Brun JAES 1979 April, vol 27, no 4, p250
Daniel Arfib, at the same time but independently, did similar work --
I don't know a reference.
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 01:11:44AM +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
i'll try to work out some tables after checking for fundamental
dependency. what kind of windowing would you recommend?
Blackman-Harris has the best sidelobe rejection, which is probably what we
care about here. An important thing is
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:42:58 +, Steve Harris wrote:
i tend to like the idea of modelling the amp itself better than
modelling its behaviour alone, but it seems i lack the resources
and skills to work it out. oh well. if all else fails, there's
always patience, trial and error. :)
Steve Harris wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 01:11:44AM +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
i'll try to work out some tables after checking for fundamental
dependency. what kind of windowing would you recommend?
Blackman-Harris has the best sidelobe rejection, which is probably what we
just to make
Steve Harris wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 03:13:28 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
Blackman-Harris has the best sidelobe rejection, which is probably what we
just to make sure we're talking about the same thing:
...
I have:
...
the difference between the two is next to nothing, mostly a DC
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 05:47:04 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
the difference between the two is next to nothing, mostly a DC
offset. i'll use yours for the next FTs. is that 'Harris' as in
'S.W.Harris'? ;)
Er, no ;) Harris is a very common surname.
after some NR 5-10 reading, it looks to me
It would be more efficient to just calculate the corect chebyshev in
realtime, the problem is that they have lienar CPU cost with the number of
harmonics, 20 harmonics for example will be pretty expensive.
there's one problem i see: if we employ a chebyshev, it is going
to create harmonics
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 05:21:08 -0800, Bill Schottstaedt wrote:
there's one problem i see: if we employ a chebyshev, it is going
to create harmonics no matter what amplitude our incoming signal
[...]
it seems hard to come up with a wave shaper that favours higher
harmonics,[...]
I
Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 05:21:08 -0800, Bill Schottstaedt wrote:
there's one problem i see: if we employ a chebyshev, it is going
to create harmonics no matter what amplitude our incoming signal
[...]
it seems hard to come up with a wave shaper that favours higher
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 10:05:12 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
and we need quite a few. i've created an image of the spectral
evolution of an ~500 Hz sine from inaudible to full distortion:
http://quitte.de/spectral-evolution.gif
Excellent. Can you either stick the data somewhere, or build a
Steve Harris wrote:
http://quitte.de/spectral-evolution.gif
Excellent. Can you either stick the data somewhere, or build a
signal-amplitude x harmonic-amplitude table from it?
What windowing function did you use? Do you know if the shape varies with
the frequency of the fundamental? It would
11 matches
Mail list logo
