On Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 02:19:29PM +0100, Gabriel Bouvigne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
> > > It's right that it's not a lot, but I think it's important. As an
> > > example, a standard 10 or 15Hz high pass filter would be nice, as no
> > > one is able to ear such frequencies, so why encoding them?
>
> > It's right that it's not a lot, but I think it's important. As an
> > example, a standard 10 or 15Hz high pass filter would be nice, as no
> > one is able to ear such frequencies, so why encoding them?
>
> A 10kHz filter, IMHO, would be a bad idea. Even in poor listening
> conditions with les
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:06:26PM +0100, Gabriel Bouvigne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
> ...
> It's right that it's not a lot, but I think it's important. As an
> example, a standard 10 or 15Hz high pass filter would be nice, as no
> one is able to ear such frequencies, so why encoding them?
A 10kH
> What is the purpose of this high-pass filtering ?
> You said that it would affect only 2 MDCT coeficients, that is
> less than a percent of them all, so what gain do you/we expect from it ?
In the tuning of the 44.1kHz voice option (I know that this option should be
updated now for other bitrat
David Balazic wrote:
> From: Mark Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Just a note on the highpass filter: at 44.1khz sampling rate,
> >we only have 576 MDCT coefficients on which the filter acts and thus
> >a frequency resolution of only 22050/576 = 38Hz. So the accuracy of the first
> >few coeffi
From: Mark Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Just a note on the highpass filter: at 44.1khz sampling rate,
>we only have 576 MDCT coefficients on which the filter acts and thus
>a frequency resolution of only 22050/576 = 38Hz. So the accuracy of the first
>few coefficients is questionable, and a hig
> > No practical filter, digital included, will have a cutoff that sharp. It
> > *could*, but that causes all sorts of other problems (like serious ringing
> > throughout the spectrum).
>
> Are there any rules of thumb for an appropriate frequency range that
> the filter should act on?
Depends
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:20:03 -0800
> From: Monty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > a frequency resolution of only 22050/576 = 38Hz. So the accuracy of the first
> > few coefficients is questionable, and a highpass filter at 50Hz would
> > only effect the first 2 MDCT coefficients. I dont know how
> a frequency resolution of only 22050/576 = 38Hz. So the accuracy of the first
> few coefficients is questionable, and a highpass filter at 50Hz would
> only effect the first 2 MDCT coefficients. I dont know how big a problem
> this is, but a true 50Hz filter would need to be done before
> ca
>
> Robert Hegemann wrote:
>
> > Thank you Ross for the info about radio frequencies.
> > Coding FM quality with sharp cutoff would look like:
> >
> > lame --highpass 0.05 --highpass-width 0
> >...etc
>
> May I make a case for --highpass 0.016 ? FM Radio usually goes down a bit
> lower than
Robert Hegemann wrote:
> Thank you Ross for the info about radio frequencies.
> Coding FM quality with sharp cutoff would look like:
>
> lame --highpass 0.05 --highpass-width 0
>...etc
May I make a case for --highpass 0.016 ? FM Radio usually goes down a bit
lower than 50Hz. The lowest note
11 matches
Mail list logo
