In article , Mel wrote:
>Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> * Steve Holden:
>
>>> It's not clear to me that you can approximate any waveform with a
>>> suitable combination of square waves,
>>
>> Oh. It's simple to prove. At least conceptually! :-)
>>
>> Consider first that you need an infinite number of
On Jan 15, 3:43 pm, Steve Holden wrote:
> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>
> [...]> Perhaps you'd also admit to being wrong, and retract your innuoendo
> etc.?
>
> Disregarding any matters of right or wrong (for this post, at least), I
> herebe retract anything I have said about you that you consider
>
* Alf P. Steinbach:
Just as a contribution, ...
The original code I posted was only written for Python 3.1.1 (because the code
was for my writings which assumes 3.x). In the simple_sound module this caused a
deprecation warning with 2.x. And the example program didn't work with 2.x.
I've no
* Alf P. Steinbach:
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Grant Edwards:
On 2010-01-15, Steve Holden wrote:
I will, however, observe that your definition of a square wave is
what I
would have to call a "'square' wave" (and would prefer to call a
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Grant Edwards:
On 2010-01-15, Steve Holden wrote:
I will, however, observe that your definition of a square wave is
what I
would have to call a "'square' wave" (and would prefer to call a
"pulse
train"), as I
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> * Grant Edwards:
On 2010-01-15, Steve Holden wrote:
> I will, however, observe that your definition of a square wave is
> what I
> would have to call a "'square' wave" (and would prefer to call a
> "
* Alf P. Steinbach:
* Steve Holden:
Though for what it's worth I wasn't impressed by the results of running
the posted program, since it yielded an AIFF file of mostly zeroes that
produced no audible sound.
$ od -bc sinewave.aiff
000 106 117 122 115 000 002 261 076 101 111 106 106 103 117
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Grant Edwards:
On 2010-01-15, Steve Holden wrote:
I will, however, observe that your definition of a square wave is what I
would have to call a "'square' wave" (and would prefer to call a "pulse
train"), as I envisage a square wave as a waveform havi
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Grant Edwards:
>> On 2010-01-15, Steve Holden wrote:
>>
>>> I will, however, observe that your definition of a square wave is what I
>>> would have to call a "'square' wave" (and would prefer to call a "pulse
>>> train"), as I envisage a square wave as a waveform having
* Grant Edwards:
On 2010-01-15, Steve Holden wrote:
I will, however, observe that your definition of a square wave is what I
would have to call a "'square' wave" (and would prefer to call a "pulse
train"), as I envisage a square wave as a waveform having a 50% duty
cycle, as in
___ ___
|
* Steve Holden:
For the record, yes, summing any waveforms that can be represented as
Fourier Series will necessarily result in another Fourier series, since
any linear combination of Fourier series must itself, be a Fourier
series, and therefore the representation of the sum of the summed wavef
Steve Holden wrote:
> r0g wrote:
>> I think those guys owe you an apology really, but I wouldn't hold your
>> breath!
>>
> Well as you can now see at least one of "those guys" doesn't mind
> admitting (and apologizing) when he is wrong.
>
> regards
> Steve
I stand corrected, fair play sir :)
"Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
> You did lie, that's established. In addition as I recall in the same
> post you went on about my motivations for doing the Terrible Deed that
> you invented.
None of that matches my (largely disinterested) observations. This is
pure fantasy, as best I can tell.
I've
On 2010-01-15, Steve Holden wrote:
> I will, however, observe that your definition of a square wave is what I
> would have to call a "'square' wave" (and would prefer to call a "pulse
> train"), as I envisage a square wave as a waveform having a 50% duty
> cycle, as in
>
> ___ ___
> | |
r0g wrote:
> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> But maybe you're simply not able to understand the algorithm, trivial as
>> it is.
>>
>> So, a Python implementation (note, this program takes some time to run!):
>>
>>
>>
>> # Generating a sine wave as a sum of square waves of various amplitudes
>
>
> Pwn
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> * Ben Finney:
"Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
> You did lie, that's established. In addition as I recall in the same
> post you went on about my motivations for doing the Terrible Deed that
> you invented.
>>
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> But maybe you're simply not able to understand the algorithm, trivial as
> it is.
>
> So, a Python implementation (note, this program takes some time to run!):
>
>
>
> # Generating a sine wave as a sum of square waves of various amplitudes
Pwned! Good one Alf :)
I t
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Ben Finney:
"Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
You did lie, that's established. In addition as I recall in the same
post you went on about my motivations for doing the Terrible Deed that
you invented.
None of that matches my (largely disinterested) observat
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Ben Finney:
>> "Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
>>
>>> You did lie, that's established. In addition as I recall in the same
>>> post you went on about my motivations for doing the Terrible Deed that
>>> you invented.
>>
>> None of that matches my (largely disinterested) obser
* Ben Finney:
"Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
You did lie, that's established. In addition as I recall in the same
post you went on about my motivations for doing the Terrible Deed that
you invented.
None of that matches my (largely disinterested) observations. This is
pure fantasy, as best I can
* Steven D'Aprano:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:23:48 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
You're again into innuendo, misleading statements and so forth.
[...]
[Steve Holden] prefers to spout innuendu, personal attacks and
misleading statements.
Your constant and repeated accusations that any question
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:23:48 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> You're again into innuendo, misleading statements and so forth.
[...]
> [Steve Holden] prefers to spout innuendu, personal attacks and
> misleading statements.
Your constant and repeated accusations that any questioning of you is
deli
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
[...]
Perhaps you'd also admit to being wrong, and retract your innuoendo etc.?
Disregarding any matters of right or wrong (for this post, at least), I
herebe retract anything I have said about you that you consider
innuendo.
OK.
Feel free to remind
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
[...]
> Perhaps you'd also admit to being wrong, and retract your innuoendo etc.?
>
Disregarding any matters of right or wrong (for this post, at least), I
herebe retract anything I have said about you that you consider
innuendo. Feel free to remind me what that was.
regar
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> * Lie Ryan:
On 01/15/10 05:42, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> I'm beginning to believe that you maybe didn't grok that simple
> procedure.
>
> It's very very very trivial, so maybe you were looking for somethin
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Lie Ryan:
On 01/15/10 05:42, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
I'm beginning to believe that you maybe didn't grok that simple
procedure.
It's very very very trivial, so maybe you were looking for something
more intricate -- they used to say, in the old days,
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Lie Ryan:
>> On 01/15/10 05:42, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> I'm beginning to believe that you maybe didn't grok that simple
>>> procedure.
>>>
>>> It's very very very trivial, so maybe you were looking for something
>>> more intricate -- they used to say, in the old da
* Lie Ryan:
On 01/15/10 05:42, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
I'm beginning to believe that you maybe didn't grok that simple procedure.
It's very very very trivial, so maybe you were looking for something
more intricate -- they used to say, in the old days, "hold on, this
proof goes by so fast you
* Lie Ryan:
On 01/15/10 05:42, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
I'm beginning to believe that you maybe didn't grok that simple procedure.
It's very very very trivial, so maybe you were looking for something
more intricate -- they used to say, in the old days, "hold on, this
proof goes by so fast you
On 01/15/10 05:42, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> I'm beginning to believe that you maybe didn't grok that simple procedure.
>
> It's very very very trivial, so maybe you were looking for something
> more intricate -- they used to say, in the old days, "hold on, this
> proof goes by so fast you may n
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Steve Holden:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-01-14, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
[bogus hand-waving]
After all, it's the basis of digital representation of sound!
Huh? I've only studied basic DSP, but I've never heard/seen
that as the basis of digital re
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> On 2010-01-14, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> [bogus hand-waving]
After all, it's the basis of digital representation of sound!
>>> Huh? I've only studied basic DSP, but I've never heard/seen
>>> that as the basis of digital r
* Steve Holden:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-01-14, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
[bogus hand-waving]
After all, it's the basis of digital representation of sound!
Huh? I've only studied basic DSP, but I've never heard/seen
that as the basis of digital represention of sound. I've also
never seen
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-01-14, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
[bogus hand-waving]
>> After all, it's the basis of digital representation of sound!
>
> Huh? I've only studied basic DSP, but I've never heard/seen
> that as the basis of digital represention of sound. I've also
> never seen that re
* Grant Edwards:
On 2010-01-14, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
It's not clear to me that you can approximate any waveform
with a suitable combination of square waves,
Oh. It's simple to prove. At least conceptually! :-)
[...]
With the goal of just a rough approximation you can go about
it like t
On 2010-01-14, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> It's not clear to me that you can approximate any waveform
>> with a suitable combination of square waves,
>
> Oh. It's simple to prove. At least conceptually! :-)
[...]
> With the goal of just a rough approximation you can go about
> it like this:
>
>
* Peter Otten:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
Just as a contribution, since someone hinted that I haven't really
contributed much to the Python community.
The [simple_sound] code will probably go into my ch 3 at http://tinyurl.com/programmingbookP3>, but sans sine wave generation since
I haven't yet
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Steve Holden:
[...]
With the goal of just a rough approximation you can go about it like this:
1. Divide a full cycle of the sine wave into n intervals. With
sine wave frequency f this corresponds to n*f sample rate for digital
representat
* Mel:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Steve Holden:
It's not clear to me that you can approximate any waveform with a
suitable combination of square waves,
Oh. It's simple to prove. At least conceptually! :-)
Consider first that you need an infinite number of sine waves to create a
perfect squar
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
>> It's not clear to me that you can approximate any waveform with a
>> suitable combination of square waves,
>
> Oh. It's simple to prove. At least conceptually! :-)
>
> Consider first that you need an infinite number of sine waves to create a
> perfect
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
[...]
> With the goal of just a rough approximation you can go about it like this:
>
> 1. Divide a full cycle of the sine wave into n intervals. With
> sine wave frequency f this corresponds to n*f sample rate for digital
> representation.
>
>
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> Just as a contribution, since someone hinted that I haven't really
> contributed much to the Python community.
>
> The [simple_sound] code will probably go into my ch 3 at http://tinyurl.com/programmingbookP3>, but sans sine wave generation since
> I haven't yet discuss
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
Just as a contribution, since someone hinted that I haven't really
contributed much to the Python community.
The [simple_sound] code will probably go into my ch 3 at http://tinyurl.com/programmingbookP3>, but sans
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> Just as a contribution, since someone hinted that I haven't really
>>> contributed much to the Python community.
>>>
>>> The [simple_sound] code will probably go into my ch 3 at >> http://tinyurl.com/programmingbookP3>, but sa
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
Just as a contribution, since someone hinted that I haven't really
contributed much to the Python community.
The [simple_sound] code will probably go into my ch 3 at http://tinyurl.com/programmingbookP3>, but sans sine wave generation
since I haven't yet
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> Just as a contribution, since someone hinted that I haven't really
> contributed much to the Python community.
>
> The [simple_sound] code will probably go into my ch 3 at http://tinyurl.com/programmingbookP3>, but sans sine wave generation
> since I haven't yet discusse
Just as a contribution, since someone hinted that I haven't really contributed
much to the Python community.
The [simple_sound] code will probably go into my ch 3 at http://tinyurl.com/programmingbookP3>, but sans sine wave generation since I
haven't yet discussed trig functions, and maybe /wit
47 matches
Mail list logo
