>> sweep, say from 440-3520hz you'll hear a "banding" artifact in the sweep 
> 
> When I say banding, I mean it almost sounds like mach banding looks. (it 
> sounds like sudden jumps in frequency, instead of a smooth transition)

How were you generating the sweep?

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> 
>> sweep, say from 440-3520hz you'll hear a "banding" artifact in the sweep 
> 
> When I say banding, I mean it almost sounds like mach banding looks. (it 
> sounds like sudden jumps in frequency, instead of a smooth transition)

...which probably means the way you're generating the waves constrains 
them to have integer wavelengths. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> 
> How were you generating the sweep?
> 

Its been a while since I did it ... I can't remember.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:

> ...which probably means the way you're generating the waves constrains 
> them to have integer wavelengths. ;-)

Probably. :)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

> Its been a while since I did it ... I can't remember.

Oh just because I once made a program to generate a sweep something like 
this:

for sample = 0 to 100000
 frequency = sample / 1000
 wave[sample]= waveFunction(sample/sampleRate*2*pi*frequency)

Where waveFunction can be your sine wave, square wave or whatever.

But of course it doesn't work like that as I found out...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Its been a while since I did it ... I can't remember.
> 
> Oh just because I once made a program to generate a sweep something like 
> this:
> 
> for sample = 0 to 100000
> frequency = sample / 1000
> wave[sample]= waveFunction(sample/sampleRate*2*pi*frequency)
> 
> Where waveFunction can be your sine wave, square wave or whatever.
> 
> But of course it doesn't work like that as I found out...
> 
> 

I think I had something similar. I really can't remember though. I then 
moved to a wavetable method, where I had generated a cycle of saw, 
square, and triangle at a low enough frequency where I wouldn't need to 
stretch it. For sine, I think I just used the sine function (can't 
remember, exactly). and dropped the appropriate number of samples to 
raise pitch, using an even spacing. It worked pretty well with the 
generated waves. Basically just scaling the waves up and down.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> I remind her that things like mobile phones will not invent
> themselves, and actually it takes a *HUGE* number of people
> to get a product like that onto the market.

I dug piers out of the mud with a shovel during the construction of the 
Motorola building in Austin, TX. So there's +1 person.

Regarding the "geeks having a life" stuff, I suppose it means what you 
mean by "geek." I think there are two types:

1. The person who f**ks with computers, programming, etc. so much that 
he is eventually able to turn his hobby into a career. Those I know of 
this type really do have no lives. After the long work hours, the junk 
food, the smoking, and WOW, there isn't much time or energy left for a life.

2. The person who learns some highly-technical skill at College. My 
brother is this type. I'm not sure he can program or hack his OS at all. 
He is hard-working and compulsive, but not WOW compulsive. He finds 
plenty of time in his day for preparing food, exercising, etc.

Kind of like the distinction between a gifted burnout blues guitar 
player and a Juilliard-schooled orchestra player. Both are skilled, bot 
only one is killing himself for his craft.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> Warp wrote:
>> Don't you "have a life" when you are happy with what you are doing? 
> 
> Totally agreed with all of it, but especially this.  How many of the 
> people telling you to "get a life" just can't wait to get off for the 
> weekend so they can have some fun?

Yes, while we actually have fun solving computer problems! :D

Weekend to me means boring work:  taking my daughter to the park, to the 
Mall etc.  Not exactly the kind of life I'd wish to get for myself... :P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I don't know if you know this already, but... 

This is exactly the sort of random s__t you say off the cuff that 
convinces me you're a heck of a lot smarter than than you think you are. 
I'm thinking "sinc filter? Is that a typo?" and here you're explaining 
it, providing code to calculate, and describing how and why the 
alternatives don't work. As if "well, just in passing, in case you 
didn't know about this...."

Damn, you need to apply to smarter jobs. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I don't know if you know this already, but... 
> 
> This is exactly the sort of random s__t you say off the cuff that 
> convinces me you're a heck of a lot smarter than than you think you are. 
> I'm thinking "sinc filter? Is that a typo?" and here you're explaining 
> it, providing code to calculate, and describing how and why the 
> alternatives don't work. As if "well, just in passing, in case you 
> didn't know about this...."

A trivial matter of Wikipedia, my friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc_function

It's all there, and more besides. When you're as bored as me, you find 
these things out.

I love the way that if you say something with enough conviction, people 
will *assume* that you know what you're on about, and that what you say 
is correct. ;-) In the case of Mike's problem, I was merely taking 
educated guesses and passing them off as fact. Successfully, by the look 
of it.

> Damn, you need to apply to smarter jobs. :-)

"When you're as bored as me" would seem to suggest that, yes.

I find myself questioning whether "smarter jobs" actually exist. I mean, 
I guess *somebody* must design DSP algorithms for a living... but it 
doesn't sound like a very large field.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message