Talk:Videos/Digital Show and Tell: Difference between revisions

From XiphWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(respond to peeps!)
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:
Thanks for these resources! One question: In the vid, you mention the Gibbs phenomenon. Is that in any way related to the Fourier uncertainty principle? These days, in various audio-related forums, people throw this Zyga (2013) paper entitled "Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle" around in response to your 24/192 article. Does Zyga qualify any of the results presented in the video and/or your 24/192 article?
Thanks for these resources! One question: In the vid, you mention the Gibbs phenomenon. Is that in any way related to the Fourier uncertainty principle? These days, in various audio-related forums, people throw this Zyga (2013) paper entitled "Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle" around in response to your 24/192 article. Does Zyga qualify any of the results presented in the video and/or your 24/192 article?


: it is related to the fourier uncertainty principle in that all of these effects are in some way related byt the same math.  As for the "Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle" paper floating around, a) the headline is effectively wrong, b) the effect described as 'newly discovered' has been understood for roughly 100 years, this merely adds some new hard measurements to the data set, c) the Gabor limit does not even apply to the detection task they're describing.  So either the authors or their editor are partly confused. [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=99371| There's been a decent discussion of it at Hydrogen Audio], with none other than James Johnston and Ethan Winer weighing in. --[[User:Xiphmont|Xiphmont]] 10:50, 28 February 2013 (PST)
: it is related to the fourier uncertainty principle in that all of these effects are in some way related by the same math.  As for the "Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle" paper floating around, a) the headline is effectively wrong, b) the effect described as 'newly discovered' has been understood for roughly 100 years, this merely adds some new hard measurements to the data set, c) the Gabor limit does not even apply to the detection task they're describing.  So either the authors or their editor are partly confused. [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=99371| There's been a decent discussion of it at Hydrogen Audio], with none other than James Johnston and Ethan Winer weighing in. --[[User:Xiphmont|Xiphmont]] 10:50, 28 February 2013 (PST)

Revision as of 11:52, 28 February 2013

Greetings, Feel free to comment here— just log in to edit— or join us on IRC chat.

The wiki version of the video isn't yet as complete as the last video, due to schedules and timelines. In particular I think it could use some more going-deeper coverage. I'm surprised that I couldn't better HTML5 audio api examples of the "type your own JS, get audio and a scope" kind, if anyone knows of a better one than the one we have now that would be great.

--Gmaxwell 02:54, 26 February 2013 (PST)

Just dropping a line to say thank you! I'm continually impressed by the guides and overall outreach coming out of the xiph team. The latest video was a great introduction that managed to walk that fine line between theory and application without falling over or flailing about madly (in my opinion, anyway). Not to mention, I'm going through the gtk-bounce and waveform code now and really like it! It's not so trivial a piece of software as to be meaningless when learning to code useful applications, but it's not so gigantic as to be unapproachable either. Hell, I think it would serve as a great example for the GNOME folks to use in their documentation. Most guides on GTK just have you draw shapes on the screen and leave it at that. All in all, I'm really impressed and hope to have a similar setup replicated in a few weeks at my university, just for the sake of it.

--Aggroskater 23:16, 26 February 2013 (PST)

Some parts are better written than others... I used enough cut & paste to warn against taking it too seriously :-) --Xiphmont 10:50, 28 February 2013 (PST)

@Monty: Thanks for these information. And as a non-native English speaker I want to thank you for your clear pronunciation. What did you mean with "no one ever ruined a great recording by not dithering the final master."? Do you mean, that nobody ever would forget it, or that it was not ruinous? That "CSS is awesome"-cup made me really nervous. I hope it means something like "Cascading Style Sheets", and not, what would fit better in this context, "Content Scramble System"[shudder]! --Akf 15:20, 27 February 2013 (PST)

I meant that "not adding dither is not ruinous". I recall in at least one listening test on the subject, a minority of participants had a statistically significant preference for undithered versions, at least on those samples where it was in fact audible and the testers were encouraged to increase gain and listen to fade-outs. *However* I can't find the results of that test now that I've gone back to look for it, so my memory may be faulty. I've asked the HA folks to help me find it again if it really existed :-)
CSS refers to Cascading Style Sheets. Thus the typsetting that overflows the box. --Xiphmont 10:50, 28 February 2013 (PST)

Thanks for these resources! One question: In the vid, you mention the Gibbs phenomenon. Is that in any way related to the Fourier uncertainty principle? These days, in various audio-related forums, people throw this Zyga (2013) paper entitled "Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle" around in response to your 24/192 article. Does Zyga qualify any of the results presented in the video and/or your 24/192 article?

it is related to the fourier uncertainty principle in that all of these effects are in some way related by the same math. As for the "Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle" paper floating around, a) the headline is effectively wrong, b) the effect described as 'newly discovered' has been understood for roughly 100 years, this merely adds some new hard measurements to the data set, c) the Gabor limit does not even apply to the detection task they're describing. So either the authors or their editor are partly confused. There's been a decent discussion of it at Hydrogen Audio, with none other than James Johnston and Ethan Winer weighing in. --Xiphmont 10:50, 28 February 2013 (PST)