On 27-11-07 16:58, Mark Constable wrote:
> Thank you very much, probably took longer than the program itself :)
Well, I must say, the amplitude <-> dBFS thing took me some thinking slash
googling but yes, otherwise it's tiny.
> FWIW...
>
> http://proaudio.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/sine/
> htt
On 2007-11-28 01:55 am, Rene Herman wrote:
> > How about a copyright, license, contact and version info,
> > and a bit of a readme in the header comments ?
>
> Heh, public domain. Given that its expression is dictated by mathematics on
> the one hand and the S16_LE format on the other, I'd have di
On 27-11-07 15:55, Rene Herman wrote:
> #define FREQ_MIN 20
My headphones (Sennheiser HD-590) advertise 12 Hz and the setup I have hear
actually seems to confirm that. Feel free ofcourse to drop this lower bound
to 10 Hz or so...
Rene.
-
On 27-11-07 03:43, Mark Constable wrote:
How about a copyright, license, contact and version info,
and a bit of a readme in the header comments ?
Heh, public domain. Given that its expression is dictated by mathematics on
the one hand and the S16_LE format on the other, I'd have difficulty fin
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Mark Constable wrote:
> On 2007-11-27 01:19 pm, Bill Unruh wrote:
>>> A point is that these kind of "hearing tests" are almost
>>> useless in absolute terms but are indeed meaningful when
>>> tested and accumulated results are compared with for any
>>> particular individual. T
On 2007-11-27 01:19 pm, Bill Unruh wrote:
> > A point is that these kind of "hearing tests" are almost
> > useless in absolute terms but are indeed meaningful when
> > tested and accumulated results are compared with for any
> > particular individual. The consistent mean is to set up
> > the listen
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Mark Constable wrote:
> On 2007-11-27 12:22 pm, Rene Herman wrote:
>> Mmm, and now that I look at it again:
>> ampl = 32767.0 / pow(10, -dbfs / 20);
>> is the same as:
>> ampl = 32767 * pow(10, dbfs / 20);
>> which looks somewhat nicer.
>
> How about a copyright,
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 26-11-07 21:25, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
>
>> Rene Herman wrote:
>
>> > On 25-11-07 04:18, Mark Constable wrote:
>> >
>> > > There are a few online hearing test sites around, here
>> > > is one with 16/44.1 wavs. I can't hear 12kHz-0dB.wav :-(
On 2007-11-27 12:22 pm, Rene Herman wrote:
> Mmm, and now that I look at it again:
> ampl = 32767.0 / pow(10, -dbfs / 20);
> is the same as:
> ampl = 32767 * pow(10, dbfs / 20);
> which looks somewhat nicer.
How about a copyright, license, contact and version info,
and a bit of a re
On 27-11-07 02:48, Rene Herman wrote:
> Yes, well, I was feeling manly...
>
> But the main utility should, admittedly, mostly be the source. Tiny and
> intended to be sort of instructive in the dBFS -> Amplitude step and such.
Mmm, and now that I look at it again:
ampl = 32767.0 / pow(
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:48:20 +0100
Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27-11-07 02:41, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:26:48 +0100
> > Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >> Wrote a small sine generator during this test by the way -- attached just
On 27-11-07 02:41, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:26:48 +0100
> Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Wrote a small sine generator during this test by the way -- attached just in
>> case anyone is interested. Writes S16_LE to stdout, so intended to be used
>> as
On 27-11-07 02:26, Rene Herman wrote:
Wrote a small sine generator during this test by the way -- attached
just in case anyone is interested. Writes S16_LE to stdout, so intended
to be used as:
$ sine -f -d | aplay -f cd
-r for setting a different rate than 44100:
$ sine -f -d -r | ap
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:26:48 +0100
Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Wrote a small sine generator during this test by the way -- attached just in
> case anyone is interested. Writes S16_LE to stdout, so intended to be used as:
>
> $ sine -f -d | aplay -f cd
>
> -r for setting a
On 26-11-07 21:25, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
On 25-11-07 04:18, Mark Constable wrote:
There are a few online hearing test sites around, here
is one with 16/44.1 wavs. I can't hear 12kHz-0dB.wav :-(
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/dB/loudness.html
Word of warning --
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> Rene Herman wrote:
>> On 25-11-07 04:18, Mark Constable wrote:
>>
>>> There are a few online hearing test sites around, here
>>> is one with 16/44.1 wavs. I can't hear 12kHz-0dB.wav :-(
>>>
>>> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/dB/loudness.html
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:25:33 +
James Courtier-Dutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rene Herman wrote:
> > On 25-11-07 04:18, Mark Constable wrote:
> >
> >> There are a few online hearing test sites around, here
> >> is one with 16/44.1 wavs. I can't hear 12kHz-0dB.wav :-(
> >>
> >> http://www
Rene Herman wrote:
> On 25-11-07 04:18, Mark Constable wrote:
>
>> There are a few online hearing test sites around, here
>> is one with 16/44.1 wavs. I can't hear 12kHz-0dB.wav :-(
>>
>> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/dB/loudness.html
>
> Word of warning -- the outcome here will significantl
On 26-11-07 03:35, Bill Unruh wrote:
>> [ the loudness war ]
>> Clipping nor analogue distortion by the way is the problem. As said,
>> it's the range compression to _avoid_ the clipping that they have to
>> do when they master at these insane averages -- when you then later
>> play them back
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 25-11-07 22:10, Bill Unruh wrote:
>
> [ the loudness war ]
>
>> And your senator is supposed to do what? Pass a law saying that clipping
>> is
>> illegal? Maybe we can pass another that states that distortion is illegal,
>> and get rid of all those
On 25-11-07 22:10, Bill Unruh wrote:
[ the loudness war ]
> And your senator is supposed to do what? Pass a law saying that clipping is
> illegal? Maybe we can pass another that states that distortion is illegal,
> and get rid of all those fuzz boxes on electric guitars.
> And throw anyone in jai
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 25-11-07 17:17, Vladimir Mosgalin wrote:
>
>> On 2007.11.25 at 15:22:59 +0100, Rene Herman wrote next:
>>
>>> That 16 kHz -60dB is just about my threshold with good headphones, good card
>>> set to 0 dB and external amplication cranked up. -57 I hear a
On 25-11-07 17:17, Vladimir Mosgalin wrote:
> On 2007.11.25 at 15:22:59 +0100, Rene Herman wrote next:
>
>> That 16 kHz -60dB is just about my threshold with good headphones, good card
>> set to 0 dB and external amplication cranked up. -57 I hear always, at -60
>> it's a little flaky. At thos
Hi Rene Herman!
On 2007.11.25 at 15:22:59 +0100, Rene Herman wrote next:
> That 16 kHz -60dB is just about my threshold with good headphones, good card
> set to 0 dB and external amplication cranked up. -57 I hear always, at -60
> it's a little flaky. At those levels, 12-0dB actively hurts...
On 25-11-07 04:18, Mark Constable wrote:
> There are a few online hearing test sites around, here
> is one with 16/44.1 wavs. I can't hear 12kHz-0dB.wav :-(
>
> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/dB/loudness.html
Word of warning -- the outcome here will significantly vary with the used
soundcar
Was Re: [Alsa-user] "best" card for "bitperfect" SPDIF I/O?with?external clock
sync ?
On 2007-11-25 12:34 pm, Bill Unruh wrote:
> > PS a bit of OT: I'm 24, and I barely hear 18khz (in headphones), unless
> > it's VERY loud - I can hear only up to 17500-17800 clearly at average
> > volume level. I
26 matches
Mail list logo
