On March 18, 2013 07:04:52 PM Tim E. Real wrote:

On March 18, 2013 06:47:16 PM you wrote:

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Tim E. Real <termtech@rogers.com> wrote:

Hi again. Looking for any advice, tips, tricks, anecdotes etc.

I want to eliminate or reduce 'zipper' noise on volume changes.
So I'm looking at two techniques:
Zero-crossing / zero-value signal detection, and slew-rate limiting.
Code is almost done, almost ready to start testing each technique.
Each technique has some advantages and disadvantages.

If I use a slew-rate limiter, I figure for a sudden volume factor change
 from 0.0 to 1.0, if I limit the slew rate to say 0.01 per sample then after
 100 samples the ramp will be done.
But even with a fine ramp, this still might introduce artifacts in the audio.

You cannot avoid artifacts in the audio. The only question is what is the nature of the artifacts.  

If I use a zero-crossing/zero-value detector and apply volume changes

Zero crossing stuff is a completely bogus idea that needs to be eliminated from the lexicon of audio software. You will not be accomplishing anything trying to use such a technique, other than introduce even more artifacts (and rather horrendous ones at that). Even zero-valued samples are not particularly useful - keep in mind that what defines transducer (read: speaker) behaviour is power, not instantaneous volume. 

Just use sensibly short ramped changes. For the record, Ardour uses 64 or a JACK period size, whichever is, hmm, larger or smaller, can't recall.

--p

Wow, surprising answer.

Can you elaborate a wee bit on the bogus point? What worse artifacts?

Popping noise will be heard if sudden volume change is applied while

the signal data value is currently non-zero.

Is it not better to apply (register) the changes during zero or near-zero

signal data values?

After all, some electronic systems employ it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_crossing

http://electronicdesign.com/analog/digital-volume-control-eliminates-zipper-noise

Thanks.

Tim.

Ah, I may have answered my own question when I said:

"(One cannot simply wait for the current data value to be 'zero' because

for example with a perfect square wave signal the 'current' value will never

approach zero, hence the zero-crossing detection requirement.)"

Yeah, I was worried about that bit:

That's not just an exception. With all kinds of waves not just square, many

times the current value may not approach zero even if it did 'cross' over.

So having no choice but to apply the volume at this cross point the popping

noise might still be heard. I guess that's what Fons meant by 'reduced'...

and what Paul meant by... bogus. Right?

Thanks.

Tim.