29 Jan
2005
29 Jan
'05
2:24 p.m.
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 10:48, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:43:37AM -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
Nice pictures. But:
- Not everything in nature is fractal. Some things (even
very complex ones) are very clearly not.
All dogs have a tail, that animal has a tail, therefore it is a dog
;-) I didn't say everything in nature is fractal. I said fractal noise
sounds more natural.
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 06:44, Fons Adriaensen
wrote:
That's a classic one. For large N, the output will approach
some form of filtered Gaussian noise. What makes this fractal
noise superior as a source of randomness in a resample algo ?
Because it more closely resembles nature. Take a look at this page:
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/islands/ - We are not trying to mimic nature, just to avoid a
nasty comb filtering effect.
I thought you were trying to make random changes in pitch sound more
natural when using a pitch tuning algorithm.
- If I gave you two series of samples, one generated
with
the fractal method, and one generated by sending white
Gaussian noise through a suitable filter, you would have
no way to tell which is which. And that means there is
nothing special about the fractal noise, apart from the
fact that is was generated by an interesting algo :-)
I disagree. White noise and pink noise are very different.
Jan