30 Sep
2010
30 Sep
'10
11:22 a.m.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 06:43:42PM -0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Perhaps an easier way to do this in the future is to
just present your
evidence up front instead of trashing other peoples hard work with vague
off hand and out of context remarks.
Where did I do that ?
For your reference, this is the original message in which I
referred to Jamin's FFT-based EQ as a vocoder:
<http://lalists.stanford.edu/lau/2010/05/0321.html>
And when I wrote that remark - 'a vocoder being used as a filter',
which is technically accurate - I just assumed that the developers
would be aware of that, that it was their intention to make the
EQ work in that way. They were certainly aware that the filter
had it's problems and was not really working like a linear filter
- that is why the overlap factor was increased from the original
2 to the much higher value (8 or 16) used today.
Regarding the current discussion, it started with others quoting
this message quite inaccurately, and me trying to correct these
remarks. Followed by a (I think) a clear expose of what IMHO is
wrong with this filter and why I call it a vocoder.
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.