Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Spreading function slopes (Read 2753 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Spreading function slopes

About a year or 2 ago, there was a posting by someone by the name of Yan..
It was a very interesting issue.. which is to switch the slope of the spreading function so that the lower slope is less steeper than the upper slope..

Initially, I thought I found something interesting when I tried calculating the r_normalization factors and compared to the R_norm of the MP3 ISO specs..

I now think that Yan is wrong.. and MP3 ISO specs is wrong about the r_normal..
Both slopes should be identical in steepness.. Yan's proposal would result in audible artifacts..

Not only that.. refering to the orginal SNR equation :

SNR = (14.5 + i) * tb +(1-tb)* 5.5

this is when the spreading function slope is steeper in the upper slope than in the lower slope.. just as in Layer II and Layer I psychoacoustic model II..


when it was changed to  SNR = 29 *tb + (1-tb)*6.0 in MP3,  both slope of the spreading function has to be modified to make them identical in steepness to compensate for the constant TMN..

Try working out the mathematical equations..

wkwai