Skip to main content
Recent Posts
Scientific Discussion / Re: Help me understand why sound is one dimensional
Last post by Nichttaub -
Any representation of data which consists of 2 coordinates for each data point is 2-dimensional. In order to uniquely specify a point, you must give 2 coordinates or there would be confusion.  A signal waveform must have 2 coordinates, or else the numerous times a signal has the same amplitude would be indistinguishable from one another.

 A 1-dimensional data representation would have only the single number to unambiguously specify each point. One example of this would be the x- or y-coordinate axis by itself.  A 1-dimensional representation of data is almost useless by itself; it only becomes useful when used as a reference for another data set (value on a number line).  Once it is referenced to 2 other data sets (such as the x and y coordinates of a signal existing in time) it is then a 2-dimensional data set.

Your math professor friend is either confused, or is confusing you with his explanation.
Scientific Discussion / Re: Help me understand why sound is one dimensional
Last post by Porcus -
An image consists of a matrix of numbers placed on two axis. In my limited understanding, I would assume sound also has at least two axis, one representing time.
If that is your idea of an image, then I would say that a point sound source - or a "point" as a model for an eardrum - would be 0D rather tham 1D ...
But rather than claiming "0D", I would say that your model of an "image" might be wrong or at least not in line with your model of soumd.
Each point in the image carries a compound of (time-) frequencies. So: if you insist on "time" in a sound waveform, why don't you insist on time in the light waveform?

There are at least two answers to that latter question. 1: In how the human eye projects colour down to a triplet. But that is how humans work, not what is emitted. 2: In that you think that sound changes over time; "music", not just "chord". But then the analogy should be motion picture rather than image.
General - (fb2k) / Feature requests: selectable ReplayGain algorithm, dither type
Last post by decollated -
First, I just want to say thanks for all the excellent work on the program, which I use every day.

Inspired by greynol, I installed the old foo_rgscan.dll file from fb2k 1.1.5 in order to try the original ReplayGain algorithm. I have only used it a short while so far, but I think I may already prefer it to the EBU R128 RG. However, I miss the newer features from the current RG component, like the oversample peak scan and advanced formatting results dialog.

So, would it possible to allow a user choice of which algorithm to use?

Similarly, I was wondering if a choice of dither method could be offered in the file converter. I would love if fb2k allowed a TPDF dither option in addition to the (I think) noise-shaped type it uses now.

Thanks for considering!
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_skip: skip tracks that match a specified search query
Last post by Wolfbane -
The video works now.

Perhaps there are two different problems. One is that you have turned track skipping off and another is misconfigured SKIP column.

To check that theory take a look at Playback menu. There should be a checkmark next to "Skip tracks & use bookmarks" entry for Skip Track to be active. If it's toggled off, it doesn't do its thing.

SKIP column's titleformatting should be just "%SKIP%" or "[%SKIP%]".

Btw, you can add a new tag field faster by just double clicking an empty space below the other fields. No need to use the Tools menu.

"Skip tracks & use bookmarks"
Yes, worked, I have no freaking clue how that got disabled, but thx for the help.

And reguarding [%SKIP%]
Yes that also worked, no real experince with Foobar, so a bit of noob how things work, thx for help.
Even if I dint find any "titleformatting" the field was called "Pattern" where I entered the [%SKIP%] ==>

Sidequestion, how does one change allienment on other fields that are already there by default, like "Duration" whant it to be centered instead of "Left" Cant seem to find it.

THx once again for all the help.
Scientific Discussion / Re: Help me understand why sound is one dimensional
Last post by DVDdoug -
I would assume sound also has at least two axis, one representing time. My friend makes the claim that there only is one.
Did you ask your friend about time?    Sound is an air-pressure wave* and you can't have a wave without time.

* A philosopher would say sound is the perception of an air-pressure wave.    You know... that old question, "If a tree fall in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"     But, I'm more practical...   I say heck yes!    I put a tape recorder in the forest and I recorded the sound!
Opus / Re: Opus 1.3-rc
Last post by IgorC -
Yes, there is an important difference on music material between 48 and 64 kbps.

Main goal of 1.3 is speech and mixed material.
If 1.1/1.2.1 would need 48-64 kbps for an excelent quality (score area of 4.5+) of  stereo speech samples now 1.3RC does it just at 40 kbps.
Support - (fb2k) / Re: DLNA
Last post by abax2000 -
I suppose you mean Windows Media Player.
It is hit and miss, but anyhow it only worked with saved files on hard disk, and not with streaming media (i.e. internet radio).
Scientific Discussion / Re: Help me understand why sound is one dimensional
Last post by Rumbah -
I think it's confusing because you look at the graph of the function, that is a two dimensional image.

Perhaps it helps to look at it these ways:
1. What you measure is the amplitude. To help you see the change over time you draw the graph. But if you move all your measurements over each other (compress the time axis to a point) you'll see that you only get the amplitude in one dimension.

2. If you want to convert analog sound to digital you only need a 1d DAC because that one dimension is enough to capture the sound.

3. With the "sound is two dimensional" argumentation you'll have that you watch 3d TV as you have a two dimensional picture that changes over time. You could even argue that the picture on the wall is three dimensional.

The first time I stumbled over this was a one dimensional potential well in physics in school. It took quite some time to wrap my head around this. Why it's only one dimensional although it looks so two dimensional :)
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018