Skip to main content
Recent Posts
4
Opus / Re: Opus 1.3-rc
Last post by ThaCrip -
Does anyone know about when the official v1.3 release is due? ; a couple of weeks, a month?

I am not trying to rush anyone, as I would rather have them get it right then rush it, but I just wonder if there is any ball park figure of when v1.3 will be officially released considering it's over a month and a half since the original v1.3 RC release. is there any typical/ball park time frame from when a release goes RC to the official release? ; or are they still squashing some minor bugs and going to do a RC2 (or RC3?) etc?
6
Scientific Discussion / Re: Help me understand why sound is one dimensional
Last post by jsdyson -
This is very similar to a previous posting, but with a simplified view of things:

At any given point, the sound pressure is a 1 dimensional signal vs time.
Given two ears, there are two sound pressure values vs. time measured -- each is still 1 dimension.

But, with human perception, the two sound pressure values can be processed into a spatial (partially accurate two, perhaps three) form.  The various cues to the spatial location are complex -- timing, spectral/frequency response hints, and probably other things.  So, those two single dimensional values from two ears can sometimes provide more information than two simple scalar values vs. time.
8
Support - (fb2k) / Re: %CONTENT GROUP% mapping error
Last post by thomian -
@Temerald:
Thank you for bringing this topic into life. It makes handling of the grouping field with different files a lot easier!! Thank you very much! And thank you Peter for this gem of software.
9
Support - (fb2k) / Re: %CONTENT GROUP% mapping error
Last post by thomian -
This tag mapping is confusing now in Beta 17.
Yes, that's true.

The field was not mapped erroneously. I repeat: Vorbis comments has no standards. ONLY recommendations.

Yes, that's true. And it's even worse: Vorbis comments are not designed to be renamed or remapped at all. Vorbis comments are designed to show up in the application in the same way, as they are written to the file. If you want to have another name for this tag, just give it another name. This is different to other tag types, for example id3, where TIT1 has to be translated/mapped by the software to an understandable description. Vorbis comments have not to be mapped, they describe themselves.
The new mapping of foobar breaks the rules for Vorbis comments. It is a non-standard implementation. It's simply a mistake.
AFAIK there is no other Vorbis comment that is remapped to a different name in foobar.

Now there are four reasons, why this new mapping is a mistake:
1. foobars behaviour of tag writing and reading is confusing
2. CONTENT GROUP is a misleading term, in comparison to GROUPING
3. mapping of Vorbis Comments breaks the rules, as they should be displayed "as they are written"
   GROUPING should show up as <GROUPING> and not as <CONTENT GROUP>
4. In foobar no other Vorbis Comments are translated/remapped to a different field name

To solve these problems, I recommend to use the field %grouping% instead, and map all other tags to this field:
Vorbis: GROUPING
APE: Grouping
ID3tag: TIT1
iTunes MP4: ┬ęgrp
WMA: WM/ContentGroupDescription

Peter, would you please implement this in the next update.
Thanks
10
Scientific Discussion / Re: Help me understand why sound is one dimensional
Last post by saratoga -
Things like waveforms and time domain signals are one dimensional. Signal transformation through things like FFT is also one dimensional but returns a two-dimensional value.

I'm surprised how many people don't realize this, but the FFT returns the same number of dimensions as you put in, so a 1D function has a 1D FFT. It's a linear transform, so you get the same number of points and dimensions between domains. I suspect that the misconception you have hear (that frequency is somehow of higher dimensionality than time in spite of them having inverse units) is related to the general confusion most people have on this topic.
Well, a Fourier Transform (discrete or continuous) returns a complex-valued function, which real and imaginary components can be mapped onto a 2D plane. Complex numbers by definition extend the one-dimensional number line in \mathbb{R}, to the two-dimensional comlpex-plane \mathbb{C}. That's what I was referring to.

To try and make my point above clear, I'll reiterate that an FFT maps a (possibly complex valued) input to another (possibly complex) output of equal dimensionality. It is not correct that a (possibly complex) input of dimensionality 1 can map to an output of dimension anything but 1.

More importantly, being complex valued in this case is distinct from defining a plane as you are assuming. Recall that the FFT of a real valued function (such as a series of sampled points of a transducer in time) must be symmetric about zero. This means N unique values would seem to map to N/2 values - which would make the transform non invertible. Instead it actually maps to N/2 complex value pairs, or more simply just N values. Thus it's actually a mapping from N to N and therefore invertible.

Finally getting back to my original point, all of this math could be avoided by just defining dimensionality correctly.


People have such a limited ability to grasp what a 3D sound field is that most do not realize they even exist. The perception of sound is basically 1D with a bit of stereo, and this is the thing people are talking about. And they do mean to say 1D, they're just not sure what the words mean and are expressing themselves incorrectly.
Well, I'm not sure we're talking about perception of sound here. When Op started the thread, I thought we talk about sound as in the way signals are expressed.

Seems like a distinction without a difference given that they're expressed similarly 99.99999% of the time.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018