I always like to wind people who have to sell products* up by discussing how line level is too low and we should all be considering low gain power amps and sticking an extra 10dB or more in the preamp. Preferably balanced (maybe differential as well). I think NP was on the right track with the F4...
*JC mainly.
Hans, I updated with a new post over at the cymbal thread, it's better we discuss things related to the listening test there, your input is welcome.
Yeah, those Benchmark Media guys are bunch of crooks! By the way, they include a switch on AHB2 to set the gain lower, and jumpers inside DAC-3 to set the preamp gain higher so the units can be configured either as they recommend, or for use with other equipment.
EDIT: Just curious, what does it mean to wind people? British expression?
Last edited:
I was typing too quickly. Should have said 'wind people up'. But yes probably a very right pondian phrase.
I find Audacity virtually useless as a general purpose signal processing tool, except maybe using the Nyquist prompt to run IIR filters. I use it mainly to fix bad headers on .wav files or 24 bit recording via WASAPI.
Maybe it’s not made it to the left coast here yet? I’ve definitely heard it in conversation.
I used to have a license of Sound Forge and thought it was pretty good. No idea if it’s still decent software. I think the company has been bought and sold a few times.
For doing basic research you don't want or need any DAW features, you want full access to the sound data as mathematical vectors that can be arbitrarily processed. The reflection of that is you would be hard pressed to use Matlab, Mathematica, or Python as a DAW.
Last edited:
So profesional interfaces. Considering pro gear has been using such for ever, how much extra cost would it be for consumer gear. Altough putting 30 xlrs on the back of a home theater reciever might be hard to do, but for stereo gear theres no excuse any more, and its not hard to put both types of interface again as has been done on pro gear for years.
Seems it helps if I read your post before replying. As a general purpose signal processing tool, yeah, DAW software isn't going to cut it.
NumPy is a nice library. As someone who originally was a C person, I abhor Python's syntax, but it seems the rest of the world has spoken. I suppose it's better than the mess that is Javascript, though.
4th Apr, 2016
David Cousins
Raytheon BBN Technologies
I have heard people have success with scipy and/or Octave. While Octave tries to be similar in form and function to Matlab, the latter is a professional quality package that has very rich set of toolboxes for signal processing of various forms. Octave has many proponents, but if you use it, be sure to get the latest distro, as the ones packaged with today's Linux distros are usually very old and are not worth using.
SciPy in the other hand is a set of toolboxes for python. My colleagues have used this quite successfully, especially SciPy.signal. It does require developing familiarity with python, which is a good skill to have anyway
GNU Octave is software featuring a high-level programming language, primarily intended for numerical computations. Octave helps in solving linear and nonlinear problems numerically, and for performing other numerical experiments using a language that is mostly compatible with MATLAB. It may also be used as a batch-oriented language. Since it is part of the GNU Project, it is free software under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
Octave is one of the major free alternatives to MATLAB, others being Scilab and FreeMat.[4][5][6][7] Scilab, however, puts less emphasis on (bidirectional) syntactic compatibility with MATLAB than Octave does.[4][8][9]
David Cousins
Raytheon BBN Technologies
I have heard people have success with scipy and/or Octave. While Octave tries to be similar in form and function to Matlab, the latter is a professional quality package that has very rich set of toolboxes for signal processing of various forms. Octave has many proponents, but if you use it, be sure to get the latest distro, as the ones packaged with today's Linux distros are usually very old and are not worth using.
SciPy in the other hand is a set of toolboxes for python. My colleagues have used this quite successfully, especially SciPy.signal. It does require developing familiarity with python, which is a good skill to have anyway
GNU Octave is software featuring a high-level programming language, primarily intended for numerical computations. Octave helps in solving linear and nonlinear problems numerically, and for performing other numerical experiments using a language that is mostly compatible with MATLAB. It may also be used as a batch-oriented language. Since it is part of the GNU Project, it is free software under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
Octave is one of the major free alternatives to MATLAB, others being Scilab and FreeMat.[4][5][6][7] Scilab, however, puts less emphasis on (bidirectional) syntactic compatibility with MATLAB than Octave does.[4][8][9]
Last edited:
Once he has become familiar with javascript, one will find all other languages simple and elegant. Besides, maybe Perl?
Last edited:
I did some MAC programming in assembler, Pascal, C because the favored compiler had essentially no good optimizations for scientific math. Quit for a long time and switched, for nothing but scientific computing I prefer Python. I tried Perl for a few weeks.
Pascal with Delphi was my favorite object oriented language.
Shooting yourself in the foot in various programming languages
Could happen, but what about the concept of leading by good example?
My still dear PMA, you've asserted on different occasions that Oohashi et al. did not use different speakers for LF-content and HF-content, but as a quote from their publication shows:
(emphasised by me)
I hope we do agree that useful discussions are based on the ability to acknowledge when being wrong and to retract incorrect assertions?!
Have you counted the number of times you were in denial on this thread?
Not to mention other forums 😀.
Can't find a single reference where somebody outside the snake oil business is quoting Jakob(x) interpretations (not to mention his own results, out of which nobody ever saw a shred of). To be always on defensive, always busy to create word salads, obfuscating the lack of solid arguments, always attempting to deflect, create diversions, shift the focus, etc... Must be a tough life for him, to realize that nobody is buying what Jakob(x) is trying to sell for years now.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.