[PD] better tabread4~

[Roman Haefeli]

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 12:52 +0100, Andy Farnell wrote:
> 
> I'm really looking forward to giving this the 'ear test'.
> 
> Maybe I'm growing old but differerences in interpolation 
> methods are very subtle to my perception. What would be the
> hard case to test it? It would be when the signal is greatly
> transposed, right?
> 
> Remember when I tested your stab at sinc interpolation Charles,
> I honestly couldn't hear an big difference, there was one, but
> hard to define.

yo, i recorded a snare drum sound (from the netpd-patch bon-minidrm)
into a table and made a comparison, while playing the sample at
different speeds. i chose the snare, because it has lots of noise in the
high frequencies and i assume, this will probably rather make any
interpolation effects audible. when playing at 0.05x original speed, the
differences between [tabread4~] and [tabread4c~] are not so subtle
anymore. [tabread4~] sounds almost 'gameboyish' compared to
[tabread4c~]. 

without any scientific approach and without any judgement about which of
those two methods gives the result, that comes closer to the imaginary
function of the original soundfile, it's becoming obvious, that cubic
interpolation sounds more what one would expect from an audio
interpolation algorithm (i.e. less audible artefacts). the difference is
not only clearly visible, but also audible, especially when transposing
very low downwards. i couldn't hear any difference, when transposing
upwards, though.


roman






		
___________________________________________________________ 
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de