Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Im_Beta_00[_2_] Im_Beta_00[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

Richard Crowley wrote:
Im_Beta_00 wrote: I just want to erase the roar of the car,

You simply cannot remove wideband noise without doing
significant damage to the wideband signal of interest. Dunno
how many different ways we have to say this before you can
understand it?


I'm used to mixing lots of stuff in with the Boolean XOR function;
everything that can be mixed in, can be mixed out, you just have
to remember which sequence you did it. But that's video data.
The same thing ought to apply to sound, too. But your adamant
opposition to this, implies I am missing something really obvious.
(As for losing bits of precision, that's another thing altogether;
it's probably really annoying to people with perfect hearing.)

or at worst, detect the
moment of the roar, and replace the relevant snip with a snip from a
different microphone (one that is not pointed in the direction of the
roar.)


Lot of work for absolutely nothing. But apparently you will
need to do the experiment for yourself since you refuse to
learn from the mistakes of others. Good luck.

If you have another mic picking up the signal of interest, but
without the noise, then why not just use that one and dump
the intrigue?


Well, that *is* something I have been wondering about- Whether
the microphones (I have many more than I mentioned previously)
are better used for recording the "signa"l as opposed to the
"noise."

It is not simple subtraction, and it isn't simple ANDing off the noise
and ending up with some miraculously "clean" track. If you thought
that was what I was getting at, I apologize.


You have not mentioned any viable methodology of doing what
you say you want to do.


I was planning on using the Boolean XOR function to extract the noise;
performing the function twice, just happens to return the sound to its
original state:

A=Input#1 (mic pointed north) is the cast's dialog, up close from a boom
B=Input#2 (mic pointed directly east) is the cast's dialog from a
cross-direction, about 10 feet away
C=Input#3 (mic pointed directly west) is the noise of the traffic

I am relying on the following formula:

D = B XOR C

and once you have done that, the following formulas will work:

B = C OR D
C = B OR D

One of the problems I am facing, is the sampling rate. That cheap recorder
only samples at 48K. The other problem is the amplitude (or "loudness").
None of this bit-twiddling will be automatic. Attentive listening to each
of the files is in order. I want A to be the loudest, B the second loudest,
and C the quietest. Unfortunately, a car driving by with a really bad
muffler is going to wash out everything, and there is nothing that can be
done about that. But otherwise, if it is just a reasonably well-tuned car
driving in an ordinary manner, the noise recorded at 'C' is going to be a
whole lot quieter than A and B.

If you have any experience normalizing 80 bit integers so they can be juggled
around in floating point operations, you'll understand what I was talking
about, when I said I had to adjust their volumes (amplitudes) before I
attempt performing the B XOR C function..... The bits have to be the
same "widths" before you do Boolean stuff with them.
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

You're so far off the track it is pointless to respond.


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

On 10/24/2009 4:19 PM Im_Beta_00 spake thus:

I was planning on using the Boolean XOR function to extract the noise;
performing the function twice, just happens to return the sound to its
original state:

A=Input#1 (mic pointed north) is the cast's dialog, up close from a boom
B=Input#2 (mic pointed directly east) is the cast's dialog from a
cross-direction, about 10 feet away
C=Input#3 (mic pointed directly west) is the noise of the traffic

I am relying on the following formula:

D = B XOR C

and once you have done that, the following formulas will work:

B = C OR D
C = B OR D


Ah, I can see you've been seduced by an elegant, simple, "foolproof"
construct. A totally theoretical one.

First of all, I don't see where you get this XOR nonsense. I believe the
"formula" whose spell you've come under is this:

[S + N] - N = S

where S is the signal you want and N is the noise you want.

In theory--in *theory*--you can take the first term (the recording of
the signal with the background noise), subtract the second term (the
background noise), and end up with a perfect recording of the signal only.

[And technically, you wouldn't XOR the data: you'd use a simple
subtraction operation to remove the noise (or an inversion and addition
if you prefer).]

In your dreams, unfortunately.

As Mr. Crowley and others have been trying to express to you, this
simply won't work. Has been attempted by many with more knowledge,
experience and $$$ than you, and failed.

The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an
*absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the
signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible.

Do you understand this now?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an
*absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the
signal+noise recording.



You forgot to mention perfectly time & phase aligned as well!
I once had this argument with someone who had confused the speed of sound
with the speed of light, and didn't realise how much of a problem that is.
:-)

MrT.






  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

"Dick Pierce" wrote ...
Im_Beta_00 wrote:
If you have any experience normalizing 80 bit integers so they can be
juggled
around in floating point operations, you'll understand what I was talking
about, when I said I had to adjust their volumes (amplitudes) before I
attempt performing the B XOR C function..... The bits have to be the
same "widths" before you do Boolean stuff with them.


Do we have Radium ne Green Xenon back in a different goofy costume?

The notion that you need 80 bit integers is but one leg of the
many legs of this technically absurd stool.


The troll is throwing around scientific-sounding words without
any concept of what they mean. 80 bits of dynamic range is
several orders of magnitude greater than "The Big Bang"
theory of the origin of the univrese.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
Rom 1:22




  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

On 10/25/2009 12:54 AM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an
*absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the
signal+noise recording.


You forgot to mention perfectly time & phase aligned as well!


By "perfect" I meant *exactly the same signal*.

I once had this argument with someone who had confused the speed of sound
with the speed of light, and didn't realise how much of a problem that is.
:-)


Not much point in pursuing an argument like that, is there?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Bag of Peanuts Bag of Peanuts is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/24/2009 4:19 PM
The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an
*absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the
signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible.


When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" and,
naturally, the first thing I'd do, is get rid of that proverbial pin
dropping on the floor, as I would never be able to hear it, even if it
actually exists. That's part of the normalization process. Getting
rid of the real quiet stuff that I doubt exists anyway. (As I said
before, my hearing is far from perfect.) If we are working with 80 bit
integers, we just do a bunch of logical shift rights to get rid of the
bits that represent the inaudible quiet stuff. Then shift the integers
back left till we get to the left we were looking for, that is, for
the purpose of normalizing.

I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better.
Some loose "carries" floating around will ruin everything! But then you
wouldn't know about that if you were doing this with 'C' (instead of
assembler.)

Do you understand this now?


It sounds like you are complaining about which bits of information I am
throwing away. Geeze, the only bits I am discarding, are the ones I
can't even hear.

--

To send me email, change Triple to Beta, and spell out 1 as "one"
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an
*absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the
signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible.


When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...]


That's just the *point*, you nimrod.

I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better.


Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction
using the formula I gave:

[S + N] - N = S

where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is
the noise.

How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]?

I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good.

Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or
are you posting this stuff in earnest?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

Plonked for boorish, troll-like behavior.
And now nymshifting. Welcome to my killfile.
You will find good troll fellowship with the likes of
Green Xenon, Radium, Industrial 1, Allison and
Roberto.



  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Beta_Carotene Beta_Carotene is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an
*absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the
signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible.


When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...]


That's just the *point*, you nimrod.

I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better.


Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction
using the formula I gave:

[S + N] - N = S

where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is
the noise.


If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1 gives
you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is any
different than S XOR N.

How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]?

I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good.

Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or
are you posting this stuff in earnest?



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:01 -0700, Beta_Carotene
wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an
*absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the
signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible.

When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...]


That's just the *point*, you nimrod.

I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better.


Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction
using the formula I gave:

[S + N] - N = S

where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is
the noise.


If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1 gives
you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is any
different than S XOR N.

How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]?

I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good.

Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or
are you posting this stuff in earnest?


The real problem here is that there is no N. What you have is two
terms, N1 and N2. So the equation now goes

[S + N1] - N2 = ?

And the answer is?

If it were actually possible to record the identical N from two
places, the equation would work quite nicely. It isn't

d
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

"Dick Pierce" wrote...
3. You're a complete troll: you have no interest in
in anything approaching a constructive discussion:
your only interest is in being disruptive. You have
wandered in to a technical forum and, lacking any
real substantive contribution, want to make your
mark by, instead, peeing on the furniture.


The nymshifting along makes a strong case for #3.
Trolls are unable to understand facts or follow logic.
It just annoys them and makes them think we are all
out to get them.


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:32:50 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 10/27/2009 12:18 AM Don Pearce spake thus:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:01 -0700, Beta_Carotene
wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an
*absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the
signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible.

When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...]

That's just the *point*, you nimrod.

I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better.

Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction
using the formula I gave:

[S + N] - N = S

where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is
the noise.

If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1
gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is
any different than S XOR N.

How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]?

I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good.

Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or
are you posting this stuff in earnest?


The real problem here is that there is no N. What you have is two
terms, N1 and N2. So the equation now goes

[S + N1] - N2 = ?

And the answer is?

If it were actually possible to record the identical N from two
places, the equation would work quite nicely. It isn't


Well, for the sake of argument I (not the nym-shifter) proposed to
assume the same N, while taking pains to point out that this was
strictly a theoretical construct that would in no way exist in the real
world.

So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that
using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there. The
nym-shifter just seems to have XOR on the brain for some reason. (Quite
possibly XOR *does* work in a similar circumstance in video work: I
don't know.)


Wouldn't have thought so. XOR is not a subtraction process in any
discipline that I am aware of. Unless he has redefined XOR, I suppose.
There is a lot of that sort of thing going on round here right about
now.

d
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

On 10/27/2009 12:18 AM Don Pearce spake thus:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:01 -0700, Beta_Carotene
wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an
*absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the
signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible.

When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...]

That's just the *point*, you nimrod.

I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better.

Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction
using the formula I gave:

[S + N] - N = S

where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is
the noise.


If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1
gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is
any different than S XOR N.

How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]?

I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good.

Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or
are you posting this stuff in earnest?


The real problem here is that there is no N. What you have is two
terms, N1 and N2. So the equation now goes

[S + N1] - N2 = ?

And the answer is?

If it were actually possible to record the identical N from two
places, the equation would work quite nicely. It isn't


Well, for the sake of argument I (not the nym-shifter) proposed to
assume the same N, while taking pains to point out that this was
strictly a theoretical construct that would in no way exist in the real
world.

So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that
using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there. The
nym-shifter just seems to have XOR on the brain for some reason. (Quite
possibly XOR *does* work in a similar circumstance in video work: I
don't know.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

On 10/27/2009 9:46 AM Don Pearce spake thus:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:32:50 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way
that using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there.
The nym-shifter just seems to have XOR on the brain for some
reason. (Quite possibly XOR *does* work in a similar circumstance
in video work: I don't know.)


Wouldn't have thought so. XOR is not a subtraction process in any
discipline that I am aware of. Unless he has redefined XOR, I suppose.
There is a lot of that sort of thing going on round here right about
now.


My guess is that he (assuming the nym-shifter is male) is used to
working with digital graphics, where XOR is often used, for instance, to
remove transparent backgrounds from images and such.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dave Platt Dave Platt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:

So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that
using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there. The
nym-shifter just seems to have XOR on the brain for some reason. (Quite
possibly XOR *does* work in a similar circumstance in video work: I
don't know.)


Wouldn't have thought so. XOR is not a subtraction process in any
discipline that I am aware of. Unless he has redefined XOR, I suppose.
There is a lot of that sort of thing going on round here right about
now.


XOR is equivalent to subtraction (and addition!) in a modulo-2 number
field.

Useful in many cryptographic operations.

Not at all useful in audio, at least not for the original poster's
stated purpose of removing noise. Even if the audio is being
represented in the commonest numerical form (e.g. linear PCM, two's
complement), even the slightest amount of error in measuring or
quantizing the noise will usually result in *multiple* bits being
different between the "real" noise and the "noise to be subtracted".
Trying to XOR the two values together will thus result in many bits
being different between the "original S" and the "computed S", and the
noise level in the signal will probably increase almost as often as it
decreases.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Beta_Carotene Beta_Carotene is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

Dick Pierce wrote:
Beta_Carotene wrote:
If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1
gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is any
different than S XOR N.


If YOU really think that Xoring will remove noise AND
leave the original signal intact, then, indeed, no amount
of fact will convince you otherwise.

Let's take your example and follow it to its absurd
conclusion. Say the signal of interest, which we
will call S, has a value of 1. And let's assume that
the noise, which we will call N, has a value of 1.
Acoustically, the result by linear superposition,
is:

1 + 1 = 10

Now, you claim, that if you XOR the noise plus signal
with the noise, and we will assume, for the purpose
of testing YOUR position, that we have the original
N, thus:

10 XOR 1 = 11


There's something wrong with your truth tables here. I shall assume you
were typing so fast, you didn't notice what you'd written.

In that light, allow me to straighten it out:

$01 + $01 = $02
$01 OR $01 = $01
$01 XOR $01 = $00
$01 AND $01 = $01

Hope I helped!
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:35:04 -0700, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:

So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that
using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there. The
nym-shifter just seems to have XOR on the brain for some reason. (Quite
possibly XOR *does* work in a similar circumstance in video work: I
don't know.)


Wouldn't have thought so. XOR is not a subtraction process in any
discipline that I am aware of. Unless he has redefined XOR, I suppose.
There is a lot of that sort of thing going on round here right about
now.


XOR is equivalent to subtraction (and addition!) in a modulo-2 number
field.

Useful in many cryptographic operations.

Not at all useful in audio, at least not for the original poster's
stated purpose of removing noise. Even if the audio is being
represented in the commonest numerical form (e.g. linear PCM, two's
complement), even the slightest amount of error in measuring or
quantizing the noise will usually result in *multiple* bits being
different between the "real" noise and the "noise to be subtracted".
Trying to XOR the two values together will thus result in many bits
being different between the "original S" and the "computed S", and the
noise level in the signal will probably increase almost as often as it
decreases.


We aren't in a modulo 2 number field, and I fear you may have muddied
the water needlessly here.

XOR is a process independent of the order in which the numbers are
presented. 4 XOR 7 is identical to 7 XOR 4. The same is clearly not
true of subtraction.

d
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Beta_Carotene Beta_Carotene is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

David Nebenzahl wrote:
So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that
using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there.


You have to remember that what you wrote is not what I wrote.

A1 gives us a raw file with only binary fluctuations corresponding
to the state of the diaphragm. No bits dedicated to exponents, or
signs, or anything like that. (If you will recall, Input #1 hangs
off the boom at about 2 feet or so. It picks up all kinds of stuff
(ambience), and not just signal. Some of that "ambience" is certainly
undesirable.)

A2 gives us a raw file just like above, but from about 10 feet away,
in a cross-direction. Again, there is a whole lot more "ambience"
(most of which we ought to be able tolerate, though a case could be made
for throwing up your hands in disgust because of the wind whooshing
around). The point of A2 is for a reference level against which to mix A1.

A3 is a lot farther away, maybe 30 feet or more, and is pointed
directly *away* from A2; it is pointed at the only source of automobile
noise - through a small gap in the trees where the dirt road runs.

As for geographical locations, the cast, A2, and A3 are all in a
straight line with each other. But A2 and A3 involve microphones
pointed directly away from each other.

Halfway through the shoot, a car drives by, and disappears into the
distance. Let's say its boom box radio was blaring, too. Its noise is
logged in the mic on A3. I will concede that there are times when
there is just nothing you can do about noise. Like a dump truck, for
instance. The noise is so loud that it washes out A3, A2, and A1 - in
that order, and in that sequence - and even though there may be 20 to 30
feet between each of the mics, the sound propagates so fast that the
rate of change exceeds the amount of bits dedicated to the samples per
second. We don't really know how many bits are dedicated to each
fraction of a second. it could be 80 but it is probably greater than 8,
and I doubt greatly the bits are compressed, or resolved into floating
point numbers. I suppose somebody here was suggesting we only needed 8
bits of resolution to 80, or even $80. Well, that's a value judgment.
I would just as soon go for 80, as I wouldn't have to worry about loose
carries floating around. As you know, a loose carry represents an
overflow or underflow condition. The reason I avoid ADD or SUB is that
they involve the Carry flag, whereas the Boolean operations of OR, XOR
don't touch it.

Here is the problem: the gain could be turned up on A3, resulting in
an unusually "loud" file full of awful screeching automobile noise when
the car drives by. Not all of the mics have the same gain. They all
have to be set by the technician assigned to that sort of thing.
Anyway, everything is preset because the technician walks away, and
leaves well enough alone, and what do you know, the cast is delivering a
moving and sentimental exchange of romantic whispers. At this point,
the amplitudes are way different between A3, A2, and A1. They have to
be matched before any of the Boolean operations can be performed on
them! That's called "normalizing" - throwing away the bits that are out
of range - introducing a regrettable inaccuracy, as the more bits you
throw away, the worse the integrity of the file, and the less good you
are going to get out of it. And we can't just throw the bits away
without listening to the files, and making value judgments, scrutinizing
again and again, as to what is Signal and what is Noise. There is no
way to get rid of the technician at this point. There's nothing
automatic. But having a file of raw Noise is useful because you can
extract it by performing an XOR operation. It's done all the time with
video data.

The formula I suggested, was Noise = A3 XOR A2, assuming the files
have first been adjusted so they shae the same magically correct degree
of amplitude. I have no idea how you arrived at that magically correct
degree of amplitude, short of having listened to it in the privacy of
your studio. Anyway, after that is done, A1 XOR Noise (one or more
times, according to how nicely it sounds to your ear) is a whole lot
cleaner sounding than A1 alone.)
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

On 10/27/2009 11:57 AM Beta_Carotene spake thus:

Dick Pierce wrote:

Beta_Carotene wrote:

If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1
gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is any
different than S XOR N.


If YOU really think that Xoring will remove noise AND
leave the original signal intact, then, indeed, no amount
of fact will convince you otherwise.

Let's take your example and follow it to its absurd
conclusion. Say the signal of interest, which we
will call S, has a value of 1. And let's assume that
the noise, which we will call N, has a value of 1.
Acoustically, the result by linear superposition,
is:

1 + 1 = 10

Now, you claim, that if you XOR the noise plus signal
with the noise, and we will assume, for the purpose
of testing YOUR position, that we have the original
N, thus:

10 XOR 1 = 11


There's something wrong with your truth tables here. I shall assume you
were typing so fast, you didn't notice what you'd written.


What "truth table"? He gave two *examples*--10 XOR 01 = 11 and 1 + 1 =
10 (binary, remember)--which are absolutely correct.

I've concluded that you simply don't know what the **** you're talking
about, which simplifies this discussion greatly.


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')


"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Your entire basis for argument leads us to one of
several conclusions, none of which are particularly
good for you:

1. You are well-intentioned but technically naive,
you've come to a conclusion based on your rather
entrenched position and you can't or won't take
the time to study the flaws in your understanding
of the physics, acoustics and basic mathematics
of the realm,

2. You believe you have discovered some miraculous
breakthrough, something that the industry with a
collective experience measuring thousands of years
have utterly failed to grasp, and you will NOT be
detered from your mission, ignoring, of course, the
very real possibility you could be dead wrong and,
of course, facts and reality be damned,

3. You're a complete troll: you have no interest in
in anything approaching a constructive discussion:
your only interest is in being disruptive. You have
wandered in to a technical forum and, lacking any
real substantive contribution, want to make your
mark by, instead, peeing on the furniture.




The smart money is on number three! :-)

Surely Radium's latest alias.

MrT.


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')


"Beta_Carotene" wrote in message
. ..
In that light, allow me to straighten it out:

$01 + $01 = $02



And you have also developed a new binary system I see!

MrT.


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

[replying to Dick Pierce's post which my ISP didn't pick up for some reason]

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...

Your entire basis for argument leads us to one of
several conclusions, none of which are particularly
good for you:

1. You are well-intentioned but technically naive,
you've come to a conclusion based on your rather
entrenched position and you can't or won't take
the time to study the flaws in your understanding
of the physics, acoustics and basic mathematics
of the realm,

2. You believe you have discovered some miraculous
breakthrough, something that the industry with a
collective experience measuring thousands of years
have utterly failed to grasp, and you will NOT be
detered from your mission, ignoring, of course, the
very real possibility you could be dead wrong and,
of course, facts and reality be damned,

3. You're a complete troll: you have no interest in
in anything approaching a constructive discussion:
your only interest is in being disruptive. You have
wandered in to a technical forum and, lacking any
real substantive contribution, want to make your
mark by, instead, peeing on the furniture.


So in the interest of being charitable here, I propose that the OP (the
nym-shifter) actually try this scheme, and report the results back here.
Since we've been totally ineffective at trying to dissuade him/her from
his/her fixations, the only thing to do is to set it up and put it to
the test.


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
So in the interest of being charitable here, I propose that the OP (the
nym-shifter) actually try this scheme, and report the results back here.
Since we've been totally ineffective at trying to dissuade him/her from
his/her fixations, the only thing to do is to set it up and put it to
the test.


And you'd trust his tests, or believe it if he claims success? :-)
(And don't say he could post the files, it's easy to start with a clean
signal, add noise to it, claim that's the original, and then post the real
original as the result.)

Far easier just to ignore his trolls IMO, and wait for his ground breaking
patent! :-) :-) :-)

MrT.


  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

On 10/28/2009 9:21 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

So in the interest of being charitable here, I propose that the OP (the
nym-shifter) actually try this scheme, and report the results back here.
Since we've been totally ineffective at trying to dissuade him/her from
his/her fixations, the only thing to do is to set it up and put it to
the test.


And you'd trust his tests, or believe it if he claims success? :-)
(And don't say he could post the files, it's easy to start with a clean
signal, add noise to it, claim that's the original, and then post the real
original as the result.)


I think we could trust the results. If they posted a noisy "before" file
and an absolutely clean "after" file, then we'd know for sure it was a
crock, right?

Far easier just to ignore his trolls IMO, and wait for his ground breaking
patent! :-) :-) :-)


I suppose so. For my part, I actually believe the guy is earnest and not
a troll (at least in the classic sense). God-damned stubborn, though.


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
I suppose so. For my part, I actually believe the guy is earnest and not
a troll (at least in the classic sense).


Your choice. My money is on Radium's new nick.

MrT.


  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')

"David Nebenzahl" wrote...
I suppose so. For my part, I actually believe the guy is earnest and not a
troll (at least in the classic sense). God-damned stubborn, though.


There is no perceptable difference at this end.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Condenser microphones and water? Im_Beta_00 Tech 16 October 17th 09 09:27 PM
Advice needed Paul Garon Tech 1 August 16th 04 10:58 PM
Advice needed Stephen McLeish Marketplace 0 February 1st 04 10:34 AM
advice needed. sayduckshun Car Audio 0 October 14th 03 04:34 AM
Advice on cheap microphones joel Pro Audio 6 October 9th 03 03:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"