[Top] [All Lists]

Re: again about compression

Subject: Re: again about compression
From: Gianni Pavan <>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:52:50 +0200
The difference is very clear by comparing non-compressed and compressed 
signals with the same software and settings. The software I use is designed 
to provide high time resolution and I'm sure what I see is not an analysis 
artifact. Moreover it doesnot appear on the original signal.

At 19.04 01/04/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Are you doing a sonogram or just looking at the raw waveform? If you are
>doing a sonogram are you sure what you are seeing is not an anomaly of
>the particular FFT routine your software uses. At 10 ms you are not
>talking all that many samples. The FFT routines have their own
>anomalies, which are much more severe than those produced by
>compression. This seems to be particularly true right around loud sounds.
>Have you tested your analysis using different software? There is quite a
>bit of variability in the display you get from different software. Or
>even within different software at different settings.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Gianni Pavan
Centro Interdisciplinare di Bioacustica e Ricerche Ambientali
Universita' degli Studi di Pavia
Via Taramelli 24, 27100 PAVIA, ITALIA
Tel/Fax   +39-0382-525234 Laboratori
Tel/Fax   +39-0382-526208 Segreteria


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU