Rick C.
You're being unreasonable by posting uncommented code here and then expecting someone to "simplify" that code for you. Then as Piergiorgio struggles to try to help, you replied to him in a rude way.
On 09/12/2019 07.59, Rick C wrote:
[...]
Did you not read the first post where I provided the code to produce the coefficients? Was that not clear?
No, I do not usually read code posted
on usenet.
I can try to point you one way which
might, or might not, help in solving
your problem, but I will not debug,
extend, improve or else some code.
For that, you'll have to pay... :-)
Sorry...
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 1:40:18 PM UTC-5, Piergiorgio Sartor wrote:
On 09/12/2019 07.59, Rick C wrote:
[...]
Did you not read the first post where I provided the code to produce the coefficients? Was that not clear?
No, I do not usually read code posted
on usenet.
I can try to point you one way which
might, or might not, help in solving
your problem, but I will not debug,
extend, improve or else some code.
For that, you'll have to pay... :-)
Sorry...
Ok, that's fine. But I'm not asking you to debug code. In particular this code is working to the best of my knowledge. I only posted it so you could see what is being done presently.
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:27:01 AM UTC-5, Richard (Rick) Lyons wrote= >:
Rick C.to try to help, you replied to him in a rude way.
You're being unreasonable by posting uncommented code here and then expec= >ting someone to "simplify" that code for you. Then as Piergiorgio struggles=
Sorry if anyone thought I was rude. I was asking what was not clear about = >the code.=20
Not sure what you mean about "simplifying" the code. I listed the rather s= >imple and straightforward code so it could be seen how the coefficients are=
being generated. I don't even know what the language is and I was able to= undertstand was it was doing to a large degree. =20
Sorry if my posts are not appropriate. I'm not sure what to say that would=
be better.=20
--=20
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:46:53 -0800 (PST), Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:27:01 AM UTC-5, Richard (Rick) Lyons wrote= >:
Rick C.to try to help, you replied to him in a rude way.
You're being unreasonable by posting uncommented code here and then expec= >ting someone to "simplify" that code for you. Then as Piergiorgio struggles=
Sorry if anyone thought I was rude. I was asking what was not clear about = >the code.=20
Not sure what you mean about "simplifying" the code. I listed the rather s= >imple and straightforward code so it could be seen how the coefficients are=
being generated. I don't even know what the language is and I was able to= undertstand was it was doing to a large degree. =20
Sorry if my posts are not appropriate. I'm not sure what to say that would=
be better.=20
--=20
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Your posts are not inappropriate and asking questions, even questions
about code, is fine. There will be a lot of folks, however, like Piergiorgio and myself and many others, who just find reading somebody
else's code a struggle in itself.
Everybody thinks code they've written is straightforward, because they
wrote it, but it's not obvious or easy to everybody else. I don't
even know what language that code is, or at least the syntax isn't immediately obvious to me, and figuring it out and how the
coefficients are generated is just not how I want to spend any of my
time.
It might be easy, but it isn't obvious enough to pass the
investigation threshold for some of us. That said, maybe somebody
else will come along and give it a shot.
But don't be discouraged from asking questions or posting problems.
And don't let the old grumpy guys like me slow you down just because
we're not willing to do something.
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 11:44:36 AM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:46:53 -0800 (PST), Rick Cto=3D
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:27:01 AM UTC-5, Richard (Rick) Lyons wr= >ote=3D
:
Rick C.ting someone to "simplify" that code for you. Then as Piergiorgio strugg= >les=3D
You're being unreasonable by posting uncommented code here and then ex= >pec=3D
to try to help, you replied to him in a rude way.
Sorry if anyone thought I was rude. I was asking what was not clear abo= >ut =3D
the code.=3D20
Not sure what you mean about "simplifying" the code. I listed the rathe= >r s=3D
imple and straightforward code so it could be seen how the coefficients = >are=3D
being generated. I don't even know what the language is and I was able=
undertstand was it was doing to a large degree. =3D20=20
Sorry if my posts are not appropriate. I'm not sure what to say that wo= >uld=3D
be better.=3D20
--=3D20
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Your posts are not inappropriate and asking questions, even questions
about code, is fine. There will be a lot of folks, however, like
Piergiorgio and myself and many others, who just find reading somebody
else's code a struggle in itself.
=20
Everybody thinks code they've written is straightforward, because they
wrote it, but it's not obvious or easy to everybody else. I don't
even know what language that code is, or at least the syntax isn't
immediately obvious to me, and figuring it out and how the
coefficients are generated is just not how I want to spend any of my
time.
=20
It might be easy, but it isn't obvious enough to pass the
investigation threshold for some of us. That said, maybe somebody
else will come along and give it a shot.
=20
But don't be discouraged from asking questions or posting problems.
And don't let the old grumpy guys like me slow you down just because
we're not willing to do something.
Thanks for the reply.=20
I am surprised that anyone would say the code is not immediately obvious. =
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:07:19 -0800 (PST), Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 11:44:36 AM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:46:53 -0800 (PST), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:to=3D
=20
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:27:01 AM UTC-5, Richard (Rick) Lyons wr= >ote=3D
:
Rick C.ting someone to "simplify" that code for you. Then as Piergiorgio strugg= >les=3D
You're being unreasonable by posting uncommented code here and then ex= >pec=3D
to try to help, you replied to him in a rude way.
Sorry if anyone thought I was rude. I was asking what was not clear abo= >ut =3D
the code.=3D20
Not sure what you mean about "simplifying" the code. I listed the rathe= >r s=3D
imple and straightforward code so it could be seen how the coefficients = >are=3D
being generated. I don't even know what the language is and I was able=
undertstand was it was doing to a large degree. =3D20=20
Sorry if my posts are not appropriate. I'm not sure what to say that wo= >uld=3D
be better.=3D20
--=3D20
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Your posts are not inappropriate and asking questions, even questions
about code, is fine. There will be a lot of folks, however, like
Piergiorgio and myself and many others, who just find reading somebody
else's code a struggle in itself.
=20
Everybody thinks code they've written is straightforward, because they
wrote it, but it's not obvious or easy to everybody else. I don't
even know what language that code is, or at least the syntax isn't
immediately obvious to me, and figuring it out and how the
coefficients are generated is just not how I want to spend any of my
time.
=20
It might be easy, but it isn't obvious enough to pass the
investigation threshold for some of us. That said, maybe somebody
else will come along and give it a shot.
=20
But don't be discouraged from asking questions or posting problems.
And don't let the old grumpy guys like me slow you down just because
we're not willing to do something.
Thanks for the reply.=20
I am surprised that anyone would say the code is not immediately obvious. =
Hence the disconnect.
For example, in the leading comment:
y% is an integer value that goes from
filter length / 2 to +filter length / 2 )
The % has specific meaning in some languages, but do those meanings
apply here? I've no idea.
y% can't be an integer value for "filter length/2" for odd filter
lengths, so does that mean the intent is to reject all even lengths?
I've no idea, and it's not wise to assume, so many will just pass.
Even if you get past the above, the value runs from:
filter length / 2
to
+filter length / 2
So, it doesn't run? Or it just has one, singular value?
I've no idea.
So, yeah, it's not obvious, even getting past the very first comment.
One could make assumptions, but that's usually not productive.
When it's clear as mud, you need to be willing to wade throug the mud,
and many aren't.
On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 6:59:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:07:19 -0800 (PST), Rick C>
y% can't be an integer value for "filter length/2" for odd filter
lengths, so does that mean the intent is to reject all even lengths?
Of course it can be integer. What is 11/2? 5! I don't know if that is what they are using to calculate the coefficients or not.
It may be that this is only for odd length filters. I don't know and I don't really care much.
On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 6:59:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:07:19 -0800 (PST), Rick Cwr=3D
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 11:44:36 AM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrot= >e:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:46:53 -0800 (PST), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
=3D20
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:27:01 AM UTC-5, Richard (Rick) Lyons=
ex=3Dote=3D3D
:
Rick C.
You're being unreasonable by posting uncommented code here and then=
wo=3Dpec=3D3D
les=3D3Dting someone to "simplify" that code for you. Then as Piergiorgio str= >ugg=3D
ut =3D3Dto try to help, you replied to him in a rude way.
Sorry if anyone thought I was rude. I was asking what was not clear = >abo=3D
r s=3D3Dthe code.=3D3D20
Not sure what you mean about "simplifying" the code. I listed the ra= >the=3D
are=3D3Dimple and straightforward code so it could be seen how the coefficien= >ts =3D
to=3D3Dbeing generated. I don't even know what the language is and I was a= >ble=3D
undertstand was it was doing to a large degree. =3D3D20
Sorry if my posts are not appropriate. I'm not sure what to say that=
uld=3D3D=20
be better.=3D3D20=3D20
--=3D3D20
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Your posts are not inappropriate and asking questions, even questions
about code, is fine. There will be a lot of folks, however, like
Piergiorgio and myself and many others, who just find reading somebody
else's code a struggle in itself.
=3D20
Everybody thinks code they've written is straightforward, because they
wrote it, but it's not obvious or easy to everybody else. I don't
even know what language that code is, or at least the syntax isn't
immediately obvious to me, and figuring it out and how the
coefficients are generated is just not how I want to spend any of my
time.
=3D20
It might be easy, but it isn't obvious enough to pass the
investigation threshold for some of us. That said, maybe somebody
else will come along and give it a shot.
=3D20
But don't be discouraged from asking questions or posting problems.
And don't let the old grumpy guys like me slow you down just because
we're not willing to do something.
Thanks for the reply.=3D20
I am surprised that anyone would say the code is not immediately obvious= >. =3D
Hence the disconnect.
=20
For example, in the leading comment:
=20
y% is an integer value that goes from
filter length / 2 to +filter length / 2 )
=20
The % has specific meaning in some languages, but do those meanings
apply here? I've no idea.
I guess some people are more intuitive than others. I don't see how the pe= >rcent sign is even relevant when reading that comment. The important point=
is that the variable is stepped through the range of filter length which i=
s a symmetrical range. =20
Why would you even be trying to understand details of the language when rea= >ding through this code to understand what the intent is? Obviously you can= >'t discern the details of the language. Why even try?=20
y% can't be an integer value for "filter length/2" for odd filter
lengths, so does that mean the intent is to reject all even lengths?
Of course it can be integer. What is 11/2? 5! I don't know if that is wh= >at they are using to calculate the coefficients or not. It may be that thi= >s is only for odd length filters. I don't know and I don't really care muc= >h. =20
I've no idea, and it's not wise to assume, so many will just pass.
That's fine. But assumption is exactly what is needed here, but not about = >the parts you are having trouble with. Those parts can be ignored at first= >. =20
Not trying to be rude or judgemental or anything negative. I recall in ele= >mentary school I would be very literal about the things I read. If I didn'= >t understand a word or a phrase I would stop. I was taught to read a first=
pass to get some idea of what was being said. Then I could go back to see= if it made more sense.=20
Even if you get past the above, the value runs from:
=20
filter length / 2=20
=20
to=20
=20
+filter length / 2
=20
So, it doesn't run? Or it just has one, singular value?
=20
I've no idea.
Not clear what you are trying to say. The code does not have any looping c= >onstruct to increment the value, so the assumption is that that is done in = >some other aspect of the code or tool that aren't shown here. =20
The part you are getting hung up on is the index for the filter coefficient= >s. I don't understand what is unclear about that. Once you know that - ev= >erything else about the index in the code should be clear. No? Not that i= >t matters though. =20
So, yeah, it's not obvious, even getting past the very first comment.
=20
One could make assumptions, but that's usually not productive.
=20
When it's clear as mud, you need to be willing to wade throug the mud,
and many aren't.
What mud?
You don't even need to look at the code other than to realize th=
ey are calculating filter coefficients and the center tap coefficient for t= >he odd length filter is a 1 which I pointed out. At that point I said the = >coefficients for an odd length allpass filter were all zero except for a 1 = >at the center tap. I asked what the filter coefficients would be if the a= >llpass filter were even length. No inspection of the code is needed for th= >at. =20
Is the question not clear? =20
--=20
Rick C.
--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 19:59:30 -0800 (PST), Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 6:59:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:07:19 -0800 (PST), Rick Cwr=3D
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 11:44:36 AM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrot= >e:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:46:53 -0800 (PST), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
=3D20
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:27:01 AM UTC-5, Richard (Rick) Lyons=
ex=3Dote=3D3D
:
Rick C.
You're being unreasonable by posting uncommented code here and then=
wo=3Dpec=3D3D
les=3D3Dting someone to "simplify" that code for you. Then as Piergiorgio str= >ugg=3D
ut =3D3Dto try to help, you replied to him in a rude way.
Sorry if anyone thought I was rude. I was asking what was not clear = >abo=3D
r s=3D3Dthe code.=3D3D20
Not sure what you mean about "simplifying" the code. I listed the ra= >the=3D
are=3D3Dimple and straightforward code so it could be seen how the coefficien= >ts =3D
to=3D3Dbeing generated. I don't even know what the language is and I was a= >ble=3D
undertstand was it was doing to a large degree. =3D3D20
Sorry if my posts are not appropriate. I'm not sure what to say that=
uld=3D3D=20
be better.=3D3D20=3D20
--=3D3D20
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Your posts are not inappropriate and asking questions, even questions >> >> about code, is fine. There will be a lot of folks, however, like
Piergiorgio and myself and many others, who just find reading somebody >> >> else's code a struggle in itself.
=3D20
Everybody thinks code they've written is straightforward, because they >> >> wrote it, but it's not obvious or easy to everybody else. I don't
even know what language that code is, or at least the syntax isn't
immediately obvious to me, and figuring it out and how the
coefficients are generated is just not how I want to spend any of my
time.
=3D20
It might be easy, but it isn't obvious enough to pass the
investigation threshold for some of us. That said, maybe somebody
else will come along and give it a shot.
=3D20
But don't be discouraged from asking questions or posting problems.
And don't let the old grumpy guys like me slow you down just because
we're not willing to do something.
Thanks for the reply.=3D20
I am surprised that anyone would say the code is not immediately obvious= >. =3D
Hence the disconnect.
=20
For example, in the leading comment:
=20
y% is an integer value that goes from
filter length / 2 to +filter length / 2 )
=20
The % has specific meaning in some languages, but do those meanings
apply here? I've no idea.
I guess some people are more intuitive than others. I don't see how the pe= >rcent sign is even relevant when reading that comment. The important point=
is that the variable is stepped through the range of filter length which i=
s a symmetrical range. =20
The percent sign appears in the code, so is very relevant to
attempting to understand what it means.
The range, as shown, may not be symmetrical, depending on what is
meant. When it comes to ambiguous code, assumptions are often counterproductive.
Why would you even be trying to understand details of the language when rea= >ding through this code to understand what the intent is? Obviously you can= >'t discern the details of the language. Why even try?=20
That's why many don't.
y% can't be an integer value for "filter length/2" for odd filter
lengths, so does that mean the intent is to reject all even lengths?
Of course it can be integer. What is 11/2? 5! I don't know if that is wh= >at they are using to calculate the coefficients or not. It may be that thi= >s is only for odd length filters. I don't know and I don't really care muc= >h. =20
Then I'm glad I didn't spend any time trying to understand it.
I've no idea, and it's not wise to assume, so many will just pass.
That's fine. But assumption is exactly what is needed here, but not about = >the parts you are having trouble with. Those parts can be ignored at first= >. =20
Not trying to be rude or judgemental or anything negative. I recall in ele= >mentary school I would be very literal about the things I read. If I didn'= >t understand a word or a phrase I would stop. I was taught to read a first=
pass to get some idea of what was being said. Then I could go back to see= if it made more sense.=20
That's great with people, but you posted code. Computers don't do
nuance, they are the epitome of literal, so asking somebody to analyze
a chunk of code requires understanding of how that code will be
executed. Since it doesn't appear to be a very common language, if
it's even a language and not pseudo-code, but I don't really know
which, it's hard to say what it'll do without knowing the details of
how the code will be executed.
e.g., does it round up? down? toward zero? away from zero? You
stated previously 11/2 = 5, but there's no way to know that and you
certainly didn't state it previously. And that's a critical thing to
know to understand how many or what coefficients would be generated.
Even if you get past the above, the value runs from:
=20
filter length / 2=20
=20
to=20
=20
+filter length / 2
=20
So, it doesn't run? Or it just has one, singular value?
=20
I've no idea.
Not clear what you are trying to say. The code does not have any looping c= >onstruct to increment the value, so the assumption is that that is done in = >some other aspect of the code or tool that aren't shown here. =20
Another unstated assumption.
The part you are getting hung up on is the index for the filter coefficient= >s. I don't understand what is unclear about that. Once you know that - ev= >erything else about the index in the code should be clear. No? Not that i= >t matters though. =20
No.
So, yeah, it's not obvious, even getting past the very first comment. >>=20
One could make assumptions, but that's usually not productive.
=20
When it's clear as mud, you need to be willing to wade throug the mud,
and many aren't.
What mud?
The points I made previously regarding the ambiguity of interpreting
the code. You have since pointed out additional ambiguity.
You don't even need to look at the code other than to realize th=
ey are calculating filter coefficients and the center tap coefficient for t= >he odd length filter is a 1 which I pointed out. At that point I said the = >coefficients for an odd length allpass filter were all zero except for a 1 = >at the center tap. I asked what the filter coefficients would be if the a= >llpass filter were even length. No inspection of the code is needed for th= >at. =20
Is the question not clear? =20
Apparently not.
However, if your filter coefficients for the odd-length all-pass are a
one at the center tap with zeros on either side, you can make it an even-length all-pass with exactly the same frequency response by
deleting any one of the zeros.
I hope that helps.
Am 13.12.19 um 04:59 schrieb Rick C:
On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 6:59:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:07:19 -0800 (PST), Rick C>
y% can't be an integer value for "filter length/2" for odd filter
lengths, so does that mean the intent is to reject all even lengths?
Of course it can be integer. What is 11/2? 5! I don't know if that is what they are using to calculate the coefficients or not.
You can never have an even length filter then. If it runs from -f/2 to
+f/2, there is always the zero in the middle, by definition you create
an odd number of coefficients.
It may be that this is only for odd length filters. I don't know and I don't really care much.
You'll have to understand that we care much less than you abou this problem.
Christian
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 5:52:32 PM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 19:59:30 -0800 (PST), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 6:59:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:07:19 -0800 (PST), Rick Ce:
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 11:44:36 AM UTC-5, Eric Jacobsen wrot=
wr=3DOn Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:46:53 -0800 (PST), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
=3D20
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:27:01 AM UTC-5, Richard (Rick) Lyons=
ex=3Dote=3D3D
:
Rick C.
You're being unreasonable by posting uncommented code here and then=
ugg=3Dpec=3D3D
ting someone to "simplify" that code for you. Then as Piergiorgio str=
abo=3Dles=3D3D
to try to help, you replied to him in a rude way.
Sorry if anyone thought I was rude. I was asking what was not clear =
the=3Dut =3D3D
the code.=3D3D20
Not sure what you mean about "simplifying" the code. I listed the ra=
ts =3Dr s=3D3D
imple and straightforward code so it could be seen how the coefficien=
ble=3Dare=3D3D
being generated. I don't even know what the language is and I was a=
wo=3Dto=3D3D
undertstand was it was doing to a large degree. =3D3D20
Sorry if my posts are not appropriate. I'm not sure what to say that=
. =3Duld=3D3D
be better.=3D3D20=3D20
--=3D3D20
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Your posts are not inappropriate and asking questions, even questions >> >> >> about code, is fine. There will be a lot of folks, however, like
Piergiorgio and myself and many others, who just find reading somebody >> >> >> else's code a struggle in itself.
=3D20
Everybody thinks code they've written is straightforward, because they >> >> >> wrote it, but it's not obvious or easy to everybody else. I don't
even know what language that code is, or at least the syntax isn't
immediately obvious to me, and figuring it out and how the
coefficients are generated is just not how I want to spend any of my >> >> >> time.
=3D20
It might be easy, but it isn't obvious enough to pass the
investigation threshold for some of us. That said, maybe somebody
else will come along and give it a shot.
=3D20
But don't be discouraged from asking questions or posting problems.
And don't let the old grumpy guys like me slow you down just because >> >> >> we're not willing to do something.
Thanks for the reply.=3D20
I am surprised that anyone would say the code is not immediately obvious=
=20
Hence the disconnect.
=20
For example, in the leading comment:
=20
y% is an integer value that goes from
filter length / 2 to +filter length / 2 )
=20
The % has specific meaning in some languages, but do those meanings
apply here? I've no idea.
I guess some people are more intuitive than others. I don't see how the pe=
rcent sign is even relevant when reading that comment. The important point=
is that the variable is stepped through the range of filter length which i=
s a symmetrical range. =20
The percent sign appears in the code, so is very relevant to
attempting to understand what it means.
The range, as shown, may not be symmetrical, depending on what is
meant. When it comes to ambiguous code, assumptions are often
counterproductive.
Why would you even be trying to understand details of the language when rea=
ding through this code to understand what the intent is? Obviously you can=
't discern the details of the language. Why even try?=20
That's why many don't.
y% can't be an integer value for "filter length/2" for odd filter
lengths, so does that mean the intent is to reject all even lengths?
Of course it can be integer. What is 11/2? 5! I don't know if that is wh=
at they are using to calculate the coefficients or not. It may be that thi=
s is only for odd length filters. I don't know and I don't really care muc=
h. =20
Then I'm glad I didn't spend any time trying to understand it.
I've no idea, and it's not wise to assume, so many will just pass.
That's fine. But assumption is exactly what is needed here, but not about =
the parts you are having trouble with. Those parts can be ignored at first=
. =20
Not trying to be rude or judgemental or anything negative. I recall in ele=
mentary school I would be very literal about the things I read. If I didn'=
t understand a word or a phrase I would stop. I was taught to read a first=
pass to get some idea of what was being said. Then I could go back to see=
if it made more sense.=20
That's great with people, but you posted code. Computers don't do
nuance, they are the epitome of literal, so asking somebody to analyze
a chunk of code requires understanding of how that code will be
executed. Since it doesn't appear to be a very common language, if
it's even a language and not pseudo-code, but I don't really know
which, it's hard to say what it'll do without knowing the details of
how the code will be executed.
e.g., does it round up? down? toward zero? away from zero? You
stated previously 11/2 = 5, but there's no way to know that and you
certainly didn't state it previously. And that's a critical thing to
know to understand how many or what coefficients would be generated.
Even if you get past the above, the value runs from:
=20
filter length / 2=20
=20
to=20
=20
+filter length / 2
=20
So, it doesn't run? Or it just has one, singular value?
=20
I've no idea.
Not clear what you are trying to say. The code does not have any looping c=
onstruct to increment the value, so the assumption is that that is done in =
some other aspect of the code or tool that aren't shown here. =20
Another unstated assumption.
The part you are getting hung up on is the index for the filter coefficient=
s. I don't understand what is unclear about that. Once you know that - ev=
erything else about the index in the code should be clear. No? Not that i=
t matters though. =20
No.
So, yeah, it's not obvious, even getting past the very first comment.
=20
One could make assumptions, but that's usually not productive.
=20
When it's clear as mud, you need to be willing to wade throug the mud,
and many aren't.
What mud?
The points I made previously regarding the ambiguity of interpreting
the code. You have since pointed out additional ambiguity.
You don't even need to look at the code other than to realize th=
ey are calculating filter coefficients and the center tap coefficient for t=
he odd length filter is a 1 which I pointed out. At that point I said the =
coefficients for an odd length allpass filter were all zero except for a 1 =
at the center tap. I asked what the filter coefficients would be if the a=
llpass filter were even length. No inspection of the code is needed for th=
at. =20
Is the question not clear? =20
Apparently not.
However, if your filter coefficients for the odd-length all-pass are a
one at the center tap with zeros on either side, you can make it an
even-length all-pass with exactly the same frequency response by
deleting any one of the zeros.
I hope that helps.
Not really. I could produce an all pass filter by setting any one coefficient to a 1 and the rest to zero. But they will all have different delays. The point is to have an all pass that the band pass would be subtracted from.
It is amazing to me how much effort people have spent explaining how little effort they are willing to spend to understand the question and help.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 59:49:45 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,285 |