A simple-to-use sound file writer
in [Python]
|
Prev: dict's as dict's key.
Next: enhancing 'list'
From: Steve Holden on 14 Jan 2010 23:42 Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > * Steve Holden: >> Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >>> * Lie Ryan: >>>> On 01/15/10 05:42, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >>>>> I'm beginning to believe that you maybe didn't grok that simple >>>>> procedure. >>>>> >>>>> It's very very very trivial, so maybe you were looking for something >>>>> more intricate -- they used to say, in the old days, "hold on, this >>>>> proof goes by so fast you may not notice it!" >>>> Since you said it's trivial, then... >>> You can't get it more trivial. >>> >>> >>>>>> Nothing about you there. Just the information you are promoting. I >>>>>> don't >>>>>> normally deal in innuendo and personal attacks. Though I do >>>>>> occasionally >>>>>> get irritated by what I perceive to be hogwash. People who know me >>>>>> will >>>>>> tell you, if I am wrong I will happily admit it. >>>>> There's a difference between an algorithm that you can implement, and >>>>> hogwash. >>>> please prove your claim by writing that algorithm in code and post >>>> it in >>>> this list. The program must accept a .wav file (or sound format of your >>>> choice) and process it according to your algorithm and the output >>>> another .wav file (or sound format of your choice) that sounds roughly >>>> similar to the input file. >>> First, the (very very trivial) algorithm I posted does *not* do that: by >>> itself it represents a sine wave, not an arbitrary wave form. >>> >>> And second I'm not about to write Fourier transform code to satisfy >>> someone who refuses to do a milligram of thinking. >>> >>> The Fourier part stuff needed to do what you're requesting is >>> non-trivial, or at least it's some work to write the code. >>> >>> >>>> PS: I have near-zero experience with sound processing >>>> PPS: I will be equally delighted seeing either Steve admitting his >>>> wrong >>>> or you admit your hogwash >>>> PPPS: An alternative way to convince us is to provide a paper/article >>>> that describes this algorithm. >>>> PPPPS: Though I will be quite sad if you choose to reject the challenge >>> I don't believe any of what you write here. >>> >> Well, it seems quite reasonable to me, but then I'm not the one being >> challenged to write a trivial algorithm. > > You're again into innuendo, misleading statements and so forth. Lie > Ryan's challenge is nothing but trivial, because it's about implementing > very much more than the algorithm. I did implement the algorithm for > him, in Python, and posted that in this thread. > > >> I will, however, observe that your definition of a square wave is what I >> would have to call a "'square' wave" (and would prefer to call a "pulse >> train"), as I envisage a square wave as a waveform having a 50% duty >> cycle, as in >> >> ___ ___ >> | | | | >> | | | | >> | | | | >> +---+---+---+---+ and so on ad infinitum, (though I might allow you >> | | | | to adjust the position >> | | | | of y=0 if you want) >> |___| |___| >> >> as opposed to your >> >> _ >> | | >> | | >> ______| |______ ______ >> | | >> | | >> |_| >> > > Try to read again, a sufficient number of times, how to generate the > latter by summing *two instances of the former*. > > I'm sorry to say this but I find it hard to explain things simple enough > for you, because at the level of 2+2 any explanation is far more complex > than the concept itself. > > That is, of course, a challenge to me! :-) > > So, thanks for challenging my pedagogical abilities. > > I know they're not as good as they should be, and need some exercise! > > >> So I can see how we might be at cross purposes. I could cite authorities >> for differentiating between a square wave and a symmetric pulse train, >> but will content myself with observing only that my impression is the >> common definition of an ideal square wave (one with a zero transition >> time) admits of only two instantaneous values, eschewing the zero you >> use. If that is the case, we could perhaps agree that we differ merely >> on terminology. > > No, we don't differ on terminology: we seem to differ in that one of us > has severe difficulties understanding the very simplest things, such as > what graph one gets by summing two squares waves of same frequency but > out of phase. > > The one of us who has trouble understanding that is also apparently too > lazy to try out the earlier advice given him of graphing this on a piece > of paper, and instead prefers to spout innuendu, personal attacks and > misleading statements. > > That's a real challenge to the other person. > > >> Or, best of all, you could show me how to synthesize any waveform by >> adding square waves with a 50% duty cycle. Then I *will* be impressed. > > You would, yes? > > Perhaps you'd also admit to being wrong, and retract your innuoendo etc.? > > Well, just epress the waveform as a sum of sine waves (Fourier > transform); synthesize each sine wave by a set of 50% duty cycle square > waves (I've earlier posted Python code for that in this thread); add all > the square waves. The hard part of this is implementing the Fourier > transform, I leave that to you. ;-) > Finally, I think, the penny is beginning to drop. Give me a little more time to think about it and I can see I might be willing to write the words "I was wring". Shame about my typing, isn't it? ;-) regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/
From: Steve Holden on 14 Jan 2010 23:43 Alf P. Steinbach wrote: [...] > Perhaps you'd also admit to being wrong, and retract your innuoendo etc.? > Disregarding any matters of right or wrong (for this post, at least), I herebe retract anything I have said about you that you consider innuendo. Feel free to remind me what that was. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/
From: Alf P. Steinbach on 15 Jan 2010 00:13 * Steve Holden: > Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > [...] >> Perhaps you'd also admit to being wrong, and retract your innuoendo etc.? >> > Disregarding any matters of right or wrong (for this post, at least), I > herebe retract anything I have said about you that you consider > innuendo. OK. > Feel free to remind me what that was. It would IMHO serve no good purpose to reiterate that. At this point, let's just start fresh. Cheers & hth., - Alf
From: Steven D'Aprano on 15 Jan 2010 02:59 On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:23:48 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > You're again into innuendo, misleading statements and so forth. [...] > [Steve Holden] prefers to spout innuendu, personal attacks and > misleading statements. Your constant and repeated accusations that any questioning of you is deliberate lying and innuendo (innuendo of what, I wonder?) is getting tiresome. You did this to me, accusing me of deliberate lying, and now you're doing the same to Steve. Just because people question the (alleged) facts as you report it doesn't mean they're deliberately trying to mislead others. Hasn't it occurred to you that perhaps we're not deliberately lying to make you look bad but actually think you are mistaken? A difference of opinion is not evidence that people are lying. For somebody who fancies himself a writer teaching beginners to programming, your communication skills leave something to be desired. I hope your book is better than your posts, because from what I have seen your writing in this newsgroup is frequently sloppy and hard to understand, you tend to use terms in non-standard ways and then take any misunderstandings as a personal affront, and if anyone questions what you say, you're likely bristle and start looking for a fight. I don't know what your problem is, but I wish you'd deal with it in private and stop dumping it on the rest of us. You're a smart fellow who brings much of value to the community, but dealing with your posts is becoming more trouble than they're worth. -- Steven
From: Alf P. Steinbach on 15 Jan 2010 03:22
* Steven D'Aprano: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:23:48 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > >> You're again into innuendo, misleading statements and so forth. > [...] >> [Steve Holden] prefers to spout innuendu, personal attacks and >> misleading statements. > > Your constant and repeated accusations that any questioning of you is > deliberate lying and innuendo (innuendo of what, I wonder?) is getting > tiresome. You did this to me, accusing me of deliberate lying, and now > you're doing the same to Steve. You did lie, that's established. In addition as I recall in the same post you went on about my motivations for doing the Terrible Deed that you invented. And you named one poor person who'd made a silly mistake, stating that he didn't do what the logs clearly showed he did do, and I think that was to force me to argue a case against him (but happily he did a superb job after that initial mistake, it would have been much harder for me to respond to your egging if not for that very good job he did). And now you're trying to get me to argue a case against another person. That's not very nice. > Just because people question the (alleged) facts as you report it doesn't > mean they're deliberately trying to mislead others. Hasn't it occurred to > you that perhaps we're not deliberately lying to make you look bad but > actually think you are mistaken? A difference of opinion is not evidence > that people are lying. Mostly I assume that people who disagree with me think I'm mistaken, yes. But when someone writes an article that's mainly or only about me, as has happened once earlier in this thread and that now you're doing, then I of course assume that it's personal, that the person writing has transferred some grievances from the technical domain to the personal domain. > For somebody who fancies himself a writer teaching beginners to > programming, your communication skills leave something to be desired. I > hope your book is better than your posts, because from what I have seen > your writing in this newsgroup is frequently sloppy and hard to > understand, you tend to use terms in non-standard ways and then take any > misunderstandings as a personal affront, and if anyone questions what you > say, you're likely bristle and start looking for a fight. I'm probably a bad person, he he. :-) > I don't know what your problem is, but I wish you'd deal with it in > private and stop dumping it on the rest of us. You're a smart fellow who > brings much of value to the community, but dealing with your posts is > becoming more trouble than they're worth. Well please stop posting these silly articles about me, and *please* stop dragging other people into it. Cheers & hth., - Alf |