> In the Lotus 123 days I did a lot of DSP experimentation in
> spreadsheets. I had some fairly usable filter design stuff too. I
> wonder if that is still on an old disk somwhere?
That'd be cool to see, if you can post it somewhere. :-)
Ciao,
Peter K.
Reply by Steve Underwood●December 3, 20052005-12-03
Richard Owlett wrote:
> Rocky wrote:
>
>> Jon Harris wrote:
>>
>>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
>>> news:3cGdndRqqOuTVg3enZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@rcn.net...
>>>
>>>> Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think I know the answers, but then again ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a "hobby" project to evaluate intelligibility of speech with
>>>>> varying
>>>>> parameters ( primarily sample rate and bandwidth ).
>>>>>
>>>>> [ for perspective, in a previous incantation I "discovered"
>>>>> formants ;]
>>>>>
>>>>> My sample universe is a reading of the Bible recorded under studio
>>>>> conditions. As it is a commercial recording, I'm assuming Nyquist
>>>>> is the
>>>>> least restrictive criterion it meets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I correct thinking that if I digitally filter my source to less
>>>>> than 3 kHz
>>>>> i can safely decimate to 8 kHz sample rate?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes
>>>
>>>
>>> And if you filter is good enough, you can push the cut-off further up
>>> toward
>>> 4kHz.
>>
>>
>>
>> You might want to consider a slightly heretical approach and set the
>> filter ABOVE nyquist! Use aliasing as one of the parameters. Try about
>> 5KHz cuttoff with 8KHz sampling rate.
>>
>> I think you might be surprised at the results if it is only speech you
>> are evaluating.
>>
>> Regards
>> Rocky
>>
>
> Moi. Heretical?
> All I've done is suggest DSP be done in TECO, COBOL, or VBA in MSWord ;}
You missed one of the critically important ones - Excel and OpenOffice
spreadsheets. :-)
In the Lotus 123 days I did a lot of DSP experimentation in
spreadsheets. I had some fairly usable filter design stuff too. I wonder
if that is still on an old disk somwhere?
Steve
Reply by Richard Owlett●December 3, 20052005-12-03
Rocky wrote:
> Jon Harris wrote:
>
>>"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
>>news:3cGdndRqqOuTVg3enZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@rcn.net...
>>
>>>Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think I know the answers, but then again ;)
>>>>
>>>>I have a "hobby" project to evaluate intelligibility of speech with varying
>>>>parameters ( primarily sample rate and bandwidth ).
>>>>
>>>>[ for perspective, in a previous incantation I "discovered" formants ;]
>>>>
>>>>My sample universe is a reading of the Bible recorded under studio
>>>>conditions. As it is a commercial recording, I'm assuming Nyquist is the
>>>>least restrictive criterion it meets.
>>>>
>>>>Am I correct thinking that if I digitally filter my source to less than 3 kHz
>>>>i can safely decimate to 8 kHz sample rate?
>>>
>>>Yes
>>
>>And if you filter is good enough, you can push the cut-off further up toward
>>4kHz.
>
>
> You might want to consider a slightly heretical approach and set the
> filter ABOVE nyquist! Use aliasing as one of the parameters. Try about
> 5KHz cuttoff with 8KHz sampling rate.
>
> I think you might be surprised at the results if it is only speech you
> are evaluating.
>
> Regards
> Rocky
>
Moi. Heretical?
All I've done is suggest DSP be done in TECO, COBOL, or VBA in MSWord ;}
Reply by Rocky●December 3, 20052005-12-03
Jon Harris wrote:
> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:3cGdndRqqOuTVg3enZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@rcn.net...
> > Richard Owlett wrote:
> >> I think I know the answers, but then again ;)
> >>
> >> I have a "hobby" project to evaluate intelligibility of speech with varying
> >> parameters ( primarily sample rate and bandwidth ).
> >>
> >> [ for perspective, in a previous incantation I "discovered" formants ;]
> >>
> >> My sample universe is a reading of the Bible recorded under studio
> >> conditions. As it is a commercial recording, I'm assuming Nyquist is the
> >> least restrictive criterion it meets.
> >>
> >> Am I correct thinking that if I digitally filter my source to less than 3 kHz
> >> i can safely decimate to 8 kHz sample rate?
> >
> > Yes
>
> And if you filter is good enough, you can push the cut-off further up toward
> 4kHz.
You might want to consider a slightly heretical approach and set the
filter ABOVE nyquist! Use aliasing as one of the parameters. Try about
5KHz cuttoff with 8KHz sampling rate.
I think you might be surprised at the results if it is only speech you
are evaluating.
Regards
Rocky
Reply by Jon Harris●December 3, 20052005-12-03
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:3cGdndRqqOuTVg3enZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@rcn.net...
> Richard Owlett wrote:
>> I think I know the answers, but then again ;)
>>
>> I have a "hobby" project to evaluate intelligibility of speech with varying
>> parameters ( primarily sample rate and bandwidth ).
>>
>> [ for perspective, in a previous incantation I "discovered" formants ;]
>>
>> My sample universe is a reading of the Bible recorded under studio
>> conditions. As it is a commercial recording, I'm assuming Nyquist is the
>> least restrictive criterion it meets.
>>
>> Am I correct thinking that if I digitally filter my source to less than 3 kHz
>> i can safely decimate to 8 kHz sample rate?
>
> Yes
And if you filter is good enough, you can push the cut-off further up toward
4kHz.
Reply by Jerry Avins●December 2, 20052005-12-02
Richard Owlett wrote:
> I think I know the answers, but then again ;)
>
> I have a "hobby" project to evaluate intelligibility of speech with
> varying parameters ( primarily sample rate and bandwidth ).
>
> [ for perspective, in a previous incantation I "discovered" formants ;]
>
> My sample universe is a reading of the Bible recorded under studio
> conditions. As it is a commercial recording, I'm assuming Nyquist is the
> least restrictive criterion it meets.
>
> Am I correct thinking that if I digitally filter my source to less than
> 3 kHz i can safely decimate to 8 kHz sample rate?
Yes
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Richard Owlett●December 2, 20052005-12-02
I think I know the answers, but then again ;)
I have a "hobby" project to evaluate intelligibility of speech with
varying parameters ( primarily sample rate and bandwidth ).
[ for perspective, in a previous incantation I "discovered" formants ;]
My sample universe is a reading of the Bible recorded under studio
conditions. As it is a commercial recording, I'm assuming Nyquist is the
least restrictive criterion it meets.
Am I correct thinking that if I digitally filter my source to less than
3 kHz i can safely decimate to 8 kHz sample rate?