Hi, We are seeking a contractor to provide the coefficients for a set of EQ filters with specific frequency responses, at given sample rates. The filters we need the coefficients for are the frequency weighting equalizer for LEQ(m) as given by http://www.tasatrailers.org/TASAStandard.pdf section 1.4.2 at various standard audio sample rates (eg- 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz), and preferably the matlab code (or whatever was used to generate the coefficients) so that we can generate the filters for other sample rates if necessary in the future. Please email me at paul at nugenaudio.com for more details Thanks Paul Dr. Paul Tapper, Technical Director, NUGEN Audio
Seeking contractor to design some FIR or IIR filters
Started by ●October 12, 2011
Reply by ●October 13, 20112011-10-13
NugenAudio wrote:> We are seeking a contractor to provide the coefficients for a set of EQ > filters with specific frequency responses, at given sample rates. > > The filters we need the coefficients for are the frequency weighting > equalizer for LEQ(m) as given by > http://www.tasatrailers.org/TASAStandard.pdf section 1.4.2 at various > standard audio sample rates (eg- 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz), and > preferably the matlab code (or whatever was used to generate the > coefficients) so that we can generate the filters for other sample rates > if necessary in the future.Looking at the products you advise on your homepage nugenaudio.com, it's hard to believe that you do not have the knowledge to solve this task on your own. bye Andreas -- Andreas H�nnebeck | email: acmh@gmx.de ----- privat ---- | www : http://www.huennebeck-online.de Fax/Anrufbeantworter: 0721/151-284301 GPG-Key: http://www.huennebeck-online.de/public_keys/andreas.asc PGP-Key: http://www.huennebeck-online.de/public_keys/pgp_andreas.asc
Reply by ●October 13, 20112011-10-13
Andreas Huennebeck <acmh@gmx.de> wrote:>NugenAudio wrote:>> We are seeking a contractor to provide the coefficients for a set of EQ >> filters with specific frequency responses, at given sample rates.>> The filters we need the coefficients for are the frequency weighting >> equalizer for LEQ(m) as given by >> http://www.tasatrailers.org/TASAStandard.pdf section 1.4.2 at various >> standard audio sample rates (eg- 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz), and >> preferably the matlab code (or whatever was used to generate the >> coefficients) so that we can generate the filters for other sample rates >> if necessary in the future. > >Looking at the products you advise on your homepage nugenaudio.com, >it's hard to believe that you do not have the knowledge to solve this task >on your own.Good. A project leader should have the knowledge to do every sub-task, even if he/she doesn't have the time to do every sub-task. Steve
Reply by ●October 13, 20112011-10-13
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:05:10 +0000, Steve Pope wrote:> Andreas Huennebeck <acmh@gmx.de> wrote: > >>NugenAudio wrote: > >>> We are seeking a contractor to provide the coefficients for a set of >>> EQ filters with specific frequency responses, at given sample rates. > >>> The filters we need the coefficients for are the frequency weighting >>> equalizer for LEQ(m) as given by >>> http://www.tasatrailers.org/TASAStandard.pdf section 1.4.2 at various >>> standard audio sample rates (eg- 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz), and >>> preferably the matlab code (or whatever was used to generate the >>> coefficients) so that we can generate the filters for other sample >>> rates if necessary in the future. >> >>Looking at the products you advise on your homepage nugenaudio.com, it's >>hard to believe that you do not have the knowledge to solve this task on >>your own. > > Good. A project leader should have the knowledge to do every sub-task, > even if he/she doesn't have the time to do every sub-task.Having worked on projects that were complex enough that no one human being could do every sub-task, I beg to differ. A project leader should certainly be able to understand what he's told by anyone doing a sub- task, to the extent that he needs to do a good job. If you take purchased parts into consideration, no one can do what you say. If I want to build a gizmo that has electronic components soldered onto a board, do I have to be able to mine copper, lead, tin, etc., design chips, fabricate semiconductors, formulate epoxy resin, spin glass fibers, make FR-4, plate it with copper, make solder, make reflow equipment, etc., etc.,? Or do I just have to be able to buy quality parts and put them together in a quality way? -- www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●October 13, 20112011-10-13
Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:05:10 +0000, Steve Pope wrote:>> Good. A project leader should have the knowledge to do every sub-task, >> even if he/she doesn't have the time to do every sub-task.>Having worked on projects that were complex enough that no one human >being could do every sub-task, I beg to differ. A project leader should >certainly be able to understand what he's told by anyone doing a sub- >task, to the extent that he needs to do a good job. > >If you take purchased parts into consideration, no one can do what you >say. If I want to build a gizmo that has electronic components soldered >onto a board, do I have to be able to mine copper, lead, tin, etc., >design chips, fabricate semiconductors, formulate epoxy resin, spin glass >fibers, make FR-4, plate it with copper, make solder, make reflow >equipment, etc., etc.,?I think you're use a reduction-to-absurdity argument which perhaps proves my statement above isn't absolutely valid; but I still think my statement is generally valid. Steve
Reply by ●October 13, 20112011-10-13
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:59:59 +0000, Steve Pope wrote:> Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:05:10 +0000, Steve Pope wrote: > >>> Good. A project leader should have the knowledge to do every >>> sub-task, even if he/she doesn't have the time to do every sub-task. > >>Having worked on projects that were complex enough that no one human >>being could do every sub-task, I beg to differ. A project leader should >>certainly be able to understand what he's told by anyone doing a sub- >>task, to the extent that he needs to do a good job. >> >>If you take purchased parts into consideration, no one can do what you >>say. If I want to build a gizmo that has electronic components soldered >>onto a board, do I have to be able to mine copper, lead, tin, etc., >>design chips, fabricate semiconductors, formulate epoxy resin, spin >>glass fibers, make FR-4, plate it with copper, make solder, make reflow >>equipment, etc., etc.,? > > I think you're use a reduction-to-absurdity argument which perhaps > proves my statement above isn't absolutely valid; but I still think my > statement is generally valid.I think it definitely _helps_ to know how to do all the sub-tasks, but I think that one can definitely do a good job without. Or perhaps the obverse: if you're only willing to manage projects where you can personally do all the sub-tasks, then you're not being adventuresome enough. -- www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●October 13, 20112011-10-13
Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:59:59 +0000, Steve Pope wrote:>> I think you're use a reduction-to-absurdity argument which perhaps >> proves my statement above isn't absolutely valid; but I still think my >> statement is generally valid. > >I think it definitely _helps_ to know how to do all the sub-tasks, but I >think that one can definitely do a good job without. > >Or perhaps the obverse: if you're only willing to manage projects where >you can personally do all the sub-tasks, then you're not being >adventuresome enough.On reflection, you're basically correct on this. I am most comfortable managing projects where the technical work is something that I could (if necessary) personally perform, given enough time, and anything else that needs to be purchased is a pure commodity. Whether that is unadventurous is a subjective question. When the deliverables of a project depend upon unknown or unknowable research results, and I make the assumption that someone else knows how to get these results even though I could not, then that is pretty troubling. (This is not to say I'm opposed to adventurous research projects; but the deliverable should be something deterministically possible, like say "a final report".) S.
Reply by ●October 13, 20112011-10-13
On 10/13/2011 1:10 PM, Steve Pope wrote:> Tim Wescott<tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:59:59 +0000, Steve Pope wrote: > >>> I think you're use a reduction-to-absurdity argument which perhaps >>> proves my statement above isn't absolutely valid; but I still think my >>> statement is generally valid. >> >> I think it definitely _helps_ to know how to do all the sub-tasks, but I >> think that one can definitely do a good job without. >> >> Or perhaps the obverse: if you're only willing to manage projects where >> you can personally do all the sub-tasks, then you're not being >> adventuresome enough. > > On reflection, you're basically correct on this. > > I am most comfortable managing projects where the technical work > is something that I could (if necessary) personally perform, given > enough time, and anything else that needs to be purchased is a pure > commodity. Whether that is unadventurous is a subjective question. When > the deliverables of a project depend upon unknown or unknowable research > results, and I make the assumption that someone else knows how > to get these results even though I could not, then that is pretty troubling. > > (This is not to say I'm opposed to adventurous research projects; > but the deliverable should be something deterministically possible, like > say "a final report".) > > > > S.Well, it's somewhere in between isn't it? There are great stories in the reverse: where the manager understands things better than the prospective workers (and has no choice in the matter). Here's one from my own experience: A group of engineers and managers were meeting with me to review a system design. The purpose of the review was probably to decide if the project was worth pursuing, whether the project team knew what they were doing, etc. The system had some fairly intricate logic in doing things like mode switching, etc. So, I asked them how they were going to perform one or two key functions and their answer was: "there's a computer inside". So, I pushed a bit harder and got the same answer once again. Needless to say that I decided they didn't have the foggiest idea what they were going to do, much less understood my questions as pointing to some very real issues. Now, mind you, they were supposed to be the "experts" in this system field and I was just an experienced system developer - so they probably should have been able to wax eloquently on the subject. Sad they couldn't. Fred
Reply by ●October 13, 20112011-10-13
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:11:49 -0700, Fred Marshall wrote:> On 10/13/2011 1:10 PM, Steve Pope wrote: >> Tim Wescott<tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:59:59 +0000, Steve Pope wrote: >> >>>> I think you're use a reduction-to-absurdity argument which perhaps >>>> proves my statement above isn't absolutely valid; but I still think >>>> my statement is generally valid. >>> >>> I think it definitely _helps_ to know how to do all the sub-tasks, but >>> I think that one can definitely do a good job without. >>> >>> Or perhaps the obverse: if you're only willing to manage projects >>> where you can personally do all the sub-tasks, then you're not being >>> adventuresome enough. >> >> On reflection, you're basically correct on this. >> >> I am most comfortable managing projects where the technical work is >> something that I could (if necessary) personally perform, given enough >> time, and anything else that needs to be purchased is a pure commodity. >> Whether that is unadventurous is a subjective question. When the >> deliverables of a project depend upon unknown or unknowable research >> results, and I make the assumption that someone else knows how to get >> these results even though I could not, then that is pretty troubling. >> >> (This is not to say I'm opposed to adventurous research projects; but >> the deliverable should be something deterministically possible, like >> say "a final report".) >> >> >> >> S. > > Well, it's somewhere in between isn't it? > > There are great stories in the reverse: where the manager understands > things better than the prospective workers (and has no choice in the > matter). Here's one from my own experience: > > A group of engineers and managers were meeting with me to review a > system design. The purpose of the review was probably to decide if the > project was worth pursuing, whether the project team knew what they were > doing, etc. The system had some fairly intricate logic in doing things > like mode switching, etc. > So, I asked them how they were going to perform one or two key functions > and their answer was: "there's a computer inside". So, I pushed a bit > harder and got the same answer once again. Needless to say that I > decided they didn't have the foggiest idea what they were going to do, > much less understood my questions as pointing to some very real issues. > > Now, mind you, they were supposed to be the "experts" in this system > field and I was just an experienced system developer - so they probably > should have been able to wax eloquently on the subject. Sad they > couldn't.What, they couldn't just look you in the eye and say "magic"? This "there's a computer inside" stuff can be so frustrating -- it seems that when you can't convince them that the computer makes some intricate bit of logic possible, you've got some yahoo who thinks that the computer can synthesize answers from no data at all. -- www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●October 13, 20112011-10-13
Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:11:49 -0700, Fred Marshall wrote:>> A group of engineers and managers were meeting with me to review a >> system design. The purpose of the review was probably to decide if the >> project was worth pursuing, whether the project team knew what they were >> doing, etc. The system had some fairly intricate logic in doing things >> like mode switching, etc. >> So, I asked them how they were going to perform one or two key functions >> and their answer was: "there's a computer inside". So, I pushed a bit >> harder and got the same answer once again. Needless to say that I >> decided they didn't have the foggiest idea what they were going to do, >> much less understood my questions as pointing to some very real issues. >> >> Now, mind you, they were supposed to be the "experts" in this system >> field and I was just an experienced system developer - so they probably >> should have been able to wax eloquently on the subject. Sad they >> couldn't. > >What, they couldn't just look you in the eye and say "magic"? > >This "there's a computer inside" stuff can be so frustrating -- it seems >that when you can't convince them that the computer makes some intricate >bit of logic possible, you've got some yahoo who thinks that the computer >can synthesize answers from no data at all.Fred's story is reminiscent of Bernie Madoff's answer to regulators who asked him, "who is making the trades in your accounts?" His reply was "Traders. Under the supervision of Supervisors." Of course no such traders, or trades, existed. But the regulators did not press for a better answer. Steve
