(Even 1 cycle off will break everything I'm trying to do)
-
-
Replying to @Nifflas
If I understand correctly, isn't it going to be a multiple/nice-fraction of the overall length?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @increpare @Nifflas
Isn't it just: 1/frequency * length in seconds?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pyjamads @increpare
Yeah, but I only have an approximation of the frequency.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Knowing approximately the frequency, and knowing that it has to fit into this length doesn't resolve the ambiguity?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @increpare @pyjamads
It can be a long recording. It could definitely be a cycle off.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
What do you mean by cycle? I thought I knew but maybe I don't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @increpare @pyjamads
I'm just counting how many times the oscillator repeats. Like, a 440hz oscillator playing for a duration of 2 second would count 880 cycles. Here, I don't exactly know the frequency. Only the length of the recording and that it starts/ends on the same phase.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The oscillator waveform changes over time, but the fundamental frequency stays the same. If I precisely knew the frequency, the answer would be length multiplied with the frequency.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Since I don't, I have to do some analysis of the audio.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Ah ok. I can't remember if doing FFT on a very narrow frequency range is especially cheap or not.
-
-
Replying to @increpare @pyjamads
It doesn't need to be cheap at all luckily!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.