Right, I get what you're saying. That makes sense that 
the opcode ampdb would be related to that equation.
Then wouldn't "ampdbfs" (or full scale) reflect something 
different in digital domain verses analog world, compared 
just the "ampdb"?I seem to recall something about digital
full scale being a bit different than analog full scale.
I think that was in a manual for some test gear (but don't 
quote me on that, I'm doing this from memory). Or am I 
somehow mis-characterizing all that?

Okay Victor, you're good at explain this stuff.

-Partev


===============================================================


--- Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie wrote:

From: victor 
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dynamic range
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:46:51 +0000

But ampdb is not deprecated. It correctly applies
the 20Log10(x) expression!

Victor


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julian Peterson" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:02 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dynamic range


> Why not assume that ampdb is deprecated and inaccurate for historical 
> reasons, and use ampdbfs instead?  This seems like a solution that 
> doesn't require any additional labor or argument;  nor does it run the 
> risk of violating backward compatibility.
>
> In other words: why not use the elegant solution already in place?
>
>
> JP
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>
>> "And one cannot change existing opcodes as it runs the danger of 
>> breaking
>> existing music" - Okay, assume that's a given.
>>
>> Could you simply take "ampdb" and have that as a starting point,
>> something like;
>>
>> asig1  (whatever opcode)  whatever parameters    <= declared
>> againstage  ampdb   asig1*(and its parameters)   <= declared
>> iamp   =  againstage*(some factor or coefficient)<= adjusted amplitude
>> asig2  =  iamp                                   <= new adjusted  signal
>>
>> ... and adjust it to where you want it. Is that do'able?
>>
>> -Partev
>>
>>
>> = = = = = = = 
>> ======================================================================
>> = = = = = = = 
>> ======================================================================
>>
>>
>> --- jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> From: jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk
>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dynamic range
>> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:12:04 -0000 (UTC)
>>
>> And one cannot change existing opcodes as it runs the danger of  breaking
>> existing music.
>>
>>> Why? That does not make any sense to me.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Federico Vanni" 
>>> To: 
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:57 PM
>>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: dynamic range
>>>
>>>
>>>> ok Alan, thanks...
>>>> so why we don't change the 'ampdb' opcode using
>>>> a maximum dB value of 96???
>>>> it should be more accurate teorically...
>>>> best
>>>> fv
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  "unsubscribe 
>> csound"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  "unsubscribe 
>> csound"
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound" 



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"




_____________________________________________________________
Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.