A simple-to-use sound file writer

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* 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. ;-)


Cheers & htfh.,

- Alf