Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "cochleas".
Did you mean:
cochlear
2011 Apr 28
1
visualizing bootstrapped dendrogram
I want to classify bipolar neurons in human cochleas and have data of the
following structure:
Vol_Nuc Vol_Soma
1 186.23 731.96
2 204.58 4370.96
3 539.98 7344.86
4 477.71 6939.28
5 421.22 5588.53
6 276.61 1017.05
7 392.28 6392.32
8 424.43 6190.13
9 256.41 3850.51
10 249.17 3118.14
11 276.97 3037.29
12 295.30 3703.76...
2017 Nov 04
1
Antw: Re: OPUS vs MP3
On 2017-11-01, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> I'm not sure, but my best guess would be "because MP3's window is very
> leaky and MP3 has to waste a lot of bits in the LF because of that".
> It could also be just the MP3 encoder being silly, or other things.
Was the original poster speaking about the SILK or the CELT derived
mode? Because at least wrt SILK (and the rest of
2001 Apr 08
1
Peri-ear
Found this.
http://www.tnt.uni-hannover.de/~baumgart/peri_ear_v0.1.tgz
The peripheral ear model is based on the structure of
Eberhard Zwicker's "Analogmodell". That model consists
of analog electrical elements.
ftp://ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/pub/papers/2000/Diss-FB.pdf
Input: Raw 100KHz monoural 16bit audio
Output: hair cell excitation signal at 251 equidistant locations in
2017 Oct 31
3
Antw: Re: OPUS vs MP3
Hi guys,
as MP3 and Opus have very similar objectives, I think the original poster's
question was a valid one: Why does Opus have more artefacts in the lower
frequency ranges than MP3 has? The spontaneous suspect that lower frequency
artefacts may be more noticeably than higher frequency artefacts seems
plausible, also. Is it a matter of energy (which is higher for higher
frequencies)?
When