search for: noisiest

Someone sent me a question late last night and I briefly looked at his file this morning and couldn't figure out the answer, so I'm posting here. A friend has a a ~275MB 24 bit, 48khz stereo wav file of rock music that when compressed using flac level 8 gives a flac file under 110 MB in size. When I dithered his file to 16/48 and converted that file to flac, the resulting flac file was

...an generate a local policy module to allow this access.#012Do#012allow this access for now by executing:#012# grep NetworkManager /var/log/audit/audit.log | audit2allow -M mypol#012# semodule -i mypol.pp#012 Which policy I implemented, but why is that incorrect in the first place? 3. Finally, the noisiest of all, NetworkManager[7723]: <warn> error requesting auth for org.freedesktop.NetworkManager.settings.modify.hostname: (0) Authorization check failed: GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.NoReply: Message did not receive a reply (timeout by message bus) and for what seems like every pos...

...esses poorly (bigger residuals) and pretty much outweighs the advantage. This does not happen with a lossy codec, if the same error tolerance is imposed on each stage: a 5% noise introduction (say) at one stage does not create a problem if a 5% error is allowed to be introduced later to discard the noisiest 5% of the data. So, heuristically I would expect most all the gains of reduced detail to be realised in lossy codecs, and rather little or no space saving with lossless codecs. Nicholas ----- Nicholas Wilson: nicholas at nicholaswilson.me.uk (ncw33) Site and blog: www.nicholaswilson.me.uk Peterho...

I tend to run batch jobs via littler. These often start with a single line loading one or two in-house packages. Now, most the Depends of these in-house packages now use Depends: entries in DESCRIPTION, rather than require() in R/zzz.R. This seems to have at least one undesirable side effect: noise. Using require(), I can choose the 'quietly=TRUE, warn.conflict=FALSE' arguments, and

...residuals) and pretty much outweighs the > advantage. This does not happen with a lossy codec, if the same error > tolerance is imposed on each stage: a 5% noise introduction (say) at > one stage does not create a problem if a 5% error is allowed to be > introduced later to discard the noisiest 5% of the data. So, > heuristically I would expect most all the gains of reduced detail to > be realised in lossy codecs, and rather little or no space saving with > lossless codecs. > > > On 2 December 2010 13:15, scott brown <scottcbrown at gmail.com> wrote: >> Someo...

...pretty much outweighs the >> advantage. This does not happen with a lossy codec, if the same error >> tolerance is imposed on each stage: a 5% noise introduction (say) at >> one stage does not create a problem if a 5% error is allowed to be >> introduced later to discard the noisiest 5% of the data. So, >> heuristically I would expect most all the gains of reduced detail to >> be realised in lossy codecs, and rather little or no space saving with >> lossless codecs. >> >> >> On 2 December 2010 13:15, scott brown <scottcbrown at gmail.com&g...