Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "reconstuct".
Did you mean:
reconstruct
2005 Dec 27
6
avoid multiple render per action
Hello,
I have a hash that contains categories, and each category ID is a
hash of subcategories. What i want to do is dynamically load that
hash, loop thru it, for each category , subcat run a query against the
DB, and render a partial. The issue is i put the render:partial in a
for loop but you can only render once per action. What is the best
way to loop thru all my categories without a
2004 Aug 06
2
de-essing into speex?
are there plans to add "de-essing" as part of the speexenc procedure,
to make it possible to use lower quality compression without getting
those horrible computer-like "ess" sounds in the finished result?
like if you say "someone said the sun is shining", there is a lot of
ess sounds, and these will sound "computer-ish" at vbr qualities below
9.
i know
2004 Aug 06
0
de-essing into speex?
...shed by reconstructing the secondary peak but would introduce
a minimum latency far larger than several frame sizes (ie the length
of a human phoneme i.e. vowel consonant).
The filter also will most likely foul up the speech alittle cause
like most voice recognition software it can guess wrong an
reconstuct the wrong secondary peak onto the frames. (I'm guessing)
The filter also will most likely eat up a lot of cpu power like most
voice recognition software. (I'm guessing)
==
To conclude:
I may be very wrong so please correct me but I am dilligent to keep
up on these things.
-- Benik...
2007 Jun 14
2
Difference between prcomp and cmdscale
I'm looking for someone to explain the difference between these
procedures. The function prcomp() does principal components anaylsis,
and the function cmdscale() does classical multi-dimensional scaling
(also called principal coordinates analysis).
My confusion stems from the fact that they give very similar results:
my.d <- matrix(rnorm(50), ncol=5)
rownames(my.d) <-
2004 Aug 06
3
de-essing into speex?
...ondary peak but would introduce
> a minimum latency far larger than several frame sizes (ie the length
> of a human phoneme i.e. vowel consonant).
>
> The filter also will most likely foul up the speech alittle cause
> like most voice recognition software it can guess wrong an
> reconstuct the wrong secondary peak onto the frames. (I'm guessing)
>
> The filter also will most likely eat up a lot of cpu power like most
> voice recognition software. (I'm guessing)
>
> ==
>
> To conclude:
> I may be very wrong so please correct me but I am dilligent...
2004 Aug 06
0
de-essing into speex?
...e
> > a minimum latency far larger than several frame sizes (ie the length
> > of a human phoneme i.e. vowel consonant).
> >
> > The filter also will most likely foul up the speech alittle cause
> > like most voice recognition software it can guess wrong an
> > reconstuct the wrong secondary peak onto the frames. (I'm guessing)
> >
> > The filter also will most likely eat up a lot of cpu power like most
> > voice recognition software. (I'm guessing)
> >
> > ==
> >
> > To conclude:
> > I may be very wrong...