0
$\begingroup$

I have $2$ formulas (mentioned in this page): http://www.vttoth.com/digimix.htm

  1. $Z = 2AB$ if both $A<0.5$ and $B<0.5$
  2. $Z = 2(A+B) – 2AB – 1$ otherwise

where $A$ and $B$ are numbers between $0$ and $1$ (including $0$ and $1$) eg: $0$ $0.2$ $0.9$ $0.34$ $1$

Now, I can understand formula $1$ (if $A$ and $B$ are BOTH greater than $0.5$, then $Z$ is $2AB$, right?) What I can't understand is the part from the second formula that reads $2(A+B)$:

Add $A$ with $B$ and then multiply by $2$ : $2\cdot(A+B)$ is this correct or am I missing something?

Any help?

  • 0
    It says $Z=2AB$ if $A$ and $B$ are both *less* than $0.5$.2011-10-18
  • 0
    That's correct, my mistake!2011-10-18
  • 0
    Side note: the usual solution to mixing audio (and other effects) is to perform intermediate calculations at a greater resolution, then dither on the way back down to the desired output range. For instance, the Pro Tools mix engine uses 48-bit fixed-point arithmetic internally. Multiplying the signals seems... weird.2011-10-18

1 Answers 1

1

Your description of the evaluation of $2(A+B)$ is correct: first add $A$ and $B$, then multiply by $2$. Since you didn't write why you think you may be missing something there, it's hard to say more about that.

However, your description of the first formula is incorrect. The symbol $<$ denotes the relation "less than", not "greater than".

  • 0
    I said that I think I'm missing something because the output audio is not sounding right. There's some attenuation in the first group of samples (A), that are mixed with the second group (B). Also in the fist formula there's 2*A*B Is this the same as writing 2(A*B) ?2011-10-18
  • 1
    I wouldn't spend too much time looking for mistakes in your implementation -- I'd be surprised if this formula leads to sensible audio mixing. The multiplication should lead to artefacts. You speak of attenuation -- it's my understanding of the description that the whole point of this unconventional approach is to attenuate one signal when the other one is present, so I don't think this in itself should be cause for concern. Regarding $2\cdot A\cdot B$: yes, this is equivalent to $2(A\cdot B)$.2011-10-18
  • 0
    @André: I don't understand. Both the question and the page it links to say $Z=2(A+B)-2AB-1$. Where is $Z=2AB-2AB-1$ coming from?2011-10-18
  • 0
    @joriki: Mistyping, of course.2011-10-18