4 ms·
There was a large variety of regularization and optimization techniques used. An embarrassingly large amount of manual work went into both. In this use the gam
by JyrkiAlakuijala 10y ago
There was a large variety of regularization and optimization techniques used. An embarrassingly large amount of manual work went into both.
In this use the gamma is the inverse of something close to 2.6. Butteraugli needs both gamma correction and inverse gamma correction.
The FFT co-efficients only look weird, but they should actually lead to a symmetric result if our math is correct. In a future version we move away from the FFT, so I don't encourage anyone to actually debug that too much.
- sqeaky 10y agoNothing to be embarrassed about, you got results. Results are what matters in the end. This is even more the case with software. If this cost 20 or 20 million man hours is irrelevant in the long run because eventually it will be used enough to offset costs if it is as good as every one says. Of course short term cost hurt now, but sounds like you still had computers do much of the heavy lifting.
- i336_ 10y ago> In a future version we move away from the FFT Do you have any idea when that will land in the open? Say, before 2018? Or maybe a little sooner?
- i336_ 10y agoVery confused as to why this was downvoted?