Searching \ for 'base 10 log' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=base+log
Search entire site for: 'base 10 log'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'base 10 log'
1996\05\29@173907 by Stuart Allman

flavicon
face
Thanks for everyone's help.  I found a pretty easy way to find the log10.
I'll just going to scale the numbers to between 0 and 1/2 (the spec has
changed since my first post).  Then use 3.33*(sqrt(sqrt(x))-3  That should
be just enough accuracy, considering that I am only dealing with four
decimal places.

This also works for numbers between 0 and 1 in case anyone is interested;  I
didn't bother to test anything beyond that.  I hope this helps other people.


Stuart Allman
Studio Sound Design
spam_OUTstudioTakeThisOuTspamhalcyon.com

1996\05\29@205135 by Steve Hardy

flavicon
face
> From: Stuart Allman <.....studioKILLspamspam@spam@HALCYON.COM>
>
> Thanks for everyone's help.  I found a pretty easy way to find the log10.
> I'll just going to scale the numbers to between 0 and 1/2 (the spec has
> changed since my first post).  Then use 3.33*(sqrt(sqrt(x))-3  That should
> be just enough accuracy, considering that I am only dealing with four
> decimal places.
>
> This also works for numbers between 0 and 1 in case anyone is interested;  I
> didn't bother to test anything beyond that.  I hope this helps other people.
>
>
> Stuart Allman
> Studio Sound Design
> studiospamKILLspamhalcyon.com
>

Now I'm confused: isn't log10(0) roughly -infinity?  According to your
formula (interpreted 2 ways due to missing close parenthesis)

 3.33*(sqrt(sqrt(0))) - 3 = 0.33

or

 3.33*(sqrt(sqrt(0)) - 3) = -9.99

Taking the second interpretation, since it's closer to the expected value,
try substituting 0.5 in the 4th root argument.  The real value of log10(0.5)
is -0.3010 to 4 places.  The above formulae give -0.1998 and -7.1898
respectively.  Even if 0.5 actually represents 65536, I can't work it out.
Please help!  - otherwise I'm going back to my table lookup.

As Edwin Park <.....eparkKILLspamspam.....milton.viasat.com> just mentioned, I would also like
to avoid the sqrts even if your DSP eats them for breakfast.

Regards,
SJH
Canberra, Australia

PS: I'd work it out for sure if I had more time, but I'm at work...

1996\05\29@205755 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face
Stuart Allman wrote:
>
> Thanks for everyone's help.  I found a pretty easy way to find the log10.
> I'll just going to scale the numbers to between 0 and 1/2 (the spec has
> changed since my first post).  Then use 3.33*(sqrt(sqrt(x))-3  That should
> be just enough accuracy, considering that I am only dealing with four
> decimal places.
>
> This also works for numbers between 0 and 1 in case anyone is interested;  I
> didn't bother to test anything beyond that.  I hope this helps other people.
>


So, are you saying
log10(x) ~ 3.33*sqrt(sqrt(x)) - 3,  for  0 < x <= .5     ?

I created a little table over the range of values. This approximation does not
provide four decimal places of accuracy.

   x     log10(x)    approximation    error
---------------------------------------------
   .1      -1            -1.127       -12.7%
   .2      -.6990        -0.7731      -10.6%
   .3      -.5229        -0.5355       -2.4%
   .4      -.3979        -0.3517       11.6%
   .5      -.3010        -0.1998       33.6%

Did I miss something?

Scott

1996\05\30@100117 by Stuart Allman

flavicon
face
>So, are you saying
>log10(x) ~ 3.33*sqrt(sqrt(x)) - 3,  for  0 < x <= .5     ?
>
>I created a little table over the range of values. This approximation does not
>provide four decimal places of accuracy.
>
>    x     log10(x)    approximation    error
>---------------------------------------------
>    .1      -1            -1.127       -12.7%
>    .2      -.6990        -0.7731      -10.6%
>    .3      -.5229        -0.5355       -2.4%
>    .4      -.3979        -0.3517       11.6%
>    .5      -.3010        -0.1998       33.6%

Yes, this is just enough accuracy.  The idea is to come pretty close to the log.
If you know of a quicker way to get the log more accurately please say so.
I think this could help a lot of engineers.

Plot the estimated equation on your calculator.  The idea is that hearing is
pretty much log10 based.  A close enough estimation is good enough.  As you
will see, the estimation has pretty much the same shape as log10.

Stuart Allman
Studio Sound Design
EraseMEstudiospam_OUTspamTakeThisOuThalcyon.com

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1996 , 1997 only
- Today
- New search...