I could run it again against the original to compare. But even then, I’d be best off starting with an uncompressed WAV or other non-lossy format to get a better audio image. But compression is nearly unavoidable, making decent audio analysis a thing for the future (storage) rather than today.

I could run it again against the original to compare. But even then, I’d be best off starting with an uncompressed WAV or other non-lossy format to get a better audio image. But compression is nearly unavoidable, making decent audio analysis a thing for the future (storage) rather than today.

===

I did :) although what’s nice about this particular analysis (the MIDI you hear at the beginning) is it optimizes the algorithm of cutting away. Fiddling with the sliding windows and such by hand is a pain in the butt.

http://waon.sourceforge.net/

====

WaoN is amazing fun though. Hearing my own voice, or any song or speech or sound resynthesized via MIDI — and paired up with a nice Soundfont, it can sound nearly identical to the original.

====

[ok, not nearly identical entirely but enough to be understadable

====

I wish I had the patience for that. My technical brain knows what it wants to do but then I’m faced with “an idea” and I want to hear results of the idea quickly. So, I gladly make do with solutions like this.

There’s a program I’d love to have though that would bring me closer to being able to help transcribe what you’re talking about from one to another at a higher resolution:

http://www.magix-audio.com/us/spectralayers-pro/

I downloaded a trial of it – so sad when it ran out. It’s smart enough to figure out the fundamental and harmonics you’re looking for as you select and completely isolate it. So beautiful to work with.

===

Quite true. My first introduction to this stuff was as a kid. Early 1980s, I got this cartridge for my Tandy Color Computer 2. I didn’t know I was doing additive synthesis, creating my own instruments and such. Then when I got my PC, I wondered “where is this stuff?” and it was years before I realized that everything was sampling and any equipment allowing me to do that type of work was expensive and out of reach.

====

I get so lazy these days. When I work with code, it’s usually me tweaking someone else’s code to make it do what I want. So, I see something. It’s in Python but doesn’t do what I want? Ok, I have to learn some Python then. Or I see something interesting but it’s in C++? ugh, now I have to figure out how I can compile something in C++ on my PC, then learn just enough c++ to make it do what I want.

====

Yeah, mine stuff’s always project oriented. Learning for learning’s sake I do _sometimes_ but not for mastery. Last year for example, I did a “language a month”. I’d pick a language, say LISP, and dive in, learn enough to write a few simple things, learn to read the code, and then leave. I plow through quite a few languages that way. I want to be able to understand any code I see (eventually) to at least get the ‘gist’ of what it’s supposed to be doing. Hardest for me was functional until I mentally matched it up to Excel formulas (which I know very very well). Then it was easy.

====

That’s probably where I should be. Hate dealing with Java code. So much setup for so little result. Assembler was always in the “computer god” territory to me. I can read it _somewhat_ (at least I can mentally visualize where the parts are going) but as far as figuring out what it’s purpose is, that’s another story. Never got there.

====

I did it on 286 but stopped after that. Maybe one day. Peace!

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


7 − five =

Leave a Reply