neat little sound

GoldWave general discussions and community help
Post Reply
DewDude420
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

neat little sound

Post by DewDude420 »

ok, this is probably classified as a silly little trick..but i thought I'd share it with everyone.

download this flac file: http://mysite.verizon.net/~dew.dude3/Untitled.wav

don't attempt to actually listen to it...don't preview it or automatically hit play after opening like I have a habit of doing. make sure you turn down your volume..and not the volume slider in the control, make sure that's at 100%. After you've muted your sound output (becuase this file sounds rather harsh), turn one of the visuals to Spectrogram and stretch it about as wide as you can.

Hit play and watch. neat eh?
Last edited by DewDude420 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

TinPanFan
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:48 am
Location: Texas

Re: neat little sound

Post by TinPanFan »

Jay, you've got me on this one. When I click the link I get a browser full of unicode. Just how do I save it and play it (sort of)?

DewDude420
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

Re: neat little sound

Post by DewDude420 »

Right click and save as.

However, I had to change the file. I found out that this type of audio absolutely cannot be represented in 16-bit in any form...period..ever. So, try getting the wav. It also might depend on what browser you're using. Chrome and IE download fine.

el_supremo
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:39 pm

Re: neat little sound

Post by el_supremo »

Clever!!

Pete

mathyou9
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:36 pm

Re: neat little sound

Post by mathyou9 »

That's pretty sweet!!

DewDude, I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of making an "enhancement" to your sound. That is, I made it into a stereo file (the "anamorphic widescreen" equivalent, if you will.) I'm sure the thought passed your mind already, but due to individuals' different local settings, it won't work [as intended] for everyone automatically (hence, the original mono file is essentially foolproof.)

Anyway, for this stereo file to be presented correctly ("anamorphic widescreen") set the control to "Classic Control" and each visual should be about 195 pixels wide (or more precisely, about 3.4 seconds in spectogram width.) or approx. 390 pixels wide (6.8 seconds in spectogram width) for the entire "Classic Control" panel. And then be sure to turn both L and R visuals to Spectogram. :)

Here's a screen-capture shot from my computer of the actual width of my Classic Control:
Image
Of course, changing the stereo delay and Classic Control width accordingly can make for an even more "widescreen" presentation.

http://mathew.myrupfamily.com/Untitled_(stereo).wav

DewDude420
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

Re: neat little sound

Post by DewDude420 »

Ahh...I see what you did. clever...and you saved it in 32-bit. I figured out the reason I'm not having a lot of success doing these with 16-bit audio is because i'm doing complex images..not to mention the one I made (don't want to ruin it for people who haven't done it yet) has a LOT of black area...so the amount of dynamics required to prevent it from clobbering everything was tremendous. I thought for a little while that i'd found a bug in flac...that what i was putting in wasn't coming out exactly...but it was all becuase the conversion to 16-bit ruined it. i've even tried bumping the minimum level to -96 db..which should be on the edge of 16-bit...but it was like the contrast was too much. Luckly between the times I was messing with Goldwave in my youth I was also messing with The Gimp...so I'm playing around with various things.

Actually...I have a stereo version I created last night that I never uploaded since i'm low on webspace. What I did was rotated the image and created a spectrogram from that (no, sorry kids, goldwave doesn't offer that feature...yet at least) so it is oriented the proper way in waterfall running 90 degrees with a height of 5. I then set one visual to spectrogram, the other to waterfall...pasted each wave in to a channel and you can image the effect.

the main reason I started playing around with spectral imaging is to attempt to recreate audio from spectrographs. I see screenshots of stuff all the time and I've always wondered wtf I was looking at. the concept is a LOT harder than you think because if you don't know the scale of your axis...getting the proper pitch is impossible...not to mention this isn't enough detail for it to work like a quality spectrogram....it's not the same effect as pumping a time-domain in to frequency-domain...i did kind of get some excitement when i took a spectrogram i found on google images that's a person saying some word and was actually able to get something halfway intelligble from it....i got what was probably a similar feeling of accomplishment as the guys who were first able to make a phonoautogram listenable in a digital enviroment...i don't know exactly how the software worked....probably very similar to the ideas i was thinking up 5 minutes after i heard of their existance and what they were....

but...this effect has been done before...most famously by aphex twin and i think NIN did some spectral art in one of their tracks

mathyou9
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:36 pm

Re: neat little sound

Post by mathyou9 »

DewDude420 wrote:Ahh...I see what you did. clever...and you saved it in 32-bit.
Well I almost saved it to 16-bit without realizing your original was 32-bit (the clipped wave would have ruined your intended effect.) But just for the hell of it, I ran maximize just to check the level. Of course I discovered the huge dynamic range (instead of maxing at 0 dB, it was clear up at +16 or +17.) Definitely loud and likely to blow a speaker cone if you're not careful (even with my speakers turned down all the way, I could still hear it coming through.) But then I realized it had to be saved in 32-bit.

I'd love to see/hear your stereo file. I've got plenty of webspace and wouldn't mind hosting it for all to see (but that's assuming you can find a way to transfer such a huge WAV/FLAC to me.)

DewDude420
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

Re: neat little sound

Post by DewDude420 »

If you've got a place for me to store it, give me an FTP and i'll upload it.

I recently accidently deleted Untitled.wav from my verizon site due to space contstraints.

For those that missed it, it was spectral art. When you played the file with spectrogram, it drew the Goldwave logo.

my stereo version basically oriented the logo to work with waterfall...so when played...one would scroll horizontally and the other vertically.

GoldWave Inc.
Site Admin
Posts: 3981
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:43 pm
Location: St. John's, NL
Contact:

Re: neat little sound

Post by GoldWave Inc. »

Maybe I should add a gray-scale option to the spectrogram so you can render black-and-white photos. If you create a 96kHz file and render the spectral image above 30kHz, you can add visual art to files without affecting audio quality too much.

I converted the file to MP3 to make it smaller and reduced the peak levels. A bit of quality is lost off the top, but the overall effect is about the same and the file is under 0.4MB. Right-click here to download/save it.

Chris

DewDude420
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

Re: neat little sound

Post by DewDude420 »

I will admit...rendering a photo in the current spectrogram looks....interesting. I believe I came out with a green face.

I'm quite surprised mp3 didn't ruin the file as much as it did...then again...since a bit of it's compression is based on iDCT, it can probably compensate for it.

Adding the visual art to a 96khz file above 30khz seems to work provided your art doesn't exceed -60dbFS...every time I did this, if the art was maxed out, it'd still bleedthrough on the audible portion. I was even using a 96/24 sound interface and everything...however, it could of been the software used to do the spectral art to begin with. Provided everything is working properly, shouldn't be able to hear anything, however, it sounds like there's a faint buzzing or slight roughness to the audio. I can't verify that right now as my ears got blasted pretty harshly from the first attempt.

Image

and for the record...that is a pure 96/24 file. New Kid In Town from Hotel California DVD-A. this gives me an idea of possibly watermarking my 96/24 vinyl rips :)

(for the secret...and some irony, the uncropped version is http://mysite.verizon.net/~dew.dude3/aud.jpg here.

The Great Watbol!
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:07 am
Location: In the back of your mind(s)

Re: neat little sound

Post by The Great Watbol! »

I'll give you that one, nice work.
(Who'd a thought?)
------------------------------
¿¿¿-:·}~ «-{Watbol}-» ©2000® ☆*★*☆
(•¿•)

DewDude420
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

Re: neat little sound

Post by DewDude420 »

(Who'd a thought?)
what, that i do good work or the irony behind it?

(BTW, I do EXCELLENT work)

The Great Watbol!
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:07 am
Location: In the back of your mind(s)

Re: neat little sound

Post by The Great Watbol! »

Are you saying that the 'new kid in town' already had the goldwave logo in it?
Way back then, probably before goldwave was released?
--------------------------
(Who'd a thought?)

What I meant was, I know that I wouldn't have thought of creating a sound, when looking at spectrogram setting, created a logo or picture.
For All I don't know, I didn't see any reason to use that setting other than colorfull display of the musical spikes.
I guessed that spectrogram was just another psychedelic view like the rest of the effects.
(blowing inferno, bulge, envelope, spinning logo, Etc.) Or do these have other properties that I'm unaware of?
I usually use the bars setting and look at the eq values and vu/meters when I edit.

Kudo's to you! I knew that you do a wonderfull job at everything you do.
I learn alot from the answers that you give others... some are way over my head, though.
--------------------------
(Do you still have that reel-to-reel that you use as avatar?)
------------------------------
¿¿¿-:·}~ «-{Watbol}-» ©2000® ☆*★*☆
(•¿•)

DewDude420
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

Re: neat little sound

Post by DewDude420 »

Are you saying that the 'new kid in town' already had the goldwave logo in it?
no no no. I'm the one that created the ultrasonic spectral image of the GW logo and mixed it with New Kid In Town...I happened to use it becuase I happened to have a copy of the 96/24 flac sitting on my desktop at that particular point in time.

spectrogram wasn't really designed to be "trippy", like some of the visuals it gives a good detailed amount of information as to the audio content..I happen to use spectrogram all the time becuase I care less about what my waveform looks like but I like to see a running trail of what the entire spectrum was. I've basically reached the point of what I can learn from looking at waveform samples.....very rarely do I ever really study one outside of the stuff I do...i can gather more from watching spectrogram....I mean, honestly, if you're doing a recording...with the amplitude already moving like crazy...a high frequency squeel is impossible to see with waveform, but watching spectrogram/spectrograph/spectral display/fft/whatever-you-call-it...i can clearly see there's a spike in frequency and i can see any change in pitch it has...helps me figure out how to get rid of it...also helps me to identify what it is.....
I learn alot from the answers that you give others... some are way over my head, though.
i have a pretty high-tech job that requires a lot of electronics knowledge....so i'm always over people's heads. goldwave...and audio in general....it scares me sometimes how much advice and answers I give when only 10 years ago...i was a dumb kid in high school who was still recording, splicing and other simple tricks with goldwave. i didn't get in to full blown restorations till sometime around 2001, having done my first in '02....my focus on mastering formed sometime around '05...and sometime around '06 was when I first sat in on a ProToolsHD recording session and not only got a taste of that system....but more about what the recording and production process itself was.

odd fact....back in '99 when Chris first released Multiquence...naturally I gave it a go...and barely understood what multitrack was good for (i was still learning basic editing), but I created something....and I managed to keep an mp3 copy of it around. http://twaud.io/zq
Do you still have that reel-to-reel that you use as avatar?
Indeed. That's an Akai GX-365D. It's described as a "professional" tape recorder...it's actually more of a very high-end consumer format, although it does support 15ips which is rare for a consumer deck. It needs a little work...I'm not sure if the quality of the deck is because how it's made or if it's due to very old and aging components like capacitors. I've also got a Sony/Superscope TC357, which is an "economy" tape-recorder, it's only a 2-motor 3-head machine where as the Akai is a 3-head 3-motor with auto reverse and fancy heads. When I first got the Sony it sounded phenomenal....but when I hooked it up it sounded just about on par with the Akai (and I found out the rumble I have is in my playback circuit and not the record)....both decks need a COMPLETE overhaul..and I haven't decided if I'm going to do it or just invest in a slightly more modern RTR...I haven't started really looking for one yet. This stuff is somewhat affordable these days because the only people who are going after tape are collectors....which if ever had my hi-fi gear gathered in one area....it'd be insane....so to say the least I'm a collector. As a matter of fact, my everyday workhorse is a 1981 Denon amp that was top-of-the-line for that era. It's not just the workhorse, it's also the showcase and reference piece. It's built like a tank...it sounds absolutely wonderful and is probably one of the best solid-state amps you could get. The newest piece of gear I own aside from my usb dac is a 1991 Onkyo cassette deck....i will admit to owning a recently made pair of bose headphones, but my speakers on the otherhand are all vintage...dating from the 70's and mid to late 80's

dude, i love music...i love audio....i really don't know what exact chain of events put me on this path of vintage gear, or the quest for superb reproduction...I just absolutely enjoy the ride though.

The Great Watbol!
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:07 am
Location: In the back of your mind(s)

Re: neat little sound

Post by The Great Watbol! »

uh, the twitter audio was cool.
------------------------------
¿¿¿-:·}~ «-{Watbol}-» ©2000® ☆*★*☆
(•¿•)

Post Reply