why do wav files get higher in pitch as you move up in octaves and is there a way around this?
-
Sampleconstruct Sampleconstruct https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=191286
- KVRAF
- 16122 posts since 12 Oct, 2008 from Here and there
Did I say anything about pitch shifting, I merely said that timestretching is possible because of granular synthesis, read the articles by Gabor who invented it all theoretically.
-
AstralExistence AstralExistence https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=265049
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2273 posts since 19 Sep, 2011
we should make your pompous attitude a sticky. so sick of hobby house crafters (cause that's what you are) looking for ways to belittle people that seek knowledge. do me a favor, don't ever become a teacher and if you are, i weep for your students.xoxos wrote:can we make this a sticky?
-
Sampleconstruct Sampleconstruct https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=191286
- KVRAF
- 16122 posts since 12 Oct, 2008 from Here and there
Here is the first analog granulator named Tempophone, made by a german company in the 1960s, using various tapeheads to de-couple pitch and time:
an article:
http://soundbytesmag.net/granular-synth ... r-rookies/
an article:
http://soundbytesmag.net/granular-synth ... r-rookies/
-
AstralExistence AstralExistence https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=265049
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2273 posts since 19 Sep, 2011
Sampleconstruct wrote:Here is the first analog granulator named Tempophone, made by a german company in the 1960s, using various tapeheads to de-couple pitch and time:
an article:
http://soundbytesmag.net/granular-synth ... r-rookies/
wow that's truly amazing for its time. the typical 'ground breaking, and revolutionary, statement from infomercials, would have been true life at its greatest meaning.
- KVRAF
- 12554 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
Of course the idea originally applied to "samples" as in tapes and "grains" as in small segments of tape.
Time-stretching however can be accomplished with methods other than "granular", and my point about "granular" being a ridiculous term to use stands.
It serves generally no purpose and is not defined in a way which makes it useful to describe anything really, at least not in any more detail than simply stating "sample-based".
Time-stretching however can be accomplished with methods other than "granular", and my point about "granular" being a ridiculous term to use stands.
It serves generally no purpose and is not defined in a way which makes it useful to describe anything really, at least not in any more detail than simply stating "sample-based".
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.
-
- KVRian
- 628 posts since 18 May, 2010
So, before this thread gets more insulting, I'll try to resume: why does a wav's pitch go up with the notes? Because of the way of sample playback.
Imagine a wav with a 441Hz sine wave sampled at 44.1kHz. That means it has 100 samples per cycle. Now you open your sample player, and assign this wave to A4. If you press A4, it plays the wave file back, and you hear a 441Hz sine wave. Now, if you press A5, you should be hearing an 882Hz sine wave, which has 50 samples per cycle. The easiest way to accomplish this is by skipping half the samples in the original file. Similarly, if you press A3, the cheapest way to get the 200 samples per cycle needed for a 220.5Hz sine wave, is by doubling each sample. That's all pretty crude, and can be sonically improved by interpolation or reconstruction filters (something which xoxos does know a lot about), but that's the basic idea: you run faster or slower through the same samples to change the pitch. In the case of a sine wave, this works well, but unfortunately that doesn't hold for normal sounds: their envelope is changed, and the formants are shifted, etc. resulting in the chipmunk effect. There are alternative ways of playing samples back at a different pitch, such as granular and spectral (re)synthesis, which are more expensive (in terms of implementation and computation), and which give much more pleasing results.
PS I don't think xoxos was trying to take the piss out of you. I think he was trying to ask the question that could make you discover the answer by yourself.
Imagine a wav with a 441Hz sine wave sampled at 44.1kHz. That means it has 100 samples per cycle. Now you open your sample player, and assign this wave to A4. If you press A4, it plays the wave file back, and you hear a 441Hz sine wave. Now, if you press A5, you should be hearing an 882Hz sine wave, which has 50 samples per cycle. The easiest way to accomplish this is by skipping half the samples in the original file. Similarly, if you press A3, the cheapest way to get the 200 samples per cycle needed for a 220.5Hz sine wave, is by doubling each sample. That's all pretty crude, and can be sonically improved by interpolation or reconstruction filters (something which xoxos does know a lot about), but that's the basic idea: you run faster or slower through the same samples to change the pitch. In the case of a sine wave, this works well, but unfortunately that doesn't hold for normal sounds: their envelope is changed, and the formants are shifted, etc. resulting in the chipmunk effect. There are alternative ways of playing samples back at a different pitch, such as granular and spectral (re)synthesis, which are more expensive (in terms of implementation and computation), and which give much more pleasing results.
PS I don't think xoxos was trying to take the piss out of you. I think he was trying to ask the question that could make you discover the answer by yourself.
-
- KVRAF
- 7540 posts since 7 Aug, 2003 from San Francisco Bay Area
Additive resynthesis, for example.aciddose wrote:Time-stretching however can be accomplished with methods other than "granular", and my point about "granular" being a ridiculous term to use stands.
Incomplete list of my gear: 1/8" audio input jack.
-
- Banned
- 12368 posts since 30 Apr, 2002 from i might peeramid
thank you, i tend to be motivated by synergy rather than competitiveness and detractive behaviours. i believe synergy requires some basis of autonomy.FLWrd wrote: PS I don't think xoxos was trying to take the piss out of you. I think he was trying to ask the question that could make you discover the answer by yourself.
quite honestly, in the interests of kvr as a community, i think the most helpful, forward moving action would be to hold a poll to see how many kvr users actually believe a person can use kvr since 2011 with 3000 posts and not see that pitch and rate are not so much related as identical.
or, we can wallow in "the benefit of the doubt" and as a community spend another decade mostly talking to "this guy" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UlmzT2LREc
gushing platitudes, blockin the sidewalk
"i can see they think i'm a little bit slow"
the OP is asking us to believe that they have never
ran their finger across a crenellated/ridged surface or series of bars
never plucked a string
never plucked a ruler on a desk or encountered a spring
never worn courduroy or any textured fabric and had fingernails
never observed sound in a "linear" resonator eg. pipe
never modulated a delay
never heard a record player changing speed or modulated sample
it's alright to be polite and to denigrate me repeatedly and ignore more derisive gifs in favour of indicating my fault, but i have to think of all the poor sods who are unable to cogitate beyond the social contract and perceive when they are being shystered.
the maomoondog threads are a tragic example of lax discretion.
thank you for your effort to assuage things
Last edited by xoxos on Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
you come and go, you come and go. amitabha neither a follower nor a leader be tagore "where roads are made i lose my way" where there is certainty, consideration is absent.
- KVRAF
- 9569 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
http://www.kvraudio.com/product/paraphr ... al-analogyxoxos wrote:listen up, person.
what you want is either a formant shifter for processing, or one of these high priced spectral sampler things.. there was a free one in the last dc.
i'm smarter than you think you know.
Amazon: why not use an alternative
- Banned
- 1181 posts since 24 Jun, 2014 from Giza Plateau
I read the question of OP yesterday and decided to move on.quite honestly, in the interests of kvr as a community, i think the most helpful, forward moving action would be to hold a poll to see how many kvr users actually believe a person can use kvr since 2011 with 3000 posts and not see that pitch and rate are not so much related as identical.
║▌║█║▌│║▌║▌█
-
AstralExistence AstralExistence https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=265049
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2273 posts since 19 Sep, 2011
xoxos wrote: it's alright to be polite and to denigrate me repeatedly and ignore more derisive gifs in favour of indicating my fault, but i have to think of all the poor sods who are unable to cogitate beyond the social contract and perceive when they are being shystered.
)
i was not saying you don't know what your talking about. i apoligize if you i took your help for granted and wit a backlash. it jus seemed to me that you were trying to put me down. was not trying to star a fire. thank you for your help. i appreciate it
- KVRAF
- 6113 posts since 7 Jan, 2005 from Corporate States of America
I was ... taken aback... by the OP too, but I have learned that it is best to treat every person as an individual with possible vast variation in experience and awareness, and give the benefit of the doubt until proven a troll.
In fact, there were interesting things said in this thread, and that's valuable. I never knew of the analog tape device that did granular pitch shifting, for example.
The things that Xoxos offered up as experiences with physical objects and sounds are all very much the kind of stuff people like me pay attention to in life, and clearly engineering types like Xoxos pay far greater attention to in his crafting of very specific physical modeling synthesizers. But most people don't pay attention to this stuff. It may seem impossible to accept, especially in context to musicianship, but it's a fact.
When people approach music from the top down, they don't learn the physics. This isn't necessarily bad, though it limits them at some points in their exploration. When someone approaches music from the bottom-up, examining sound itself, it's a completely different perspective. Often, the ones looking from the top-down are impressed at the detail of specialized knowledge of the ones who worked from the ground-up, and they often seek to attain that level of understanding (up to their necessity, or level of ability to understand). Sometimes there's insecurity there. Not always. The people who started from the ground-up often do not comprehend the reverse perspective, and often see those who lack their level of knowledge as inferior. Not always. It's really an example of their own limitation in their thinking, when that's the case. However, they can also learn: Learn to accept the differences between people. The differences in specialist knowledge, the differing levels of desire for such knowledge, and the ability to intellectualize said knowledge.
As a tech person in the computer industry, I became a better worker when I learned to accommodate the average user, rather than look down on them for not having my specialist knowledge (as my peers often did). My willingness to adapt and teach varying levels of ability made me valuable to my clients.
Developers generally aren't forced to learn this skill. Sometimes it's even a little outside their range of ability. Everyone is different, and we have society for the purpose of helping each other with our complimentary abilities.
Music technology has advanced to the point where learning the fundamentals of sound is not a required process in making one's own music. Some people see that as terrible. I do not. I never was able to get my brain to see music in notation, and I lack much music theory (that which requires mathematic-styled mental processing evades me, though I "feel" these things and understand some mechanics enough to move on to other topics), but the technology and tools have allowed me to seek my pleasure in music creation anyway, and I'm glad.
Yes, it surprised me that someone could be making music and not understand why pitch and sample playback works as it does. You know what, though? That surprise is my problem. Everyone comes at this in different ways and, if they're willing to learn, I say embrace and teach them.
In fact, there were interesting things said in this thread, and that's valuable. I never knew of the analog tape device that did granular pitch shifting, for example.
The things that Xoxos offered up as experiences with physical objects and sounds are all very much the kind of stuff people like me pay attention to in life, and clearly engineering types like Xoxos pay far greater attention to in his crafting of very specific physical modeling synthesizers. But most people don't pay attention to this stuff. It may seem impossible to accept, especially in context to musicianship, but it's a fact.
When people approach music from the top down, they don't learn the physics. This isn't necessarily bad, though it limits them at some points in their exploration. When someone approaches music from the bottom-up, examining sound itself, it's a completely different perspective. Often, the ones looking from the top-down are impressed at the detail of specialized knowledge of the ones who worked from the ground-up, and they often seek to attain that level of understanding (up to their necessity, or level of ability to understand). Sometimes there's insecurity there. Not always. The people who started from the ground-up often do not comprehend the reverse perspective, and often see those who lack their level of knowledge as inferior. Not always. It's really an example of their own limitation in their thinking, when that's the case. However, they can also learn: Learn to accept the differences between people. The differences in specialist knowledge, the differing levels of desire for such knowledge, and the ability to intellectualize said knowledge.
As a tech person in the computer industry, I became a better worker when I learned to accommodate the average user, rather than look down on them for not having my specialist knowledge (as my peers often did). My willingness to adapt and teach varying levels of ability made me valuable to my clients.
Developers generally aren't forced to learn this skill. Sometimes it's even a little outside their range of ability. Everyone is different, and we have society for the purpose of helping each other with our complimentary abilities.
Music technology has advanced to the point where learning the fundamentals of sound is not a required process in making one's own music. Some people see that as terrible. I do not. I never was able to get my brain to see music in notation, and I lack much music theory (that which requires mathematic-styled mental processing evades me, though I "feel" these things and understand some mechanics enough to move on to other topics), but the technology and tools have allowed me to seek my pleasure in music creation anyway, and I'm glad.
Yes, it surprised me that someone could be making music and not understand why pitch and sample playback works as it does. You know what, though? That surprise is my problem. Everyone comes at this in different ways and, if they're willing to learn, I say embrace and teach them.
- dysamoria.com
my music @ SoundCloud
my music @ SoundCloud
- KVRAF
- 9569 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
I thought he was suggesting you were trolling or playing the fool as it is a really basic concept most people grasp when they start out by experimenting, even without reading any literature.AstralExistence wrote:xoxos wrote: it's alright to be polite and to denigrate me repeatedly and ignore more derisive gifs in favour of indicating my fault, but i have to think of all the poor sods who are unable to cogitate beyond the social contract and perceive when they are being shystered.
)
i was not saying you don't know what your talking about. i apoligize if you i took your help for granted and wit a backlash. it jus seemed to me that you were trying to put me down. was not trying to star a fire. thank you for your help. i appreciate it
Amazon: why not use an alternative
-
AstralExistence AstralExistence https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=265049
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2273 posts since 19 Sep, 2011
i ca definitely understand this. i obviously need to starting learning the craft i mean, i of course knew that playing up and down the keyboard did that, just did not know why like you said people often make music without understand the fundamental details behind how it works. this actually very true.VariKusBrainZ wrote:I thought he was suggesting you were trolling or playing the fool as it is a really basic concept most people grasp when they start out by experimenting, even without reading any literature.AstralExistence wrote:xoxos wrote: it's alright to be polite and to denigrate me repeatedly and ignore more derisive gifs in favour of indicating my fault, but i have to think of all the poor sods who are unable to cogitate beyond the social contract and perceive when they are being shystered.
)
i was not saying you don't know what your talking about. i apoligize if you i took your help for granted and wit a backlash. it jus seemed to me that you were trying to put me down. was not trying to star a fire. thank you for your help. i appreciate it
Last edited by AstralExistence on Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- KVRAF
- 6113 posts since 7 Jan, 2005 from Corporate States of America