I'm trying to create a quick video in After Effects on audible frequencies.
I'm using this audio clip (20 seconds). The clip starts from 20khz and goes down to 20hz.
As you can see (or hear), we can't hear anything in the beginning at 20khz. Most of us start hearing the frequency at 16khz-15khz.
But when I import this audio clip into AE, it sounds completely different. The sound starts playing from the beginning and it's very loud and sounds nothing like the clip I downloaded.
Here's how the audio clip sounds after export: https://www.mboxdrive.com/soundonly.mp3
What's going on here and how do I fix it?
Two things here.
First off, the sound is exhibiting "aliasing" artifacts. This happens when there it pitch content to the sound that is higher in frequency than the Nyquist frequency for the given sample rate. So, either you are using a low sample rate, or the pitch you are generating has harmonics that are causing the aliasing.
Check to make sure you are using a sine wave (if done correctly there should be no additional harmonic content to the tone besides the fundamental pitch), and that your sample rate is above 40K in order to play a 20K sound without aliasing. The most common sampling rate these days is 44100 fps, but you may be using 8000 fps, which is also still employed and would not work for your application.
Second point, you probably want to change the rate at which you travel through the range of pitches. It sounds like you are going along linearly, but the ear hears things exponentially. The difference in pitch from 100 to 200, for example, is the same (in terms of our perception) as the difference from 1000 to 2000. So you might want to make your rate of descent reflect this if the goal is to spend equal time at every perceived pitch level.
I need to be able to analyze (search thru) hundreds of WAV files and detect but not remove static noise. As done currently now, I must listen to each conversation and find the characteristic noise/static manually, which takes too much time. Ideally, I would need a program that can read each new WAV file and be able to detect characteristic signatures of the static noise such as periods of bursts of white noise or full audio band, high amplitude noise (like AM radio noise over phone conversation such as a wall of white noise) or bursts of peek high frequency high amplitude (as in crackling on the phone line) in a background of normal voice. I do not need to remove the noise but simply detect it and flag the recording for further troubleshooting. Ideas?
I can listen to the recordings and find the static or crackling but this takes time. I need an automated or batch process that can run on its own and flag the troubled call recordings (WAV files for a phone PBX). These are SIP and analog conversations depending on the leg of the conversation so RTSP/SIP packet analysis might be an option, but the raw WAV file is the simplest. I can use Audacity, but this still requires opening each file and looking at the visual representation of the audio spectrometry and is only a little faster than listening to each call but still cumbersome.
I currently have no code or methods for this task. I simply listen to each call wav file to find the noise.
I need a batch Wav file search that can render wav file recordings that contain the characteristic noise or static or crackling over the recording phone conversation.
Unless you can tell the program how the noise looks like, it's going to be challenging to run any sort of batch processing. I was facing a similar challenge and that prompted me to develop (free and open source) software to help user in audio exploration, analysis and signal separation:
App: https://audioexplorer.online/
Docs: https://tracek.github.io/audio-explorer/
Source code: https://github.com/tracek/audio-explorer
Essentially, it visualises audio as a 2d scatter plot rather than only "linear", as in waveform or spectrogram. When you upload audio the following happens:
Onsets are detected (based on high-frequency content algorithm from aubio) according to the threshold you set. Set it to None if you want all.
Per each audio fragment, calculate audio features based on your selection. There's no universal best set of features, all depends on the application. You might try for starter with e.g. Pitch statistics. Consider setting proper values for bandpass filter and sample length (that's the length of audio fragment we're going to use). Sample length could be in future established dynamically. Check docs for more info.
The result is that for each fragment you have many features, e.g. 6 or 60. That means we have then k-dimensional (where k is number of features) structure, which we then project to 2d space with dimensionality reduction algorithm of your selection. Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection is a sound choice.
In theory, the resulting embedding should be such that similar sounds (according to features we have selected) are closely together, while different further apart. Your noise should be now separated from your "not noise" and form cluster.
When you hover over the graph, in right-upper corner a set of icons appears. One is lasso selection. Use it to mark points, inspect spectrogram and e.g. download table with features that describe that signal. At that moment you can also reduce the noise (extra button appears) in a similar way to Audacity - it analyses the spectrum and reduces these frequencies with some smoothing.
It does not completely solve your problem right now, but could severely cut the effort. Going through hundreds of wavs could take better part of the day, but you will be done. Want it automated? There's CLI (command-line interface) that I am developing at the same time. In not-too-distant future it should take what you have labelled as noise and signal and then use supervised machine learning to go through everything in batch mode.
Suggestions / feedback? Drop an issue on GitHub.
Some years ago I made a music audio recording, and I can't find the original WAV files, I have only compressed MP3s. Now I found an audio CD, but I don't know if it was made using the original, uncompressed WAVs, or if it was made from compressed MP3 or OGG files.
Is there a way how to detect if an audio sample has been compressed and decompressed using a lossy compression such as MP, OGG, ..., without having the original to compare to?
Update:
Trying #MisterHenson's suggestion, I plotted the spectra of the two samples, with obvious differences in the graphs:
The sample from the CD:
The sample from the MP3:
This practically solves solves my current problem, but still I have these open questions:
If the spectra were visually indistinguishable, I wouldn't know if there is a real difference, or that I just can't distinguish them (i.e. the compression would be of better quality). What else could I try?
Similarly what would I do if I didn't have the MP3 file to compare to, just a single audio sample?
Is there an automated method, that'd answer the question with a reasonable probability?
I made an example to stress the topology of all MP3 transcodes, the source material being a Chopin nocturne. MP3 on top, Lossless on bottom. All recordings have background noise of some amplitude, and that noise is faintly visible here. What the MP3 transcode (Lame's V2 preset in this case) does is create a hard limit at ~16kHz. On a 320kbps bitrate 44.1kHz sample rate MP3, this hard limit appears at around 20kHz, but it would still be visibly different in this image.
You can pick out this shelf without having the original lossless file for comparison. I'm willing to say all music has amplitude at frequencies above even 19kHz. Here's an example for which I do not have the lossless source file, just a 320kbps MP3. You can see the very hard limit at 20kHz as well as a milder cutoff at 19kHz. Were it lossless, that red blob in the middle would extend all the way up to 22kHz since the sample rate is 44.1kHz.
I would say this process is probably automatable, but I do not know of any attempts to automate it. If this were automated, though, I'd say it could pick Lossy from Lossless with much higher accuracy than you or I, by virtue of it being able to analyze the entire spectrum as opposed to just the high frequency cutoffs.
Full res images:
http://i.imgur.com/dezONol.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1qokxAN.jpg
The above approaches sound very promising although maybe a little complicated -- you might first try something easy, like check the distribution of the least significant bit. In a natural sample, LSB should be an almost exact 50/50 distribution between zeroes and ones (actually across many samples would have some variance following a binomial distribution but with millions or billions of bits this will be ridiculously close to 50/50 in any given sample). In a lossy sample, you will find an unlikely distribution in the LSB.
Something like this:
1 -- extract LSB from each data point
2 -- apply chi-squared test to judge if distribution is unusual
Here is the deal.
A raw sample (or a raw piece of sound) is encoded in a certain quality.
Some sound cards can go further with 64bit sampling.
But let's assume that we have sound files of a certain KNOWN quality.
CD quality is okay for the human ear.
A studio, would make use of more quality samples though. Like 24bit as a standard.
So you got a waveform filename.wav that really has a sample rate 44100 Hz.
What does that mean?
It means the computer can take a huge amount of different samples per second to represent almost the exact sound.
Is the sound original? Depends on how it was made.
If it was made by your computer and a piece of software using a 16bit default sound card yes it is.
If it was from an analogue recording though, it loses some of its quality on the digitization at 44100 Hz fortunately not so significant for the human ear.
NOTE THAT mp3 recordings is a bad idea for professional recording.
But since mp3 recording do exist... this adds complexity to your question. :P
So some sound quality is lost on digitization with a 16bit sound card.
Now similar thing can happen when you encode something to mp3.
Check out your picture. Above 17000 there is no sound. It was butchered to make the sound file significant smaller, without making any significant damage to the audio quality. Is it the same piece of sound? No. It sounds the same though. But a sound engineer LOVES original and good quality samples, because of the information that is NOT cut.
Imagine me, making an original sound, so balanced and compressed that even after an mp3 converting it is hard to tell if it is original sound or not. Imagine me using equalizers to cut any sharp edges, and gate effects to extremely normalize it. Also, my sound generators are some 8bit oscillators passing through some fx and filters.
If I convert it back to wavetable, there might be no difference.
For instance:
[UNCHANGED FREQUENCIES][CUT FREQUENCIES]
Waveform: =================================
mp3: =======================
Waveform: =======================
Waveform:
[UNCHANGED FREQUENCIES][CUT FREQUENCIES]
Waveform: =================
mp3 =================
Waveform: =================
The following seems impossible to me (except if the converter has bugs thing that can be heard)
[UNCHANGED FREQUENCIES][CUT FREQUENCIES]
Waveform: =========================
mp3 =======================
Waveform: =============================
So your question depends on the original source you used in the first waveform.
Good news is that a sample is RARELY THAT limited and compressed.
So it seems to me that the CD you used will probably sound like original waveform,
while as you can see, the mp3 has cut out frequencies.
To be sure of course you need a frequency analyzer and spectrum as MischaNix already has shown.
There are many mp3 encodings too. Some are static, some dynamic, some cut more and some cut less sound information. Some are also bigger than others for that reason.
Now there are lossless formats too.
And then there is ogg that is small enough and also has great quality.
So this question can become a huge topic for no reason here. I will not talk about all these.
If the issue is giving an original sample, your pictures show me significant differences between the two samples. I mean, making a waveform out of the mp3 cut variation, should look like that cut variation. You can not get information out of nothing.
Burn the mp3 on a cd, then get the wave, compare the new waveform with the old and the mp3 waveform. It will probably not be the same thing so you might hit the jackpot here. It is possible you got an original backup on your hands.
From now on though, try sampling raw material and store them in a CD or DVD before discarding them.
Or at least keep good uncompressed samples in a backup.
Open questions:
If the spectra were visually indistinguishable, I wouldn't know if there is a real difference, or that I just can't distinguish them.
Correct. But this would occur seldom without intention on sampling.
Why asking such a question? :) Do you have steganography in mind?
If yes, make sure to keep in mind the nature of the piece of sound you are gonna use. Samples are not appropriate. "Finished songs" are!
Similarly what would I do if I didn't have the MP3 file to compare to, just a single audio sample?
Since there are many mp3 encoding settings of different qualities, you can check if the lowest quality was used. If not there is uncertainty because of the compression capabilities. If this applies to the whole sample, then you got to see if compression was needed. That's why you can not be certain on a song. You don't record with SO hard compression in the first place. I guess this is another meta-reason why you need a natural sound. So if its about a recording you might be lucky.
Now about a finished mastered song... things get rough once again. It is about the nature, the type, of the sound. A recording is easier to figure out what is going on if you knew you used waveform recording. An mp3 recording of course is a waste of time. On the other hand a finished song, usually nowadays makes compressors, limiters, gates and chain compressors burn out. The amount of use of this techniques in modern mastering is enormous. So... you will really need luck to find out if the original piece was compressed before, before having an original waveform to begin with.
Is there an automated method, that'd answer the question with a reasonable probability?
None that I know. Sorry. :(
But that doesn't mean than nobody can make one.
BUT!
A stereo sample is usually split out to two channels. Left and right.
Now if you got a spectrum analyzer in a Digital Audio Workstation,
and take a look only on the left channels of two different samples, you can on the fly see
if they are the same or not I guess.
In order to understand what I mean, take a look at THIS link.
Go at 05:00 and just watch the interface.
Phew. Hope this will help you further, since it took some time. :P
Cheers.
Edit: Fixing some stuff here and there.
I found a description of the problem, a solution and an implementation in Python by Maurits van der Schee, that works with a FLAC though.
From the sample only the first 30 seconds are analyzed. For every
second the frequency spectrum of the sample is computed by applying a
Hanning Window and doing a Fast Fourier Transform. These spectrums are
added, so that eventually you end up with 30 stacked spectrums. These
are divided by 30 to get the average spectrum. Then the spectrum is
normalized using log10. After that we applied a rolling average on the
spectrum with a window size of 1/100th of the frequency, being
44100/100=441 samples.
If there is an unnatural cutoff in the frequency spectrum, this cutoff
is the thing we need to find. We sweep the spectrum from 44100th back
to the 1st frequency, where the variable frequency is f. As soon as
the magnitude at f-220 is more than 1.25 higher than the magnitude at
f and the magnitude at f is no bigger than 1.1x the magnitude at 44100
we have found the cutoff point. The cutoff point is multiplied by 100
and divided by the frequency to get to the percentage of the spectrum
not cut off.
Things to look for:
Cut-off frequency changing on frame boundaries (not going to be a 100% hard cut, but look for "audible" to "inaudible" and vice versa)
Frequencies disappearing or appearing on frame boundaries (again, not 100%)
Noise levels changing on frame boundaries (actually pretty solid for lossy codecs)
For MP3, the frame boundaries are precisely every 1152 samples, though you might be able to "see" the granules every 576 samples.
For Vorbis, the frame boundaries are typically every 128 or 1024 samples depending on transients the encoder "saw". You can probably get away with doing every 128 samples...
You'll have to research the other formats to know their frame sizes (I don't know them offhand).
Folks,
I am struggling with a simple concept related to the duration of play of PCM data. I would appreciate your feedback.
The application I am developing plays guitar notes from a music sheet.
I have implemented Jaffe-Smith Algorithm for guitar plucking.
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/Mohonk05/Extended_Karplus_Strong_EKS_Algorithm.html.
Let's say I compute samples for note A (440 Hz) for one second.
At the sample rate of 11025, I will be storing 11025 samples that can be send to the computer speakers as PCM audio.
For all the unique notes on the guitar, it takes quite some time to compute samples for all the notes. I am thinking I will pre-compute and save them as binary data and simply load them when the application is run.
So far so good.
Now, let's say I want to play a song (a list of various notes). Let's say the song needs to be played at 100 beats per minute. Let's say I have to play note A for one beat or 0.6 seconds (60/100).
Recalculating samples for 0.6 seconds may take quite some time.
Can I simply play (11025 * 0.6) samples? Will this create any side effect?
Is there a better way to achieve what I am trying to do?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Regards,
Peter
What you're basically trying to do is create a synthesized guitar, yes? I might suggest that you go with the sampler route instead.
By sample, I mean a small clip of audio (not a single sample in the sense of ADC or DAC).
Basically, you can flatten what you need into 4 parts:
Attack
Decay
Sustain
Release
These four parts work in that order, and are generally referred to as an ADSR envelope. The attack of the note is the initial sound. For a guitar, you are going to hear a pluck and the start of a pitch. The decay is going to be the sample of the string as it starts to fade away. The sustain is a sample repeated over and over again until you release the key. The release sample is what is played when you release the key. For a guitar, you might hear a sample of lightly putting fingers back on the string to stop their vibration.
Now, you could generate all of these samples in real-time, but will likely be very CPU intensive.
Regarding your question: "Can I simply play (11025 * 0.6) samples?" Yes, at a sample rate of 11025, that will be 0.6 seconds of audio. Also keep in mind though that you should be sending a continuous stream of data to the sound card, filling any empty spots with 0 (for signed PCM).
I have a function that can play set frequencies. The function's inputs are frequency and duration. How can I analyze a sound file so that I have the output frequency for every milisecond of audio.
e.g.:
MS, Frequency
1, 400
2, 401
3, 402
etc.
If there is Mac based software that can do this, I'd be fine with preprocessing the audio files and only inputing the frequency/duration combos.
Thanks!
Most sound files (recordings of anything other than a simple sin wave) do not have a single output frequency, so what you're trying to do is essentially impossible. It is possible to determine the dominant or fundamental frequency of a sound file, but this becomes more difficult to do (and less accurate) the shorter the file is. A one-millisecond snippet of CD-quality (mono) sound consists of only 441 samples.
Are you perhaps trying to convert a recording into its component notes, and then reproduce the tune with your function that plays frequencies? To see how fundamentally difficult this task is, try googling "wav-to-midi".