It is also quite similar to Sonic Visualiser, but I couldn't find a way to "stack" waveforms in order to compare them in SV. Though, I might have missed the option to do it, i.e. I'm not saying I did a deep software review before starting DFasma ... Cheers, G On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote: -- Mobile: +44 79 23 28 22 59

I've tried Sonic Visualiser, Baudline, and programs like that in the past looking for some sort of tool that could show why a mix has a the particular EQ balance or tone that it has. I've never really been able to express what it is I'm looking for in that regard, because usually when I try to explain it, the reaction I get is that I'm being naive about the way audio works. That's entirely possible and even likely, but if that's 100% the case here, then when people say that a mix is "cold" or "metallic" or "thin" or whatever, if it's really true that I'm being naive in saying that's something that's something you ought to be able to reveal in software analysis somehow, then what people are describing when they use those words is basically voodoo --they're taling about something mystical and superstitious that doesn't really exist. I guess I think like that -- if it's a real sonic property, you ought to be able to tease out the details with some kind of algorithm. Otherwise, when people use those sorts of terms about the properties of a mix, they might as well admit they're talking as much nonsense as I am, since any "wamrth" or "thinness" or whatever that's naive to talk about showing up in any kind of fourier analysis is also probably not real in any sense at all. There may indeed be some properties of audio that are completely subjective voodoo, but my own sense is overall EQ balance shouldn't be one of them. It seems more like something that ought to be possible with some sort of spectrum and time analysis, somethine that is real and subject to mathematics, even if we might not have exactly the right software for that specific job. One of the problems may be that you probably can't capture what I'm talking about from a single sample. It would have to be averaged out over time, at least several seconds worth of audio, if not a whole song. The overall EQ characteristics of one particular moment may be very atypical for that recording's overall mix over time. I don't know if there's a tool that does what I"m wanting, whether DFasma or some other program could do it. Basically, I want a program that exposes what's different about mix A from mix B, not just in frequency spread, but also over time, and with regard to stereo field. But it would be nice if there was some quantifiable way to look at what the mix and mastering engineer has done and actually see it, and not just say, well that's voodoo. Whatever's there can be heard but never looked at. Remember, if what I'm saying about quantifying this is nonsense, then every time you describe a mix in any kind of descriptive words, then I think that would mean you're talking about non-empirical nonsense too. Either mix properties really exist or they don't. -- - Brent Busby + =============================================== + "With the rise of social networking -- Keycorner -- + sites, computers are making people -- Recording -- + easier to use every day." ----------------+ ===============================================

Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> writes: [...] That makes sense. I'm still not quite ready to raise the white flag of defeat though. Over many years, developers of image processing programs have made those programs aware of gamut. It's gotten fairly complicated in some ways, but programs like Photoshop now pride themselves in it. Even if it ends up being way more than just a simple fourier transform analysis, I'm still convinced that you could make some kind of tool that would be able to tell you something visually about what's happening in a mix. Sonic Visualiser is in the right direction, but I'm still convinced that you could do more. -- - Brent Busby + =============================================== + "With the rise of social networking -- Keycorner -- + sites, computers are making people -- Recording -- + easier to use every day." ----------------+ ===============================================

On Fri, March 11, 2016 5:16 am, Brent Busby wrote: I think the fundamental problem is that there are a lot of simultaneously interacting events going on in any musical stream of sounds, and not any obviously good or "correct" way to display that information visually. Even when you pick a method to display visually, it is difficult to make sense of what is presented, which means you have to learn how to use that specialized tool, and in the time it takes to learn how to use that (necessarily imperfect) tool, you could train your ears better (which of course really means training your brain to interpret what comes in your ears) so that you don't need a visual tool. And you can to a certain degree, but a lot of the analysis leans more toward what the subjective compression developers would use (e.g. for analyzing audio when working with MP3, vorbis, AAC, etc.), things like analysis windows that vary with frequency and time span, and then you still have to learn how to interpret what those tools are telling you. At the end of the day it isn't easier doing that than just spending some time with an equalizer and seeing what effect boosting and cutting various frequency bands have. There is also a bit of subjective taste involved, one person's "warm" might be another person's "muddy," and one person's "thin" might be another person's "clear." Voxengo tries to do something similar to what you want. http://www.voxengo.com/product/curveeq/ "Additionally, CurveEQ implements spectrum matching technology that allows you to transfer spectrum’s shape of one recording to another. In other words, this allows you to “copy” frequency balance of existing time-proven mixes so that other mixes that are still in the works may have a chance to sound better. This technology also greatly helps in music mastering since it easily lessens any dramatic differences in the area of frequency balance between various tracks." -- Chris Caudle

It's quite similar to wavesurfer. Though, I hope it is more convenient for inspecting spectral characteristics (amp, phase, group-delay spectra). It helps me for developing vocoders for speech synthesis. I used it also for visualising results of voice transformation (e.g. pitch or time scaling). A quick look at the screenshots section gives some use cases: http://gillesdegottex.github.io/dfasma/screenshots.html Or just download it, load two similar, bot not equal sounds, and have fun! Cheers, G On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Philip Yassin <philcm(a)gnu.org> wrote: -- Mobile: +44 79 23 28 22 59

There should be the module "multimedia" in dfasma.pro that enable QAudioFormat: https://github.com/gillesdegottex/dfasma/blob/master/dfasma.pro#L216 Did they change its name in the Qt version you're using ? (Installing QtMultimedia on Ubuntu 14.X is a super pain in the ***, I don't know what they did for 15.10) Cheers, G On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Johannes Kroll <j-kroll(a)gmx.de> wrote: -- Mobile: +44 79 23 28 22 59

DFasma is written with Qt5. As Chris said, you have to be sure to use qmake of Qt5. In distrib/compile_dfasma_from_github.sh: QMAKENAME=qmake-qt5 ? Or something similar. Look at the qmake* commands you have on your machine. Cheers, G On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Johannes Kroll <j-kroll(a)gmx.de> wrote: -- Mobile: +44 79 23 28 22 59

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Johannes Kroll <j-kroll(a)gmx.de> wrote: Thanks ! Feel free to comment, report bugs, ideas, etc. ! Don't know if it's relevant, but have you thought about VAMP plugin That might be an idea, yes, just need time now :P :) Cheers, Gilles