search for: spectrograms

I know that there is a function, (spectro3D), that produces the Power Spectrogram. Are there R functions that produce the Frequency Spectrogram and the Phase Spectrogram? Thank you for your time. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, I need to plot spectrogram of a waveform.What package offers this? -- Rajesh.J [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

...best possible condition, you may try a spectrogram, just to make sure you don't miss anything. Regards, Ulrich >>> Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> 31.10.17 3.09 Uhr >>> Just to be clear, my goal here wasn't to make fun of anyone, but to drive the point that spectrograms should *never* be used to demonstrate quality. The only case where they can sometimes be useful is for diagnostic purposes. If you hear something and you're not sure what you're hearing exactly, then sometimes a spectrogram can help you figure out what it is. That's pretty much it. If y...

Hello. Me again. Have you tried to encode piano solo? Noticed high bitrate Opus gave? And there's also artefact at 15kHz which wasn't in the original audio. Visible with Spek program. Download FLAC and Opus both files, new link: http://www.filedropper.com/example_3 FLAC full: 1084 kbps; FLAC solo: 465 kbps. with --bitrate 160: Opus full: 158 kbps; Opus solo: 190 kbps. Included also Spek

Jean-Mark sarkasm. Jean-Markasm. (Bonus points for providing an actual noisy WAV! ^_^) On 30/10/2017 20:28, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: Hi, Before I comment on the graphics you posted to visualize the difference between two audio signals, I'd like to ask for your help in evaluating my JPEG encoder. I've encoded an image with JPEG and then computed the difference with the original. I then

Using the following MATLAB snippet: fnames={'chirp','perfect','block','filter'} for k=1:length(fnames) fn=fnames{k}; myfile=fopen([fn, '.fl'], 'r', 'ieee-le'); x=fread(myfile, Inf, 'float32', 0, 'ieee-le'); fclose(myfile); X=specgram(x,2048,1,kaiser(2048,14)); spectrogram_floor=-96;

...(which is higher for higher > frequencies)? Most signals have more LF energy than HF, so it's normal for the noise to look like that as well. If the noise is flat, then you have too much HF noise and you're wasting bits in the LF. In fact, that's exactly what I'm noticing in the spectrograms that are posted. > When your own ears are no longer in their best possible condition, you may try > a spectrogram, just to make sure you don't miss anything. Actually, that's the wrong way. Especially when the spectrogram is computed on a signal difference. For example, some codecs...

Just to be clear, my goal here wasn't to make fun of anyone, but to drive the point that spectrograms should *never* be used to demonstrate quality. The only case where they can sometimes be useful is for diagnostic purposes. If you hear something and you're not sure what you're hearing exactly, then sometimes a spectrogram can help you figure out what it is. That's pretty much it. If y...

...tivity side of things. > Most signals have more LF energy than HF, so it's normal for the noise > to look like that as well. If the noise is flat, then you have too > much HF noise and you're wasting bits in the LF. In fact, that's > exactly what I'm noticing in the spectrograms that are posted. Yes. And of course many of the fundamentals live in the LF range. It'd be more useful to post spectrograms which normalized any residual noise by the utility signal reconstructed by the codec; i.e. time-varying S/N ratios per band. Of course that's still rather naïve a...

On Nov 05 18:00:06, hans at stare.cz wrote: > On Nov 05 11:32:49, hans at stare.cz wrote: > > On Nov 05 11:05:34, hans at stare.cz wrote: > > > > Did you also try to listen at the beginning, shortly before the real tone appears in the audible spectrum? While significantly larger, Opus had produced significant ghost noise (much less than Vorbis did)... > > I experience

On Nov 17 20:37:21, sergeinakamoto at gmail.com wrote: > Hello. Me again. > Have you tried to encode piano solo? > Noticed high bitrate Opus gave? > Download FLAC and Opus both files, > new link: > http://www.filedropper.com/example_3 > FLAC full: 1084 kbps; > FLAC solo: 465 kbps. > with --bitrate 160: > Opus full: 158 kbps; > Opus solo: 190 kbps. The two

On Nov 05 11:32:49, hans at stare.cz wrote: > On Nov 05 11:05:34, hans at stare.cz wrote: > > > Did you also try to listen at the beginning, shortly before the real tone appears in the audible spectrum? While significantly larger, Opus had produced significant ghost noise (much less than Vorbis did)... I experience the "same" low level noise even in a wav file, even on

...to use R to formulate and evaluate specific models. So I would like to ask R people for their recommendations for a program which would a) Take as input a sound file in one of the common formats (".wav", ".au") b) perform at least basic phonetic analysis (formants, F0, spectrograms, ... ) b) Save to file a representation of the basic phonetic analysis which it has done, in a form which R can readily import and use. I've come across 'praat': http://www.praat.org which seems to offer a spohisticated range of analyses, though it's not too clear from...

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:40 PM ongaku zettai <sergeinakamoto at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello. > i have over 30GB of Opus music and noticed that > solo instrumentals and solo vocals uses more bitrate > than full-mixes. > Here's example where Opus 1.3 used 190 kbps for > piano solo and 159 kbps for full-mix. > (--bitrate 160 --music) > Download example piano solo

This is not the same as the recent thread on a waterfall graph. I'm thinking about the rolling FFT display used in acoustics and other spectrum analysis tasks. Here's an example of a very fancy 3-D waterfall display: http://www.ultimaserial.com/UltimaWaterfall.html I was just wondering if there are any simple hidden-line tools in R that I could use to draw simple waterfall displays.

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:01 AM Jan Stary <hans at stare.cz> wrote: Attached I send the spectrogram (vic SoX) of the first 20 seconds > for the wav file and the opus file. Indeed, there is extra noise > for the low frequencies, but somewhere around -100 dB. > > Jan > That might be entirely due to SoX treating it as a 16-bit file, which it is not; -100dB is almost

Why does opus scale down frequency from 22k to 20k ? 64kbps<https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-DGsEd1ijTBs/UDE3OFVrE5I/AAAAAAAADBo/bFcWQ6I4-Zk/s588/opus_64_test.png> 128kbps<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3Wfvq6OPGRw/UDE3OClxEdI/AAAAAAAADBk/vsBJ9Gcd_pU/s589/opus_test.png>

I'm curious, does anyone know of a way to analyze a wave file to determine the quantity of information in it? For example, given a particular .wav file, how can I find out if it's an original or was encoded to something lossy and back? Is there a way to get the vorbis encoder to spit out some data on how much useful information it discovers in an input? Surely the encoder might

>>> Emily Bowman <silverbacknet at gmail.com> schrieb am 05.11.2018 um 20:46 in Nachricht <CAGSVXPR6t8uHJFqDCT-1pn9otP_7ypPxgRXRasgZERunsAe0fA at mail.gmail.com>: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:01 AM Jan Stary <hans at stare.cz> wrote: > > Attached I send the spectrogram (vic SoX) of the first 20 seconds >> for the wav file and the opus file. Indeed, there

I brought this up 12 months ago or more. I believe the low-pass filter defaults too high with quality -1 in Vorbis 1.0. Is this going to change in the future? I think it should at least cut off at 15khz not 16khz and perhaps even 14khz. I believe it's important when streaming. Removing some of the higher frequencies compared to removing more of the audible sound makes more sense to me.