Walt wrote about Lang's insect recordings:
> I've put up what I got off a copy of Lang's file:
> Peak 4.03:
> m("44khz_peak.aif","//madranis.home.mindspring.com/insect");">http:
> Spark XL 2.81:
> m("44khz_spark.aif","//madranis.home.mindspring.com/insect");">http:
> Soundhack (osX version 0.892):
> m("44khz_shak.aif","//madranis.home.mindspring.com/insect");">http:
> The original Lang sent me:
> m("48khz.aif","//madranis.home.mindspring.com/insect");">http:
I've downloaded these files and had a listen. My hearing is fairly OK for
higher frequencies. I was listening through Sennheiser HD 570 headphones
via my iMac.
The original sounded good
Peak sounded quite a lot thinner than the original
Soundhack sounded exactly the same as the Peak file
Spark sounded noticably thinner than either Peak or Soundhack
Vicki Powys
Australia
on 9/5/04 1:49 AM, Walter Knapp at wrote:
> From: Lang Elliott <>
>>
>>
>> Going the analog route, unfortunately, means playing each file in real time.
>> I really can't afford to do that. ProTools will just have to do for now.
>>
>> I wonder if enough folks in this group would like to have a copy of my 48Khz
>> test file, which is an insect singing at around 12kHz. I think it is really
>> demanding of any sample rate converter going to 44.1.
>>
>> Let me know if there's some interest and I'll post a wave file on my web
>> site.
>
> I've put up what I got off a copy of Lang's file:
> Peak 4.03:
> m("44khz_peak.aif","//madranis.home.mindspring.com/insect");">http:
> Spark XL 2.81:
> m("44khz_spark.aif","//madranis.home.mindspring.com/insect");">http:
> Soundhack (osX version 0.892):
> m("44khz_shak.aif","//madranis.home.mindspring.com/insect");">http:
> The original Lang sent me:
> m("48khz.aif","//madranis.home.mindspring.com/insect");">http:
>
> I should note I also found a slight DC offset in the original, and
> removed that before conversion. DC offset introduces it's own errors and
> I routinely remove that.
>
> Also, my system only outputs at 44k, so even listening to the original
> it was already resampled. Spark and Peak played the original the same.
> Sonograms showed in addition to the high frequency call centered on
> about 12khz a band at about 5khz (the raspy sound) and a bunch of low
> level sound below 170hz. The sonogram of the peak conversion does show
> some very low level sound below the 5khz band.
>
> Spark has batch capabilities, soundhack does not. I used best settings
> in each, Spark was doing the math in 32bit floating point, not sure on
> the others. Each has variations in settings available, and those do
> change the outcome.
>
> I have such lousy hearing at these high frequencies I was having to
> really boost volume. To me Peak and the original sound about the same,
> but that could be my hearing. Spark is different. I also did Soundhack
> as well, somewhere between peak and spark. I had my son listen to them
> all, he can listen to the high frequency at normal listening settings.
> He said there was little difference to him.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|