<div dir="ltr">Oh - and if you're just using one feature, you should probably turn off the "relative ordering" option with this message to [timbreID]<div><br></div><div>[relative_ordering 0(</div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:50 AM, William Brent <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:william.brent@gmail.com" target="_blank">william.brent@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">There are separate versions of each analysis object: one for real time, and one for NRT reading straight out of tables. You'll see separate help files for [barkSpec~] and [barkSpec], for instance. So an [until] loop scanning your pre-recorded audio will be the fastest way for you to work on this. That's what's used in the 06/order.pd example. Just look in the [pd analysis] sub patch and you can change the feature from barkSpec to whatever you like (or whatever combination of features, weighted however).<div>
<br></div><div>I'd recommend putting your audio into the timbre-space patch and plotting by different features there. That way, you can see how the vowels/consonants fall on different axes when using certain features. That'll give you some intuition on picking the best feature or combo of features.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Last - ordering by timbre is always going to be fuzzy unless you can find a one-dimensional feature that reflects the timbre aspect you're after. Ordering by multi-dimensional features, you might make a big jump along one dimension for one step in your ordering, and then a big jump along a different dimension for the next step. You never know how much one particular feature is contributing the choice of the next step in the ordering. In terms of keeping it relatively intuitive to work with, fewer dimensions is better. For speech, I'd recommend trying [specBrightness] only, with a boundary frequency of about 2.5kHz. That'll separate the high-frequency consonants from the more formanty low-mid vowels. You should get a decent continuum with just that one feature.</div>
<div><br></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Joćo Pais <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmmmpais@googlemail.com" target="_blank">jmmmpais@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div><div>Hi William and all,</div><div><br></div><div>I thought there would some relevant things in your library. I'll look into your suggestions later.<br></div><div>I don't have a patch that other people can look at, but I can try to explain the context a bit better:</div>
<div>- I have a sound of ~40s spoken voice. I'm going to split it in fragments (for now 100ms each) and reorder them </div><div>- one of the possibilities of reordering the fragments would be to have a "continuous" timbre change in the end. E.g. going from noisy consonants to clean vowels</div>
<div>- for the analysis, I guess a mixture of pitch and harmonicity (don't know yet in which order it should be done) would be adequate</div><div><br></div><div>I noticed your objects work in real time. As the analysis is to be done before the performance, I guess I'll either let the sound play throughout to get the analysis data, or then I'll divide the fragments through x analysis patches, to make it run x times faster.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In this case it is spoken voice, but I guess it could by anything else.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Joćo</div><div><div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0.80ex;border-left:#0000ff 2px solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Joćo,<div><br></div><div>A measure that would give something near 1.0 for white noise and near 0 for a sine wave would be "spectral flatness", which is in the timbreID library. But if you're looking to see how well a spectrum's partials line up harmonically, you won't find that in timbreID yet. One quick option would be to use sigmund~ to get the current pitch, then search the spectrum for the amount of energy in bin ranges related to the expected set of harmonics. Compare that with energy in non-harmonic bins. But then, for things like gongs that sound "pitchy" but have inharmonic spectra, that won't be much help. Depends a lot on what you're trying to do.</div>
<div><br></div><div>You *might* find specSpread~ useful, which measures how widely or tightly energy is concentrated around the spectrum's center of gravity. It's in units of Hz though.</div><div><br></div></div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Joćo Pais <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmmmpais@googlemail.com" target="_blank">jmmmpais@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hello,<br>
<br>
I wanted to ask if there are any suggestions for spectral "weight" analysis.<br>
With "weight" I mean a factor which would measure the harmonicity of a sound - e.g. white noise being 1, and a sinus/silence 0. Surely it exists a propper word for this already, but I don't know one.<br>
<br>
Is there any external or patch around that does something similar?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
jmmmp<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<a href="mailto:Pd-list@iem.at" target="_blank">Pd-list@iem.at</a> mailing list<br>
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> <a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>William Brent<br><a href="http://www.williambrent.com" target="_blank">www.williambrent.com</a><br><br>Great minds flock together<br>Conflations: conversational idiom for the 21st century<br>
<br><a href="http://www.conflations.com" target="_blank">www.conflations.com</a>
</div>
</blockquote><br><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>William Brent<br><a href="http://www.williambrent.com" target="_blank">www.williambrent.com</a><br><br>Great minds flock together<br>
Conflations: conversational idiom for the 21st century<br>
<br><a href="http://www.conflations.com" target="_blank">www.conflations.com</a>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>William Brent<br><a href="http://www.williambrent.com">www.williambrent.com</a><br><br>Great minds flock together<br>Conflations: conversational idiom for the 21st century<br>
<br><a href="http://www.conflations.com">www.conflations.com</a>
</div>