Forums

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    2 posts

    Hi every ones,

    Most of you dont talk about the size and strength of these models.

    I'm looking for a Zoom H2...???
    For the size and price. (my first field recorder...)

    A strange fact...
    At Zoom web site, no spec. for frequency response???

    Many thanks.

  • avatar
    103 sounds
    195 posts

    Bram

    advantage: it shows the waveform in moredetail for very silent sounds
    disadvantage: the previews could become more noisy for silent sounds


    when Nightingale will become The world wide Database for every-kinda-recorded-sound, you would need a CrayXT5 to normalize a daily billion samples wink

  • avatar
    121 sounds
    1546 posts

    firefreak, mouse-over will be used to display the spectrogram of the sound ( see http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/blog/ )

    I think dobroide, Richard and Mart1001 have convinced me.

    By the way, the sidebar on the site will disappear (too much text scares the new users!) and all waveform/spectral displays will be a bit larger (like the ones you are seeing here).
    But that is a matter for another thread.

    - bram

  • avatar
    20 sounds
    25 posts

    How about showing the variant with the slightly higher preference per default and change to the other bitmap on MouseOver?
    Or is this more a question in the sense of "Do enough people want this to accept the higher CPU load?".

  • avatar
    3089 sounds
    479 posts

    After some thinking I voted no to normalizing,. Look at it this way: imagine you are exploring a vast library filled with bookshelves in which ALL books are exactly the same size (someone took the trouble to normalize the books). Would this make easier or harder to find a particular item? It might be argued that size is a superficial characteristic , it doesn't matter because books have spines with colors and letters (their 'spectrograms') that identify them, and it's true. But you need to look closely to read a book spine...

    You may say 'I'm the tidy kind of a librarian, books look nicer the same size'. Allright but... a girl once told me size matters. Small sounds... sorry, I mean quiet sounds can be easily enlarged... ooops amplified to a comfortable loudness during preview play.

    You know, this normalization issue makes me think of an email I got the other day, can body parts be artiffcially increased in size? Really?
    smile

    D

  • avatar
    3113 sounds
    310 posts

    Hi,
    I don't know if females come to this forum, but I think I can record my girlfriend saying these things, we can't get to it until tomorrow so if you have any other things you want said please let us know.
    Thanks

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post

    This is very good that you do have confidence in your lyrics but getting the initial start is the main matter. It would be better to approach a few well known publishers who have the repute of giving breaks to newbie’s. As there are many people coming up in your line you really need to get an edge out of them and I believe that vmusicbook.com will be a suitable option for you to get started as it houses the contact names, Addresses, Phone #'s, Fax #'s, Emails, and Websites of the needed persons and also provides strategies for getting started in this line.

    All the Best!!!

  • avatar
    137 sounds
    46 posts

    Bram
    <snip>
    Richard, what do you think about normalizing the mp3 preview?
    <snip>
    - bram

    I can see how that would be helpful, but my gut instinct would be to leave it alone since normalizing the preview would not give an accurate impression of the sound. But this is all really just my personal preference-- I'm not speaking with any sort of authority. If everyone else would prefer it normalized I could live with that too.

    -Richard

  • avatar
    2 sounds
    11 posts

    Bram
    Mart1001, all (well explained) opinions count!! That includes yours smile

    Thx. smile
    Also, I've been thinking...would normalizing also affect the rating/commenting of samples?
    I've only downloaded a few sounds so far but, I have rated them all and intend to rate every sound I d-load, and comment when I can. But would normalizing a otherwise poorly recorded sound(level wise), fool me into giving the sound a rating of 8, when really I would only give a 6 because of the lack of effort in getting the volume upto proffessional level ?

    I know it's only the preview we're talking about but, that's all I tend to listen to initially. I shouldn't have to d-load a sound before I can rate it. For example, 'the random sound of the day' on the home page, 'rate this sound', I should be able to just preview it, and then rate it, knowing that the sample I'm rating, is more or less what I'm hearing without any workshop aid such as normalise.

    Surely, it's upto the technician to ensure that he gets his sample spot on before submitting, in order to obtain the best possible rating. Of course...some sounds need to be quiet else they lose that feeling of realism...and normalizing may also make a classy sample...sound amateur.
    I wouldn't want my recording of a snail, to sound like someone dragging a wooden box across the floor. tongue

    Sorry...I'll shut up now. grin

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    49 posts

    I think ur right.

    Normalising the audio gives you less information. The graph should be a visual representation of the audio you are downloading.

    If the visual (and audio) is normalised I think this is confusing and not helpful.

    Also personally I don't prefer either set of colours smile Both look fine to me.

  • avatar
    121 sounds
    1546 posts

    The changed colors are just because I changed the palette of the colors used for the sounds. I thought they looked so bad I had to change them for the nightingale!!

    Check (sinusoid rising sweep) new:
    http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/files/wav2png/11_Bram_sweep_log_w.png
    versus Old:
    http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/data/0/images/11__Bram__sweep_log.png

    The same information is there, it's just different (nicer!!!) colors.

    For the spectrogram I need to normalize the sound, but as in the spectrograms the amplitude of the sound is not so visible it doesn't matter.
    The spectrogram will will be displayed on mouse hover in the sound detail page.

    I guess Richard is right though: the normalized wave-display doesn't tell us more about the sound, it tells us less because you can't guess if the original sound is silent or not.
    But ejfortin is correct when he says flash can only DECREASE volume, not increase.
    Richard, what do you think about normalizing the mp3 preview?

    I'm still doubting here!!

    I should really make an example page where I combine
    http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/files/player/player.html
    with
    http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/blog/?p=10
    so you guys can see the final result.

    Mart1001, all (well explained) opinions count!! That includes yours smile

    - bram

  • avatar
    193 sounds
    7 posts

    same opinion as rhumphries here...

  • avatar
    15 sounds
    135 posts

    I voted normalize. I really use my ear more than my eyes. Chalk it up to inexperience I guess.

    My thought would be the normalization would give me a better way of quickly judging a sounds potential on something quiet.

    EJ fortin's idea would satisfy both angles of keeping the original wav image but normalizing the preview for our ears to judge...

  • avatar
    44 sounds
    99 posts

    what if we just normalized the preview, but left the spectragraph alone? This would make everyone happy! smile

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    3 posts

    Dear all,

    I used several freesound samples in my latest composition: "Pa Eeeh".

    Credits (in alphabetical order) go to: acclivity, cognito_perceptu, Corsica_S, Erdie, fieldmuzick, gearfreak, reinsamba, zeroline
    I already PMed the authors.
    Thank you all so much for having inspired me!
    The title comes from a "word" spoken by reinsamba's sweet little daughter.

    You can listen to "Pa Eeeh" on www.myspace.com/noou

    Best,
    Stefano

  • avatar
    2 sounds
    11 posts

    RHumphries
    I would choose not normalized because it is easier for me to tell what the resulting sound will be like in terms of volume and dynamics. Your normalized example suddenly looks very loud to me, even though it is not, and the resulting increase in frequency resolution, doesn't really tell me much more about the sound than the non normalized example.

    -Richard


    That's spot on...and I agree.
    I'm a new comer to this site so I feel a little bit shy in venting my opinion but here goes.

    The reason I found this site is, I was looking for a sample of wind(storm), and so I googled 'wind.wav'...anyway, once I got started looking through the site, it was important to me to be able to look at the fantastic graphical images of the wave that the site incorperates, at a glance, I could see where the wind was soft and quiet, and also where it built up to gale force. I then started looking for thunder sounds, and the same graphical representation allowed me to be able to find samples of light(ambient) thunder...or heavy close range crashes.

    When you have an image of a required sound in your head, you then tend to have an image of the sort of wave you're looking for, and this is where the 'un-normalized' images are most useful.

    It is a fantastic idea to normalise the waves but for me, I think it is perfect the way it is...just like RHumphries said above, I tend to 'read' the wave before I listen to the sound, and surely normalising the samples, would actually make life more difficult.

    I would just like to add(as this is my first real post), that this site is absolutely fantastic, and has opened up new horizons for me.
    Keep up the excellent work lads. :wink:

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post

    When I used to live in North Dakota as a kid, there was a sound that you'd come to abhor; namely the sound outside in the dead of summer on the farm; just after it rains. Right around dusk, the mosquitoes are so plentiful that their flight creates a background hum that is so loud you can hear it in the house if nothing is going on inside.

    What I would like is one stereo or two mono tracks of at least 2 minutes in length of anyone daring enough to venture outside in an area that has this phenomenon. A good condenser mic recording would be great, as you'd need something with a huge pickup pattern to probably get a loud enough signal.

    I have attempted to emulate this sound using a variety of analog and digital sounds, but just as taking a single violin sample and copying it to 72 tracks doesn't make an orchestra, there is no way to faithfully reproduce this event in the studio.

  • avatar
    137 sounds
    46 posts

    I would choose not normalized because it is easier for me to tell what the resulting sound will be like in terms of volume and dynamics. Your normalized example suddenly looks very loud to me, even though it is not, and the resulting increase in frequency resolution, doesn't really tell me much more about the sound than the non normalized example.

    -Richard

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    24 posts

    Do females come to this forum?

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    215 posts

    Yes,
    BUT the first things I see is that the colors are changing,

    so what you can do is to do the regular processing
    but before drawing the peaks
    you just normalize that peak array
    and AFTER you draw them

    so the result is that the colors
    give the real spectral information
    in the native state of the sound
    and itS more easy to see small waveform

    and the processing take less time,
    cuz there is less peaks value than sound samples value to process

    cool