5 ms·

I love this and have been looking for a program that's like Photoshop for sound.

by efnx 5y ago

layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
You can try interpreting images as spectrograms, but the result will be a cacophonic mess. There’s a reason why nobody does this. (Other than avantgarde experimental composers maybe, but they are looking for cacophony)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- danwills 5y ago
  Most often yields a cacophonous mess, it's true - but it really depends how carefully the image is made. If the image was made using a fullly-detail fft of a sound then you could in theory get the exact same sound back out that you put in I reckon! :) (admittedly negative color values will be required (or clever mapping), and spreading time-in-the-sound over space-in-the-image).
  - danwills 5y ago
    Words escaped me before by "fully detail", as explained on another threads up there :), I meant that the input image must contain (or have extracted from it) phase information in addition to the amplitudes that a spectrograph-like extraction would provide to have full control over the result (alternatively, a complex valued image (usually positive and negative) would do it). It's hard to make phase-info up from nothing I reckon, maybe that's why many image-to-sound things sound harsh/strange?
dkarras 5y ago
>looking for a program that's like Photoshop for sound. Look at Izotope RX. Especially the Spectral Repair module might be what you are imagining, but it has a lot of interesting tools. This is from an older version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNtxg28wx_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNtxg28wx_M
onirom 5y ago
There is Photosounder which have excellent sound quality (all edit is in frequency domain and it then convert back) For free there is also Virtual ANS and https://www.fsynth.com https://www.fsynth.com on the more experimental side (conversion is done raw using additive synthesis, phase information is lost so sound quality is affected)

I love this and have been looking for a program that's like Photoshop for sound.

by efnx 5y ago

I love this and have been looking for a program that's like Photoshop for sound.

You can try interpreting images as spectrograms, but the result will be a cacophonic mess. There’s a reason why nobody does this. (Other than avantgarde experimental composers maybe, but they are looking for cacophony)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
danwills 5y ago
Most often yields a cacophonous mess, it's true - but it really depends how carefully the image is made. If the image was made using a fullly-detail fft of a sound then you could in theory get the exact same sound back out that you put in I reckon! :) (admittedly negative color values will be required (or clever mapping), and spreading time-in-the-sound over space-in-the-image).
- danwills 5y ago
  Words escaped me before by "fully detail", as explained on another threads up there :), I meant that the input image must contain (or have extracted from it) phase information in addition to the amplitudes that a spectrograph-like extraction would provide to have full control over the result (alternatively, a complex valued image (usually positive and negative) would do it). It's hard to make phase-info up from nothing I reckon, maybe that's why many image-to-sound things sound harsh/strange?

dkarras 5y ago

>looking for a program that's like Photoshop for sound. Look at Izotope RX. Especially the Spectral Repair module might be what you are imagining, but it has a lot of interesting tools. This is from an older version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNtxg28wx_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNtxg28wx_M

onirom 5y ago

There is Photosounder which have excellent sound quality (all edit is in frequency domain and it then convert back) For free there is also Virtual ANS and https://www.fsynth.com https://www.fsynth.com on the more experimental side (conversion is done raw using additive synthesis, phase information is lost so sound quality is affected)