Timeline for Free software to remove "sound pattern" from recording?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 2017 at 2:06 | comment | added | user22688 | "The remaining portion "falls down" with the bottom side becoming straight and the top and bottom curves combining to form a new shape" What? Talking about shapes really confuses things, to the point that this is very inaccurate. I recommend reading this: physics.info/sound | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 22:21 | comment | added | Rory Alsop♦ | Dale - this really isn't how the process works at all. Most of what you have written is misguided and incorrect, as Mark pointed out. | |
| Dec 18, 2016 at 11:56 | comment | added | Mark | I'm sorry, after having read this multiple times I can't see anything redeeming whatsoever in your response. Again it's intended to be an answer to a problem. My opinion is that it it isn't. Even the first line of your response gives this away and your understanding of how spectral editors work is flawed. | |
| Dec 18, 2016 at 11:29 | comment | added | Dale Mahalko | 1. Not all answers on stack exchange are a direct response to the question. Some provide additional detail related to a topic not directly asked in the question. 2. "Long words" are necessary because the alternative is a huge pile of drawings or equations to explain in far greater detail. 3. My general assumption is that if you've used 2D or 3D spectrum analyzers then you know what audio looks like using them, and you generally understand how this would visually work. If you haven't then you won't. Best to just ignore this and move along. | |
| Dec 18, 2016 at 11:09 | comment | added | Mark | First and foremost, this is not the place for a discussion on whether this is a potential answer or not. It's either an answer to the problem or it isn't. IMHO your answer uses lots of long words without really addressing the issue in a manner that communicates that you understand either the concepts or the problem. | |
| Dec 18, 2016 at 11:05 | comment | added | Dale Mahalko | Which part do you disagree with, how simple subtracting of a waveform works, or the idea of a 2D visual spectrum editor? | |
| Dec 18, 2016 at 10:58 | comment | added | Mark | I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. | |
| Dec 18, 2016 at 10:53 | comment | added | Dale Mahalko | I am also not aware of any solution to this problem, so rather than talking about a solution, I'd like to discuss the problem. Hopefully some programming genius might some day be inspired to take this on and create a solution. An additional problem regarding removing a sound is the volume and harmonics of other sounds in the area to be modified. Simply subtracting out a waveform is not going to work where that waveform is overlapping other waveforms. A spectrum view of how subtraction works: 