Re: sample rate questions (Audacity / SoundHack)

Subject: Re: sample rate questions (Audacity / SoundHack)
From: Steven Rice (stevenchristopherrice@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 10 2007 - 14:56:56 EDT

Jascha,

I've found that Audacity has some bugs as far as exporting and
importing vis a vis sampling/bit rates are concerned. Sometimes
soundfiles are mislabeled within the program as 32 bit when they are
actually being read at another bit rate. Be sure that your

Preferences --> File Formats --> uncompressed export format

is correct, and don't trust/change the label on the track when you're
in the program. I've needed to use another program (preference;
Amadeus) for bit/sampling rate processing. At the least, change the
format by importing and exporting, and don't touch the sampling rate
drop down in Audacity. Do some experiments to figure out what it is
actually doing- I'm pretty sure it's a labeling problem that is
causing you to perform the wrong process.

Best,
Steven 

-- 
Steven Rice, M.M.
Composer
Baltimore, MD
http://riceklang.com

On 7/10/07, Jascha Narveson <jnarveson@wesleyan.edu> wrote:
>
>
> that's what i was thinking, too, except i exported from Audacity as
> 32-bit in each case.  still, the numbers make sense, so maybe that is
> it...
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Bruno Degazio wrote:
>
> > 24-bit vs 32-bit might account for the interval of a fourth.
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > On Jul 10, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Jascha Narveson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> hello, CEC-ers,
> >>
> >> An odd thing:
> >>
> >> - made a recording at 88.2 khz, 24-bit
> >> - imported it into Audacity (on a Mac)
> >> - changed the sample rate in Audacity to 88200
> >> - exported the sound as a 88.2 khz 32-bit floating point AIFF file
> >> - changed the sample rate in Audacity to 44100
> >> - re-exported the sound as a 44.1 khz 32-bit floating point AIFF file
> >> - imported both files into SoundHack
> >>
> >> - SoundHack doesn't play the 88.2 file at the correct speed - it
> >> plays it slower.  the weird thing is, it doesn't play it an octave
> >> lower, as i would've expected (if it was mistaking 88.2 khz for
> >> 44.1 khz), but a *fourth*.  can anyone tell me why?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >>
> >> jascha
> >
>
>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:28 EST