I’m not an audio expert, but I’m trying to map the frequency graph to the frequency color so that the highest frequency in an audio file will automatically map itself to the right hand side of the frequency color.
The right hand side is for the highest frequency, which is to my knowledge for this Effector 20khz. Something some people have problems to even hear, 16khz might be an more reasonable linit. However 20hz to 20Khz was the old “HiF"i definition, I guess that were it came from. (DIN 45500, German Industry Norm, which was around the ‘60s the golden standard, and as MAXON was founded in Germany, perhaps the 20hz-20khz has survived somehow) ;o)
So the left red arrow and the right arrow point exactly where you want to have it. But I guess, you have more in mind that the highest frequency is very close to the right end of the gradient. For that you have to find out where the frequency has its limits. So, pull the Compression to 100% to make you life easier, at least for the time being. This will show you how far the sound goes. You can also use the filter to set a middle value and then set twice of it as Bandwidth (to catch always the lowest frequencies as well.
Lets say you need a quarter of that gradient. Right Mouse Click on the gradient (or cntrl/cmd click) and the little menu will offer you to “double knots”, do it twice to get four times (quarter) the knots. Adjust if needed, or delete or ad one and then use the RMC distribute.
If the frequency and the gradient is “in sync”, you need only to adjust how many Clones you will use. The UV space of the Clones will be used to map the colors. The UV space is the left sided equals zero and the right sided is one. (Depends of course where the camera is looking from. It is from the UVW dimensions (XYZ) the U dimension.
If you use the Filter option (see image), then the frequency field will get a pale blue color for the frequency background, accordingly to the values you have chosen.. This will be then your 0-1 U-space. Based on the sound file I have attached above.
Have a look to the image, you will find a setting for a row of linear Cube-clones. If the yellow needs to be on the end (Clone, check the scene file ;o)
Enjoy, and keep the sound down, it’s late ;o)
Sassi
P.S.: the second image is a “spectral view” of the sound file from above, it is set up logarithmically, to spread the lower freq. a little bit. (App: Soundtrack) You can see easily the “harmonics” of such as well.
Thanks, I got it to work using your technique. Very helpful.
One last audio question. I created a scale in Garage Band using the virtual keyboard going from the lowest note to the highest and notice that when the audio hits the high pitched notes, not all of the bars “light up.” Now excuse me if I’m using the wrong terms here, but is that because high pitched sounds have a thin spectral view (i.e. they have holes in them, aren’t “full and rich”)?
Here is a link to the project I made. Please excuse the “music.” I am no Schubert. 8^)
Hi Jerome, thanks for the feedback, very nice of you.
I can’t help my self, but I think the sounds you like to use are not for pleasure ;o)
Check out the attached sound file and do yourself a favor and leave the loudspeakers or any sound dives OFF! Seriously. OK, I know you like to hear it, but act on your own risk.
If you check the frequency on my “spectral-spectrum” (I call it spectral based on the colors, it is normally used elsewhere ;o) representation, you will see that the frequency is in logarithmic notation. The top part is over 20khz, which can destroy speakers easily. I took a Synthesizer (a digital one, as I have sold my own “Arp Axxe” many decades ago).
I guess to make it work for normal use, this is also in the Sound Effector set up, but I don’t know, it is just my guess. Yes, it is difficult to get some “power” to such sound, perhaps 24 keys at the same time might do it, but honestly…
So, I know you ask to understanding the tool, as no-one would like to listen to such sound, this is as far as I can tell. Anything else must be a request from the support.
WooHoo!!! Great sound file! Made me think of some of Krzysztof Penderecki a bit. Woke up the whole neighbourhood with that! 8^)
Kidding aside, I installed Audition on my Mac and am able to look at the “Spectral Frequency Display” which gives a clear(ish) frequency range for any audio file that I might need to work with. Would be nice to be able to set high and low frequency level manually in C4D though. Ideally, might even be possible to have a virtual piano hitting the right notes based solely on a clean audio file (like a sonata), though that might be asking for too much. I suspect that the amount of work needed to develop something like that might not be justifiable. And anyways, I can always approximate the range as your technique clearly demonstrates.
Again, thank you for your help.
All the best,
Jerome
PS
I find the spectral waveform for the sound file you provided to be really pretty.
Wait a second. It IS possible. Great, this is me moving on without completely understanding something. The frequency and bandwidth filters give me all the control I need. I can even split the audio into left and right channels and create two separate animations, one for each, or even have separate animations for each frequency range.
Yeah, once I understand it, it’s totally obvious, but it’s amazing how my brain fills in gaps with misinformation and half baked notions. Must remember to be careful not to let that happen.
Again, thank you for your help and patience, Sassi. It’s a real privilege to be able to communicate with someone as knowledgable as you.
All the best,
Jerome
EDIT:
Hm… After playing around with it, I started to notice something weird, so I exported a 20Hz to 20KHz Sine Wave audio file from Audition, slapped it into the Sound Effector to discover that it doesn’t seem to be work above a certain frequency. Like you suggested, I opened a ticket with support and will wait for them to get back to me.
Slowly, one day at a time, things become clearer. 8^)
Yes, that is why I mentioned the filter initially. Please have an eye on the Spline GUI as well. ;o)
Again, I assume that the distribution is logarithmic, as we hear music and sound. OR the gamma in an image, we focus on some middle values—mostly.
The Frequencies from 10khz to 20khz are certainly not dominant. I hope the support can shed some light on it, if this is important to you. The main question is, will it deliver for you something that elevates your understanding or helps you to create something useful?
Yes, digging into the tools to try and understand them thoroughly, one also needs to take a step back and ask how important is it to be accurate when one can simply fake it—though that requires more time and effort.
Where I saw this as being useful would be when working with clients who manufacture sound equipments, like speakers, hifi systems, or home entertainment systems. Being able to create accurate visual representations of sound frequencies would be, I imagine, very useful to help carry certain technical points across.
If you see a market there, Jerome, then go for it! :o)
Let me share you my motivation to be in that way.
I had some years ago a discussion with a friend, who was a member here while he was alive. We discussed the 1600% view (Illustrator, path detailing) in which I sometimes got crazy in, while doing package design 15 years ago for a while. (The Munich film-business was down, so I had to expand…)
It is easy to get lost in micro details, and on the end no-one will know, nor pay for this.
Today I limit my image work, if I work on details to 400%, but more to be faster, than to be precise. What I have learned talking to other people in the film-industry, there is always a threshold with what “you get away with it”.
The better you know what is visible for the audience, and what not, the more effective one can be. ... and yes, there are the pixel-peeper, the people who seems to have all the time in the world to stop even movies and check the image. Good for them. Perhaps no payed projects? Not so good for them. But I never would do a movie for those people, no interest, that is not why I do stuff, at least not where I like to spend my time and money. Hence why I introduced my old friend in the beginning, time is limited.
I’m all about clearing terms, definitions, and provide a good base. Beyond that, I have stopped getting crazy. In the ‘90s I bought for $10K plug-ins for all my 3D apps. Just in case a client could come and ask for it. I invested weeks each time to learn these (at that time they were more cryptic than today). In the ‘90s I got 90% of my income in terms of digital production from Photoshop and Illustrator. Mainly Illustrator. Bang! What I learned from it, do what interests you, purely you. Dig deep if it is YOUR interest. Imaginative clients don’t pay, so don’t waste time on it. Invest all the time in what you love and like. This will show after while, and clients come. It is the healthiest way as well—it is the better way! You might not burn out that easy, as you do what you love, even for clients.
Just to be clear, I’m not here chasing unicorns, looking for and demanding technical perfection from everything and everyone for the sole purpose of causing trouble. My motivation is strictly to develop a strong fluency in C4D so I can tackle a greater variety of projects, while producing better results in a shorter time frame and get there with the least amount of anxiety for everyone, especially myself.
My varying levels of technical knowledge, in many of the fields related to graphics, video and audio, has always been an important point in my life. When I know something, I feel good and do good work. When I don’t, I feel terrible and struggle to get the job done. All I want to do is reduce the number of times when I’m faced with a problem that I don’t know how to solve. There is nothing worse than having that feeling, like a knot in your chest. It’s terrible.
Anyways, more to come as I continue exploring and learning C4D.
Jerome
PS
Again, thank you for all your help, dedication and thoughtful words.
Thanks, Jerome. I was hopefully not saying that you are hunting Unicorns. Not my impression. If it was received that way, then: sorry.
Yes, to know things in a clear way is a good base. I agree 100%. I was not certain if we got a little bit too much away from the main idea, with digging how to make 20khz work, that’s all.
What I try to balance here, is information flow, and motivation, but most importantly to keep the intuition balanced. If one part becomes too dominant, things become distorted. Just my input as an instructor.
Learning something is always an evaluation how deep or how far one goes. Deep and far is not always possible: Each answer might bring up three new questions. Etc.
As I see your motivation and clearly your progress—I didn’t wanted to have a slow down here on this point.
Anyway, I think we have cleared everything from the initial question as far as possible. As we have no “Technical Director’s Manual”, I have to direct to the support here, I can’t tell with certainty how the frequency is mapped and how to get the whole bandwidth equally and linearly working from 20hz to 20khz, other than I have explained my view to it. So far, you are the first one asking me it detailed like this since 2006. ;o)
