| Author |
Message |
ted hyland
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:29 am Post subject:
Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
Question. I have a song at 44.1 but we like it better played back at 48
because of both the speed and the pitch. It's about 20 tracks of music
and we will do the vocals over. If it's in C and 82bpm at 44.1 what is
the new key and speed at 48? I can get my tuner out and figure it out
but I want to do it by math. What is the formula? I will reprogram the
drum tracks to the new tempo but the music will have to be pitch shifted
and time crunched to the closest regular key. Thanks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David Satz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:14 am Post subject:
Re: Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
Ted, the ratio of 48 to 44.1 is about 1.08844. You'd use that ratio in
both calculations.
The easy one to figure out is the new speed. It will simply be the old
speed multiplied by that ratio--82 bpm * 1.08844, or about 89.25 bpm.
The pitch is only a little more complicated. An interval of one musical
semitone represents a ratio in frequency equal to the 12th root of 2
(since one octave = double the frequency, and 12 semitones = 1 octave).
So it would be easiest to use logarithms.
As I said before, 48/44.1 is about 1.08844, and the logarithm of that
ratio is about 0.0368. The logarithm of 2 is 0.30103, and 1/12 of that
is about 0.0251. Thus for every 0.0251 in the logarithm of your
frequency shift, you've shifted by one musical semitone. And 0.0251
goes into 0.0368 about 1.466 times.
So the new pitch should be about 1.466 semitones higher than the old
pitch. If the song used to be in C, it will now be very close to
exactly halfway between the keys of C# and D; good luck matching any
keyboards or woodwinds to that pitch level!
--best regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pooh Bear
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
ted hyland wrote:
| Quote: | Question. I have a song at 44.1 but we like it better played back at 48
because of both the speed and the pitch. It's about 20 tracks of music
and we will do the vocals over. If it's in C and 82bpm at 44.1 what is
the new key and speed at 48? I can get my tuner out and figure it out
but I want to do it by math. What is the formula? I will reprogram the
drum tracks to the new tempo but the music will have to be pitch shifted
and time crunched to the closest regular key. Thanks.
|
Every 100 cents of pitch is 1.05946309435929526456182529494634 times the
frequency.
48/44.1 = 1.08843537414965986394557823129252
So it's not an exact key shift.
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Rivers
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:28 am Post subject:
Re: Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
Pooh Bear wrote:
| Quote: | Every 100 cents of pitch is 1.05946309435929526456182529494634 times the
frequency.
|
Showoff!
Did you do the division by hand? The differences in internal rounding
of various computer algorithms might give slightly different results
depending on what "calculator" was used. Analog methods are always the
best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Rivers
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:34 am Post subject:
Re: Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
ted hyland wrote:
| Quote: | Question. I have a song at 44.1 but we like it better played back at 48
because of both the speed and the pitch.
It's about 20 tracks of music
and we will do the vocals over. If it's in C and 82bpm at 44.1 what is
the new key and speed at 48?
|
It's a direct ratio - 48/44.1 times the original tempo will give you
the new tempo. As far as the key is concerned, that's not a ratio that
corresonds to an interval in any common musical scale, but it's a
little higher than a half-step sharp. A common mistake is to play a
file back at the wrong sample rate and the usual question is "why is it
about a half step sharp?"
| Quote: | I will reprogram the
drum tracks to the new tempo but the music will have to be pitch shifted
and time crunched to the closest regular key.
|
You sure are working hard at this. If you like it at the increased
pitch and tempo, why worry about reprogramming the drums or whether
it's in tune with a standard pitch? Do the drums sound wrong when
shifted up in pitch but everything else sounds OK? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Kesselman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:05 am Post subject:
Re: Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
ted hyland wrote:
| Quote: | Question. I have a song at 44.1 but we like it better played back at 48
because of both the speed and the pitch. It's about 20 tracks of music
and we will do the vocals over. If it's in C and 82bpm at 44.1 what is
the new key and speed at 48? I can get my tuner out and figure it out
but I want to do it by math. What is the formula? I will reprogram the
drum tracks to the new tempo but the music will have to be pitch shifted
and time crunched to the closest regular key. Thanks.
|
The math is exactly like speeding up a tape by that amount |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
"Carey Carlan" wrote ...
| Quote: | You have one more option: Record all the instrumental parts at the
old
tempo at 44.1 and just record the vocals against the 48K playback.
That
leaves your instruments in a "real" key. The difference in timbre,
while
noticeable won't be objectionable to anyone but you.
|
Might even create a whole new "effect" that will become
wildly popular. (Or maybe its already been done and we
are oblivious?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Les Cargill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
Richard Crowley wrote:
| Quote: | "Carey Carlan" wrote ...
You have one more option: Record all the instrumental parts at the old
tempo at 44.1 and just record the vocals against the 48K playback. That
leaves your instruments in a "real" key. The difference in timbre, while
noticeable won't be objectionable to anyone but you.
Might even create a whole new "effect" that will become
wildly popular. (Or maybe its already been done and we
are oblivious?)
|
It has - "You've Lost that Loving Feeling" sure sounds slowed down
to me.
And never mind the Chipmunks...
--
Les Cargill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carey Carlan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
ted hyland <hyland.rec@verizon.net> wrote in news:hyland.rec-
E68505.14301530102005@news.verizon.net:
| Quote: | Question. I have a song at 44.1 but we like it better played back at 48
because of both the speed and the pitch. It's about 20 tracks of music
and we will do the vocals over. If it's in C and 82bpm at 44.1 what is
the new key and speed at 48? I can get my tuner out and figure it out
but I want to do it by math. What is the formula? I will reprogram the
drum tracks to the new tempo but the music will have to be pitch shifted
and time crunched to the closest regular key. Thanks.
|
You already have read 89.something bpm and C-sharp plus something.
You have one more option: Record all the instrumental parts at the old
tempo at 44.1 and just record the vocals against the 48K playback. That
leaves your instruments in a "real" key. The difference in timbre, while
noticeable won't be objectionable to anyone but you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ted hyland
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
In article <1130706854.925012.194430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"David Satz" <DSatz@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Ted, the ratio of 48 to 44.1 is about 1.08844. You'd use that ratio in
both calculations.
The easy one to figure out is the new speed. It will simply be the old
speed multiplied by that ratio--82 bpm * 1.08844, or about 89.25 bpm.
The pitch is only a little more complicated. An interval of one musical
semitone represents a ratio in frequency equal to the 12th root of 2
(since one octave = double the frequency, and 12 semitones = 1 octave).
So it would be easiest to use logarithms.
As I said before, 48/44.1 is about 1.08844, and the logarithm of that
ratio is about 0.0368. The logarithm of 2 is 0.30103, and 1/12 of that
is about 0.0251. Thus for every 0.0251 in the logarithm of your
frequency shift, you've shifted by one musical semitone. And 0.0251
goes into 0.0368 about 1.466 times.
So the new pitch should be about 1.466 semitones higher than the old
pitch. If the song used to be in C, it will now be very close to
exactly halfway between the keys of C# and D; good luck matching any
keyboards or woodwinds to that pitch level!
--best regards
|
I believe you guys have covered it very thoroughly. It has given me some
good ideas and I appreciate the input. Thanks. -T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steve
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:43 am Post subject:
Re: Do the math!!! 44.1 to 48k |
|
|
Read the Beatles Complete Recordings, they mention shifting tape speed
on a number of songs.
Richard Crowley wrote:
| Quote: |
"Carey Carlan" wrote ...
You have one more option: Record all the instrumental parts at the
old
tempo at 44.1 and just record the vocals against the 48K playback.
That
leaves your instruments in a "real" key. The difference in timbre,
while
noticeable won't be objectionable to anyone but you.
Might even create a whole new "effect" that will become
wildly popular. (Or maybe its already been done and we
are oblivious?) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lorin David Schultz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:29 am Post subject:
Gaussian blur for audio? |
|
|
"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Can you dither that?
Ty Ford
|
Speaking of that...
Sometimes while doing sound design work I come across a sound or effect
that would work better if certain elements were less "distinct." For
example, I recently had to work with a whooshy kind of pass-by sound
that was perfect except for a kind of grainy character that couldn't be
removed with EQ. While trying a fast decaying reverb, I joked, "I wish
Pro Tools had the same blur feature as Photoshop!"
Now I'm wondering if there is an equivalent... ideas?
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good
(Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geoff@work
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:50 am Post subject:
Re: Gaussian blur for audio? |
|
|
"Lorin David Schultz" <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote in message
news:OUw9f.63756$y_1.27732@edtnps89...
| Quote: | "Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
Can you dither that?
Ty Ford
Speaking of that...
Sometimes while doing sound design work I come across a sound or effect
that would work better if certain elements were less "distinct." For
example, I recently had to work with a whooshy kind of pass-by sound that
was perfect except for a kind of grainy character that couldn't be removed
with EQ. While trying a fast decaying reverb, I joked, "I wish Pro Tools
had the same blur feature as Photoshop!"
|
Run it out through magnetic tape . Or a 3630.
geoff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Dorsey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Gaussian blur for audio? |
|
|
Lorin David Schultz <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
Speaking of that...
Sometimes while doing sound design work I come across a sound or effect
that would work better if certain elements were less "distinct." For
example, I recently had to work with a whooshy kind of pass-by sound
that was perfect except for a kind of grainy character that couldn't be
removed with EQ. While trying a fast decaying reverb, I joked, "I wish
Pro Tools had the same blur feature as Photoshop!"
Now I'm wondering if there is an equivalent... ideas?
|
Use something with high IMD.... it tends to smear everything together
a little. Nasty transformers are always a good start. Try running
audio through the transformer out of a wall wart, for instance.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Hornbeck
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Gaussian blur for audio? |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:46:24 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:
| Quote: | While trying a fast decaying reverb, I joked, "I wish
Pro Tools had the same blur feature as Photoshop!"
Now I'm wondering if there is an equivalent... ideas?
Did you try dithering and dithering and dithering... and dithering and
dithering?
|
That's a pretty squirrely suggestion.
Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in