Smearing an audio recording using Fourier transform

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on using Fourier transform techniques to smear an audio recording, specifically a piano melody, to create a version where the frequency content appears more uniform. The original poster shares examples of both the unsmeared and smeared recordings and explores methods such as Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) to achieve the desired effect. They express confusion about the relationship between the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) and the time-varying frequency content of audio signals, noting that the DFT does not represent average frequency content when the signal changes over time. They also mention attempts to use the inverse Fourier transform on the absolute values of the FFT, resulting in a partially smeared sound that still retains some pulsation. The overall goal is to understand and manipulate audio frequency content for creative purposes without the need to perfectly reconstruct the original signal.
dwarp
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I'd like to smear an audio recording, where the frequency content audibly changes, into an audio recording where it does not. Here's a recording of a sampled piano playing a melody, which will serve as an example:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9355745/oldmcdonald.wav

The frequency content changes, both during each note played and because different notes are being played. I'd like to use the Fourier transform to somehow produce something like this:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9355745/oldmcdonaldsmear.wav

This was created by repeatedly playing the original recording into a reverb with a very high decay. There's still some "shimmering" in the recording, so the result isn't completely smeared out.

One way I can think of doing this is by computing an STFT and then combining the resulting windows into an average, which is then used as input to the reverse Fourier transform to produce a new audio recording (and I'm guessing this is what the reverb is actually doing). Is there a simpler, perhaps more elegant way of doing this?

The reason I'm asking is that for the longest time, I thought the result of the DFT *was* the average frequency content of the input. It seems this is only true if the frequency content in the input signal does not change over time - if I had been able to smear the signal completely, the DFT of that smeared signal *would* have been the average frequency content of the smeared signal. Imagine, for instance, if I'd run 4 seconds of a square wave at 80 Hz - the DFT would give me the same thing an EQ analyzer would.

But then, since the un-smeared signal can be accurately represented by a sum of sine and cosine waves (that is, the result of the DFT), its frequency content does not, in fact, change over time. Obviously, though, if you listen to the unsmeared signal, its frequency content DOES change over time, or there wouldn't be a melody! I find all this incredibly confusing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
What is the purpose for such a process? Could you for instance, under perfect conditions, go backwards and end up with the same notes in the right sequence?
 
The purpose is getting an idea of the frequency content in an audio recording - whether there's a lot of bass, a lot of treble, etc. I also like the idea of getting the "average sound" of a longer recording just to hear what it sounds like. I don't expect to be able, and am not interested in being able, to reproduce the original signal from the result, as I would be able to with a straight up DFT, no.
 
Also, since I believed the DFT contained the average frequency content, I did try ifft(abs(fft(signal), and I actually got kind of close to what I was trying to achieve - the result is kind of smeared - but it's also still "pulsating" (the volume is modulating) at the same frequency that the notes were played in the original recording (4 Hz):

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9355745/newmcdonald.wav
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very basic question. Consider a 3-terminal device with terminals say A,B,C. Kirchhoff Current Law (KCL) and Kirchhoff Voltage Law (KVL) establish two relationships between the 3 currents entering the terminals and the 3 terminal's voltage pairs respectively. So we have 2 equations in 6 unknowns. To proceed further we need two more (independent) equations in order to solve the circuit the 3-terminal device is connected to (basically one treats such a device as an unbalanced two-port...
suppose you have two capacitors with a 0.1 Farad value and 12 VDC rating. label these as A and B. label the terminals of each as 1 and 2. you also have a voltmeter with a 40 volt linear range for DC. you also have a 9 volt DC power supply fed by mains. you charge each capacitor to 9 volts with terminal 1 being - (negative) and terminal 2 being + (positive). you connect the voltmeter to terminal A2 and to terminal B1. does it read any voltage? can - of one capacitor discharge + of the...
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Back
Top