Audio (bass) responsiveness tweak - please

[dlbach]

I am using soundspectrum as an aid to calm a pre-teen autistic, as well also being an interesting pacifier for a 5-month old, both who love the tender music (JSBach piano pieces & Karunesh) I play with this wonderful program in MS (XP-Home) WMP. The combo gently glides one to sleep (the pre-teen) and excites the other to dance in my lap (the infant) by the dancing colors in time to the music using a 22-inch flatty.

I am not a mathematician nor techno-savvy enough to know the algorithms of this prog so I managed to look at the forum and found a tweak that I believe JayPro provided quite some time ago that gets high-registered notes a visualization. That tweak is made in the sprites\default.txt

// To make the sprite background-only, omit Pen (and just use EPen instead)
// EPen="1"
EPen="fft(s)"

I believe he also mentions one can do the same to make a the BASS equally visually responsive but I don't know where to place it nor the input.
Does anyone have any quick cut-n-paste ideas.
This prog is not only beautiful but therapeutic for people who aren't aware of such necessities these days as PCs.
By the way, I am using a reg'd version of Platinum 3.9.
Thanks JayPro for your earlier tweak; it brings the high-reg notes out very clearly.
Thanks in advance for any consideration.
Appreciatively

[dlbach]

OK, then; I suppose there isn't such a tweak, or better said, one who's figured it out either isn't on the board nowadays or hasn't the share-care.
I am just not savvy enough to understand this prog's mechanics to play with bass-visualization, nor any other mod for that matter.
This continues to provide more than I had hoped, therefore, for me, it's priceless.
Thank you all anyways. Much appreciated for at least looking at the predicament.
Donald

[elhipster]

I'm using whitecap but I'd like to turn off all the high frequencies so that it only reacts to the low frequencies. Have you found anything yet?

if not I'm might send something to the management, though I prefer using the forums

-DAve

[dlbach]

No Dave, I haven't found anything to get what I wanted beyond what someone else mentioned as I noted above.
Odd this hasn't been a more pressing topic for others.
Let me know, please, should you get a response and if it adds to a solution.
Bests,
Don

[dlbach]

With the newest incarnations (393 & the beta 394) of G-Force the tweak I've been using, as suggested by JayPro, I believe, is useless as far as I can sense. In other words, there 'seems' to be no sensitivity to the bass or trebles as evidenced using that tweak for G-Force versions 385 thru 392.
Just an experiential-based (maybe delusional) update.
Onward & upward.

[jerohm]

fft() 'should' return relative frequency content for the entire audio spectrum. For example:

Num=40 // Break up the Frequency Spectrum

A0="1.8"
A1="A0/Num"

B0="ID/Num"
B1="fft(B0)" // Relative Content Intensity @ fixed freq
B2="(A0 * B0) - (A0/2)"

X0="B2"
Y0="(B1*s) -.5"

Meta="reactive=5 detail=3 density=3 morphable=3"
Vers=391
==================
Here we broke the spectrum into 40 divisions. The height of each 'bar' represents the relative frequency content at a specific frequency, at each given snapshot (frame). It is important to UNDERSTAND this is NOT a LOUDNESS (magnitude) graph, but FREQUENCY CONTENT. It is also interesting to note that it CAN return values >1. A 'reasonable' way to detect BASS 'might' be:
B0="(fft(0/40)+fft(1/40)+fft(2/40)+fft(3/40)+fft(4/40))/5"
where B0 > 1
but THIS is just a 'guess' on my part... you may need to play with things a bit and/or extend the averaging range. Treble would be the same ... but at the other end of the spectrum, i.e, fft(36/40) ... fft(40/40). Also average values greater than 1 'might' be too high to expect for TREBLE. I hope this is understandable.

(I coded this in this fashion because it emphasizes the point I am trying to make by reducing any excess complexity(noise) of implementation... It is NOT necessarily the 'best' example of optimal coding strategy/style...)

If you want to use 'BASS' as your cue, I believe that BASS > 7 is a pretty good starting point ... but this is from empirical experience only.

[jerohm]

I will be the first admit when I was just flat out wrong. Although in theory I should have been 'mostly' correct... in practice my fft() technique is useless if you are trying react on BASS. I not sure if it is G-Force or the host handing G-Force the fft() data... in ANY CASE ... forget trying to make that work ... or DON'T, and prove me wrong (right?)...

B0="A0 * log( A1 * BASS + 1 )"

works pretty good. You can start with values of A0='.25' and A1='2'

Sorry for posting, BEFORE actually playing with the code...
j

[dlbach]

Thanks for your effort(s), J. And I appreciate your honesty, which is a quality (attribute) many (a good many, in my experience) experimenters, of what ever ilk, haven't.
One sees a prob. Conjures a theory based on knowledge, reflection, creation & processing a picture of integration. Then tries it out. If it doesn't work, tweak the parameters until it does or toss it out on one's end and allow some other to give a go at your theory or the experiment on which it's based.
I truly appreciate this. I'll give it a go.

I am watching the responsiveness of the newest beta (as of this date) and there seems to be a little treble responsiveness without any manipulation of the factors, a tintsy bit of bass responsiveness but not that oomph response to which I'm searching.

Just to note: I'm test this using WMP 11 and the music I am using has a lot of bass. Wall-shaking bass. Trance-type stuff for the purposes of this evaluation.