👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Haha 🙌🏽

Language =/= sine waves

@@FREEDOM9w9 EVERY sound.

@@Wesley_H Yes

Very satisfying if you ask me

"All your base are belong to us"

voice synthesiser for commodore 64 sounds similar

@Aleksandar Milović exactly

I was shocked because it seems to be nearly the exact same effect as the synthesised voice in cursed trollface memes, like ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hZ2hd3x5aomcmo0.html

"I... believe..."

Really?

@@DiffEQ yes retired engineer, go make some turrets

Those tick boxes remind me of Twitter. So I dislike everyone with one.

This has been the way I've been visualizing my mixes for a few years now. It's insane how many different places Fourier analysis shows up

Dude, we learnt it at school. You are such a cringe.

I want a full version of that.

@@quadpad_music same

Ikr

reminded me of parts from: Justice - Safe and Sound

@@nickmeier1571 thanks for the indirect music recommendation :D

Woah

I remember hearing the term "the golden ear" around other sound engineers. I never knew what it meant until one day I realized, its not the ear, its a persons brain. some people can process audio in their brains differently.. just like anything else I suppose.

But what is the frequency of non sin wave?

@@rino1268 not 100 percent sure but I dont dont theres such a thing as a non sine wave

@@rino1268 By definition frequency - is how much times signal repeats in a, lets say, second. You can measure it for everything, that repeats with constant speed. In context of the video - it consists of several sine waves. Or it is better to say we can find the set of sine waves, that will make this signals. You can use the fundamental frequency then, as others "create shape" (like sawtooth, square, triangle, etc.). If signal is not periodical (like whole song) - you cannot really define fundamental frequency, as it is, well, not periodical. It means - it doesn't repeats perfectly through its duration. So, no repeats - you cannot apply term "frequency" to it.

No sir I wasn't trying to break in. I farted on your car

spoiler >:(

Really

@@snakearux2. Why are you on the comments before finishing the video?

@@ddnava96 why cant i what is stopping me?

so aphex’s sound

its already uploaded! its called darude sandstorm

@@Nocturno69420 I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS DARUDE! LOL

Listen vitamin by Kraftwerk. They made music soubding like that in their 80s and late 70s

@@Nocturno69420 No it's not

In fact an FFT is just an algorithm to calculate a Fourier Transform. And not a specially good one as it generates artifacts there are not related to the original signal, but it has the advantage of being ...well Fast. And he approached more Fourier series than Fourier transforms as Fourier transform can give you any component, not only harmonic components.

@@agranero6 FFT doesn't have artifacts, It calculates Discrete Fourier Transform Exactly but much faster.

@@ArmiaKhairy DFT has artifacts...the begin and end of a nonperiodic signal introduces high frequencies...a real Fourrier Transform is an integral from -infinite to infinite. If you create a window, in the borders you introduce frequency artifacts.

@@agranero6 in numeric sound there is no such thing as infinity, and you can (rather easily, for that matter) produce a DFT that has effectively 0 artifact, when compared to your - already discrete - original signal.

@@xelnagazchild This doesn't change the fact that you will NEVER reproduce back a finite wave train without distorting it on the edges using finitary methods: EVER. It is that there is no such thing more like we ignore such thing. Yes you can theoretically reproduce the real sound with a high enough sample rate or a high enough frequency coverage. As in real world we don't really have finite wave trains as physical systems dampen those frequencies. But MATHEMATICALLY you simply can't. This is a theorem and no amount of comments can change this simple fact. This may not seem important in sound reproduction, but Fourier series are used in so much more things than that and no amount of DCTs will solve those problems. This is the problem with scientific popularization that skips math, makes things seem simpler than they are. And nature has an incredibly amount of detail.

Oh wow, that's a really cool practical use!

That is very cool 😎

as a fellow programmer I felt that last part... costumers bah

@@PosyMusic so, can we see a woofer flex here?

You just invented lossy audio compression! A similar idea that for example MP3 and many other audio formats are based on. And also JPEG, and lots of other non-audio formats...

He briefly became a 2013 youtube Gmod animation

He had only 4.5k subs 2 weeks ago. Fortunately the algorithm has chosen him, super deservedly so!

Today he's at 193K subs! The pressure from here on.

He Is Holding Mayhem And Darius Captive In His Basement.

@@AssistantCoreAQI ??????????? who??????????????

@@leppycolon3 I think he might be talking about 2 of Renard's characters

@@VaporTrap who tf is renard

@@VaporTrap Correct! Though, Renard Is Just Another Alias/'Sona Under The "Halley Labs" Label.

Its like a fart powerful enough like a hurricane😂😂😂

That takes the sentence of “who farted” To a whole new level

it was the sign waves. . . 😳😳

how did i find you

​@@AnimationRandom i don't know

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/aaRzpIWdfa6KraM.html

OTHER MIKE HOW DID YOU GET HERE

Autotune kinda works similar. I think the naive autotune algorithm just takes out a bunch of frequencies and shifts the ones it keeps to the nearest harmonic.

I remember comparing a sine wave at the same HZ to my guitars low string and I was like "why is the sine wave so much deeper?!" Turns out the guitar string has a shit ton of harmonics all higher in pitch ringing out with it.

See? Tablature for guitar is valid! Someone tell my old music teacher

Electric guitars are great examples of this. So many songs I've tried to learn by ear often use very different chords than what the ear guesses. Tommy Iommi's opening riff in Snowblind, SRV's Tightrope, and an EVH song that is at the tip of my tongue. There're many that I can't recall. Oh, Whitesnake Still Of The Night.

And a recipe is not a meal.

Where there is art, there is a science that makes it all possible that often goes completely unnoticed

The most moment

And that also uses semisines. The first Stranglehold uses strictly pure sines, it's actually a beautiful, magical song.

Here it is: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/fqCAgWp9qmZpzIk.html

@@quadpad_music I'd happily use the term "Hauntingly beautiful" for Stranglehold, both songs are amazing pieces of art

I just waited for somebody to comment this

Literally all sound is technically just editing sine waves

Do you mean GLaDOS

@@obsidian_oki no, the announcer at the beginning on e you get into the ruined testing tracks

@@obsidian_oki No I mean the one voice at the beginning of Portal 2. It also reminds me of the voice of the narrator of Portal Reloaded

it sounds like it goes between GLaDOS and that narrator which says "You've been asleep for 999999999999999-"

it sounds exactly like what happens just after you defeat glados in the first Portal and her voice starts glitching out

guess*

@@senniedreemurr I should edit my comment, I guess

Also, radio signals themselves are an infinitely number of layers combined as one single sine wave, basically speaking (electromagnetic spectrum).

Mind-blowing. I was wondering how can speakers reproduce an infinite ammount of sine waves, when the majority just have one audio-emitting thing (idk how it’s called the thing that makes the air vibrate). So basically, in order to reproduce those infinite ammount of sine waves (thus, recreate sound), they would’ve had hundreds or even thousands of those audio-emitting things, each one reproducing a single sine wave. Now I understand that every sine wave just combines with each other. And that’s how sound like is emitted by speakers.

How is that possible ! How is a sine wave containing all that information !?

samee

you picked the wrong thing to be pedantic about, checkmark. the abstractions go all the way down. objects aren't "made of atoms"; their empirical properties are modeled by atoms, just like we model sound with mathematical functions. they're in the same ontological class. i'm not sure what you mean by "sound waves are generally non-discrete" but the fourier decomposition is equal to the signal, so if the sound is represented by a continuous function than the sum of fourier components will be continuous as well, because they are the exact same thing. if you wanted to nit pick, you should have pointed out that the decomposition into coefficients of sinusoids isn't unique or particularly special. just as 1+1 and 3 - 1 are both equally valid expressions of the same quantity, so too can you decompose signals into an analogous infinite series derived from all kinds of different periodic functions.

I would suggest that the difference between the "representation" sense you describe and the colloquial idea of 'made of' is that 'made of' suggests a unique decomposition, whereas sine waves are just a computationally convenient choice in an infinite space of equivalent choices (trivial example: decompose as cosines, or complex exponentials, instead of sines. Wavelets are a less trivial example). But ironically, an object is actually "made" of atoms in a sense that is precisely analogous to how waves are made of sine waves, and the decomposition in the number basis (that is, the basis in which there is a well-defined number of particles) is not the only one possible. Edit: oops missed the comment above saying essentially the same thing.

@@isodoubIet you said it in a nicer way than i did lol

My smol brain cannot tell the difference between these 3 comments other than the way the idea is expressed

I mean even then its not completly correct en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_phenomenon I would say you can aproximate everything to the point you can't hear the difference.

Me too, I cant figure out what's being done in harmor here! I feel like I've stumbled upon something similar in the past, but never done it on vocals...

It's like that game called "Faith"

the tutorial link is in the description

i found it a few weeks back

​@@caz8135 MOR✞IS

Listing a bunch of stuff makes it sound impressive. But as far as the Fourier series/transform is concerned those are all the same thing: signals. Yes its usefulness is hard to overstate but I think the idea of the signal itself is more revolutionary. All the Fourier stuff makes sense intuitively once you've thought hard about what signals really are.

There's just this one thing: The author/creator is confused about the model and what it models, which is unbelievably stupid - but a testament to the incredible effectiveness of Fourier analysis/synthesis, I guess. Nowhere in e.g. a piano, a loudspeaker or vocal tract is there separately oscillating perfect sines. There's just continuos movement - different at various positions, of course.

NO NO NO

"my disc is a little scratched, but it should work"

☠️

Resynthesis?

*You shouldn’t for sure*