Display waveform or sound levels

I have audio that I am going to put into a movie. I need software that will make the sound levels into a quicktime movie so I display something visually as the audio is playing. Any ideas will be appreciated. Can Motion 2 do this?

Motion can't do this that I'm aware of, but you could use an iTunes visualizer to generate visuals to go along with your audio, then capture it as a movie using Snapz Pro and import that into Motion. A bunch of cool visualizers are here:
http://itunes.pluginsworld.com/plugin.php?directory=apple&software=itunes&catego ry=0
And Snapz Pro is here:
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/snapzprox/

Similar Messages

Sound level variations without any command

Hello.
When using my iMac 24" 3,06 Ghz, the sound level always varies without any command.
It is very disturbing mostly because it is associated with the display of the sound level on the top of the screen.
Can you help me?
:-) Dominique

A little more background. I've now found that I can get my volume back by clicking the Device setting off of CoreAudio, and then selecting CoreAudio again. This lasts awhile then the sound drops out again. Also, I've tried different instruments in the EXPS 24, different Instrument/MIDI channels and still get the dropout prob. Even deleted the audio object in the environment and started over with a new one. All the other instruments in the track list are EXPS 24 and not affected

Sound Level Meter vi

It would be great if I could manage to have a Sound Level Meter vi. I do not have SVT.
Right now a .vi sharing would be best, but in my mind it is to start to make my own, this kind of tasks make you learn. The problem is time.
Any sharings? Suggestions? I found this in an old post, but, I get this error:
"Poly VI 'AI Acquire Waveform.vi': subVI is missing.
Attachments:
SPL.llb ‏88 KB

AI Acquire Waveform is part of the old traditional DAQ API. You can either replace the traditional DAQ VIs with DAQmx VIs or install traditional DAQ (provided you are on a supported, 32-bit OS). I would recommend the former. The sound level algorithms should still be good. Let us know if you run into issues.
This account is no longer active. Contact ShadesOfGray for current posts and information.

Sound Level Pressure with several channel

Hello,
I met a problem with the VI "SVL Exp Avg Sound Level.vi". It works perfectly if I make a measurement with a single microphone, but with more microphones I have some computation error with discontinuity depending on the buffer size.
The following message is given in Labview Help :
"The SVL Exp Avg Sound Level VI requires a continuous input data stream. An
internal mechanism automatically detects any sampling discontinuity and resets
the filters. "
I suppose that there is a link with my problem, but I have no idea to correct it.
Here is my VI which is composed of a producer/consumer pattern. The consumer loop computes the sound level pressure during the measurement and stores the measured data in a TDMS file.
I am not expert with enqueue and dequeue function, so maybe it is bad programmed and I have some discontinuity in my data stream coming from the dequeue function.
Thanks for your help,
Mathieu

Based on your screenshot, it looks as though your code may be computing the weighted sound level for each channel in a single For Loop. The Weighting VIs and the Sound Level VIs maintain state, so it is not correct to use it in a For Loop to process multiple channels. Instead, wire the entire array of sound pressure channels to the input of the weighting and sound level VIs. The polymorphic VIs will adapt to the input type, and if the input data is continuous, the warning will not be returned.
Interestingly, you may be able to simplify your code if you specify the read order to group measurement types. Here is some code that I was looking at when evaluating performance for some different approaches to grouping waveforms. The Group by measurement type case was the fastest.
Doug
NI Sound and Vibration
Attachments:
performance_read by meas type.vi ‏79 KB
Get Channel Names by Measurement Type.vi ‏23 KB

Showing sound levels on audio record

Hi --
I am recording an audio stream from the microphone and wanted
to know if there is a way to show the sound levels of the audio
from the mic in a graphical display?

MrLoofer,
The client that publishes the mic can use Mic.activityLevel
to set a graphical representation of the mic level.
Make a graph bar movieClip that spans from 0 to 100 keyframes
and apply a shape tween.
Enter the following on the __micMeter movieClip
this.onEnterFrame = function() {
if(this.owner.__mic.activityLevel == 0)
bar.gotoAndStop(0);
} else {
bar.gotoAndStop(this.owner.__mic.activityLevel);
__mic is the Mic object you created.
owner is the reference to the graph movieclips owner object.
var __mic:Microphone = Microphone.get();
var __micMeter:MovieClip;
__micMeter["owner"] = this;
This will move the meter when the mic broadcasts. Now, a
client playing the audio has no access to Mic.activityLevel, so you
would have to use NetStream.send(__mic.activityLevel) to their
__micMeter.
HTH,
Shack

Mac pro with vista 32 installed on a second HD; problem with sound level

its good when i log on the mac os HD,
but on the vista hd, the sound is too low.
in device manager the "sound, video and game controllers" displays: High Definition Audio Device.
amd if i try to update it it will say that its got the latest drivers for it.
I tried all 3 jacks on the tower(2 at the back, and one the one in the front), always got tthe same sound level. I also tried disabling the sound jacks and left one activated, same thing.
on the Mac OS, the sound driver is "INTEL HIGH DEFINITION AUDIO DEVICE"
and on Vsta its "HIGH DEFINITION AUDIO DEVICE" is that the problem?

You want to be here:
http://support.microsoft.com/ph/11732

Sound level measurement

I want to make a programm with labview in order to measure the sound level.
j'aimerai créer un programme faisant office de sonomètre sous labview
Merci pour votre aide

Bonjour Canigoo555,
National Instruments dispose d'un outil pour des applications de son et de vibration : "NI LabVIEW Sound and Vibration Toolset" :
http://sine.ni.com/apps/we/nioc.vp?cid=3122〈=US
C'est un outil que vous devriez installer en plus de LabVIEW et qui vous permettra d'avoir de nouvelles fonctions pour des applications de son et de vibration dans la palette des fonctions.
La fonction qui vous intéresse se trouve dans cette palette et s'appelle : "SVT peak sound Level.vi".
Je vous joins tout de même un exemple LV pour votre application.
Cordialement,
Sanaa TAZI
National Instruments France
Sanaa T.
National Instruments France
#adMrkt{text-align: center;font-size:11px; font-weight: bold;} #adMrkt a {text-decoration: none;} #adMrkt a:hover{font-size: 9px;} #adMrkt a span{display: none;} #adMrkt a:hover span{display: block;}
>> http://www.nidays.fr/images/081110_ban_nidays09_468X60.gif
Attachments:
Sound Level .llb ‏1294 KB

CS4 NOT capable of sharp displays at all zoom levels

I must have been asleep, until now, and missed the significance and importance of what follows.
In post #11 here:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/375478?tstart=30
on 19 March 2009 Chris Cox (Adobe Photoshop Engineer - his title on the old forums) said this, in a discussion regarding sharpness in CS4:
"You can't have perfectly sharp images at all zoom levels.". Unfortunately, my experience with CS4 since its release late last year has repeatedly confirmed the correctness of this statement.
What makes this statement so disturbing is that it contradicts an overwhelming amount of the pre- and post-release promotional advertising of CS4 by Adobe, to the effect that the OpenGL features of CS4 enable it to display sharp images at all zoom levels and magnifications. What is surprising is that this assertion has been picked up and regurgitated in commentary by other, sometimes highly experienced, Ps users (some unconnected with, but also some directly connected with, Adobe). I relied upon these representations when making my decision to purchase the upgrade from CS3 to CS4. In fact, they were my principal reason for upgrading. Without them, I would not have upgraded. Set out in numbered paragraphs 1 to 6 below is a small selection only of this material.
1. Watch the video "Photoshop CS4: Buy or Die" by Deke McClelland (inducted into the Photoshop Hall of Fame, according to his bio) on the new features of CS4 in a pre-release commentary to be found here:
http://fyi.oreilly.com/2008/09/new-dekepod-deke-mcclelland-on.html
Notice what he says about zooming with Open GL: "every zoom level is a bicubically rendered thing of beauty". That, when viewed with the zooming demonstrated, can only be meant to convey that your image will be "sharp" at all zoom levels. I'm sure he believes it too - Deke is someone who is noted for his outspoken criticism of Photoshop when he believes it to be deserved. It would seem that he must not have experimented and tested to the extent that others posting in this forum have done so.
2. Here's another Adobe TV video from Deke McClelland:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1584v1021
In this video Deke discusses the "super smooth" and "very smooth" zooming of CS4 at all zoom levels achieved through the use of OpenGL. From the context of his comments about zooming to odd zoom levels like 33.33% and 52.37%, it is beyond doubt that Deke's use of the word "smooth" is intended to convey "sharp". At the conclusion of his discussion on this topic he says that, as a result of CS4's "smooth and accurate" as distinct from "choppy" (quoted words are his) rendering of images at odd zoom levels (example given in this instance was 46.67%), "I can actually soft proof sharpening as it will render for my output device".
3. In an article by Philip Andrews at photoshopsupport.com entitled 'What's New In Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Photoshop 11 - An overview of all the new features in Adobe Photoshop CS4',
see: http://www.photoshopsupport.com/photoshop-cs4/what-is-new-in-photoshop-cs4.html
under the heading 'GPU powered display', this text appears :
"Smooth Accurate Pan and Zoom functions – Unlike previous versions where certain magnification values produced less than optimal previews on screen, CS4 always presents your image crisply and accurately. Yes, this is irrespective of zoom and rotation settings and available right up to pixel level (3200%)." Now, it would be a brave soul indeed who might try to argue that "crisply and accurately" means anything other than "sharply", and certainly, not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, could it be taken to mean "slightly blurry but smooth" - to use the further words of Chris Cox also contained in his post #11 mentioned in the initial link at the beginning of this post.
4. PhotoshopCAFE has several videos on the new features of CS4. One by Chris Smith here:
http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs4/vid/CS4Video.htm
is entitled 'GPU Viewing Options". In it, Chris says, whilst demonstrating zooming an image of a guitar: "as I zoom out or as I zoom in, notice that it looks sharp at any resolution. It used to be in Photoshop we had to be at 25, 50 , 75 (he's wrong about 75) % to get the nice sharp preview but now it shows in every magnification".
5. Here's another statement about the sharpness of CS4 at odd zoom levels like 33.33%, but inferentially at all zoom levels. It occurs in an Adobe TV video (under the heading 'GPU Accererated Features', starting at 2 min 30 secs into the video) and is made by no less than Bryan O'Neil Hughes, Product Manager on the Photoshop team, found here:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1556v1686
After demonstrating zooming in and out of a bunch of documents on a desk, commenting about the type in the documents which is readily visible, he says : "everything is nice and clean and sharp".
6. Finally, consider the Ps CS4 pdf Help file itself (both the original released with 11.0 and the revised edition dated 30 March 2009 following upon the release of the 11.0.1 update). Under the heading 'Smoother panning and zooming' on page 5, it has this to say: "Gracefully navigate to any area of an image with smoother panning and zooming. Maintain clarity as you zoom to invididual pixels, and easily edit at the highest magnification with the new Pixel Grid." The use of the word "clarity" can only mean "sharpness" in this context. Additionally, the link towards the top of page 28 of the Help file (topic of Rotate View Tool) takes you to yet another video by Deke McClelland. Remember, this is Adobe itself telling you to watch this video. 5 minutes and 40 seconds into the video he says: "Every single zoom level is fluid and smooth, meaning that Photoshop displays all pixels properly in all views which ensures more accurate still, video and 3D images as well as better painting, text and shapes.". Not much doubt that he is here talking about sharpness.
So, as you may have concluded, I'm pretty upset about this situation. I have participated in another forum (which raised the lack of sharp rendering by CS4 on several occasions) trying to work with Adobe to overcome what I initially thought may have been only a problem with my aging (but nevertheless, just-complying) system or outdated drivers. But that exercise did not result in any sharpness issue fix, nor was one incorporated in the 11.0.1 update to CS4. And in this forum, I now read that quite a few, perhaps even many, others, with systems whose specifications not only match but well and truly exceed the minimum system requirements for OpenGL compliance with CS4, also continue to experience sharpness problems. It's no surprise, of course, given the admission we now have from Chris Cox. It seems that CS4 is incapable of producing the sharp displays at all zoom levels it was alleged to achieve. Furthermore, it is now abundently clear that, with respect to the issue of sharpness, it is irrelevant whether or not your system meets the advertised minimum OpenGL specifications required for CS4, because the OpenGl features of CS4 simply cannot produce the goods. What makes this state of affairs even more galling is that, unlike CS3 and earlier releases of Photoshop, CS4 with OpenGL activated does not even always produce sharp displays at 12.5, 25, and 50% magnifications (as one example only, see posts #4 and #13 in the initial link at the beginning of this post). It is no answer to say, and it is ridiculous to suggest (as some have done in this forum), that one should turn off OpenGL if one wishes to emulate the sharp display of images formerly available.

Thanks, Andrew, for bringing this up. I have seen comments and questions in different forums from several CS4 users who have had doubts about the new OpenGL display functionality and how it affects apparent sharpness at different zoom levels. I think part of the interest/doubt has been created by the over-the-top hype that has been associated with the feature as you documented very well.
I have been curious about it myself and honestly I didn't notice it at first but then as I read people's comments I looked a little closer and there is indeed a difference at different zoom levels. After studying the situation a bit, here are some preliminary conclusions (and I look forward to comments and corrections):
The "old", non-OpenGL way of display was using nearest-neighbor interpolation.
I am using observation to come to this conclusion, using comparison of images down-sampled with nearest-neighbor and comparing them to what I see in PS with OpenGL turned off. They look similar, if not the same.
The "new", OpenGL way of display is using bilinear interpolation.
I am using observation as well as some inference: The PS OpenGL preferences have an option to "force" bilinear interpolation because some graphics cards need to be told to force the use of shaders to perform the required interpolation. This infers that the interpolation is bilinear.
Nothing is truly "accurate" at less than 100%, regardless of the interpolation used.
Thomas Knoll, Jeff Schewe, and others have been telling us that for a long time, particularly as a reason for not showing sharpening at less than 100% in ACR (We still want it though ). It is just the nature of the beast of re-sampling an image from discrete pixels to discrete pixels.
The "rule of thumb" commonly used for the "old", non-OpenGL display method to use 25%, 50%, etc. for "accurate" display was not really accurate.
Those zoom percentages just turned out to be less bad than some of the other percentages and provided a way to achieve a sort of standard for comparing things. Example: "If my output sharpening looks like "this" at 50% then it will look close to "that" in the actual print.
The "new", OpenGL interpolation is certainly different and arguably better than the old interpolation method.
This is mainly because the more sophisticated interpolation prevents drop-outs that occurred from the old nearest-neighbor approach (see my grid samples below). With nearest-neighbor, certain details that fall into "bad" areas of the interpolated image will be eliminated. With bilinear, those details will still be visible but with less sharpness than other details. Accuracy with both the nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolations will vary with zoom percentage and where the detail falls within the image.
Since the OpenGL interpolation is different, users may need to develop new "rules of thumb" for zoom percentages they prefer when making certain judgements about an image (sharpening, for example).
Note that anything below 100% is still not "accurate", just as it was not "accurate" before.
As Andrew pointed out, the hype around the new OpenGL bilinear interpolation went a little overboard in a few cases and has probably led to some incorrect expectations from users.
The reason that some users seem to notice the sharpness differences with different zooms using OpenGL and some do not (or are not bothered by it) I believe is related to the different ways that users are accustomed to using Photoshop and the resolution/size of their monitors.
Those people who regularly work with images with fine details (pine tree needles, for example) and/or fine/extreme levels of sharpening are going to see the differences more than people who don't. To some extent, I see this similar to people who battle with moire: they are going to have this problem more frequently if they regularly shoot screen doors and people in fine-lined shirts. Resolution of the monitor used may also be a factor. The size of the monitor in itself is not a factor directly but it may influence how the user uses the zoom and that may in turn have an impact on whether they notice the difference in sharpness or not. CRT vs LCD may also play a role in noticeability.
The notion that the new OpenGL/bilinear interpolation is sharp except at integer zoom percentages is incorrect.
I mention this because I have seen at last one thread implying this and an Adobe employee participated who seemed to back it up. I do not believe this is correct. There are some integer zoom percentages that will appear less sharp than others. It doesn't have anything to do with integers - it has to do with the interaction of the interpolation, the size of the detail, and how that detail falls into the new, interpolated pixel grid.
Overall conclusion:
The bilinear interpolation used in the new OpenGL display is better than the old, non-OpenGL nearest-neighbor method but it is not perfect. I suspect actually, that there is no "perfect" way of "accurately" producing discrete pixels at less than 100%. It is just a matter of using more sophisticated interpolation techniques as computer processing power allows and adapting higher-resolution displays as that technology allows. When I think about it, that appears to be just what Adobe is doing.
Some sample comparisons:
I am attaching some sample comparisons of nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolation. One is of a simple grid made up of 1 pixel wide lines. The other is of an image of a squirrel. You might find them interesting. In particular, check out the following:
Make sure you are viewing the Jpegs at 100%, otherwise you are applying interpolation onto interpolation.
Notice how in the grid, a 50% down-sample using nearest-neighbor produces no grid at all!
Notice how the 66.67% drops out some lines altogether in the nearest-neighbor version and these same lines appear less sharp than others in the bilinear version.
Notice how nearest-neighbor favors sharp edges. It isn't accurate but it's sharp.
On the squirrel image, note how the image is generally more consistent between zooms for the bilinear versions. There are differences in sharpness though at different zoom percentages for bilinear, though. I just didn't include enough samples to show that clearly here. You can see this yourself by comparing results of zooms a few percentages apart.
Well, I hope that was somewhat helpful. Comments and corrections are welcomed.

Can I connect a 27" Cinema Display to an ageing iMac? I have a Mini-DVI to DVI Adapter fronting a Kanex C247DL to complete the MIni-DVI to mini display port. Sound is good but screen is black.

Can I connect a 27" Cinema Display to an ageing iMac? I have a Mini-DVI to DVI Adapter fronting a Kanex C247DL to complete the MIni-DVI to mini display link. Sound is good but screen is black.

Hey phil staton, highland,
Thanks for using Apple Support Communities.
Apple computers: Troubleshooting issues with video on internal or external displays
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1573
Have a nice day,
Mario

HT5517 How can I adjust sound level when streaming radio from my Apple TV through Airplay speakers?

I have a 2nd Gen Apple TV with an airport express set up as airplay speakers. I can stream the new radio through using the Airplay speakers pretty well. The problem is that once I've got it going, I cannot adjust the sound level without laboriously backing out of the radio menu, going back to the top level menu then drilling down into the Airplay settings to raise or lower the speaker's sound level.
Is there an easier way to do this?

go to system preferences > Sound > Output. then change the output from "built-in" to HDMI.
Maher

How do I get a descent sound level and quality when exporting out of Logic ??

Hi guys,
I know this topic's been discussed many times before but I still can't fix my problem
I'm going crazy right now. It's been weeks I've been working on beats on Logic and I think they now sound pretty cool.
So I'm trying to export them out of Logic on mp3,or wav, or aiff but everytime it comes out very low. So when I'm applying different tips (limiter, adaptative limiter and different things I found on the internet... ) the sound level is a bit higher but still the quality is not as good as it is on Logic
So here's my questions : first, is it possible to get the exact same quality as the one you have when listening into logic ?
then how to get the best quality with a normal sound level so when you listening to the mp3 or wave or aiff on itunes just after a normal song you don't have to turn the sound up
Thank you very much for you help !!
Ben

And in addition to what octopi wrote ……
Related Articles:
Mixdown for Mastering - written by Holger Lagerfeldt
http://www.onlinemastering.dk/mastering-faq.html
Loudness when Producing and Mixing - written by Holger Lagerfeldt
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/468170-loudness-when-producingmix ing-
tips.html
Overload in Signal Conversion - written by Søren H. Nielsen and Thomas Lund
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/nielsen_lund_2003_overload.pdf
0 dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering - written by Søren H. Nielsen and Thomas Lund
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/nielsen_lund_2000_0dbfs_le.pdf
Level Control in Digital Mastering - written by Søren H. Nielsen and Thomas Lund
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/nielsen_lund_1999_level_co.pdf
Cheers

We have a new iPod Classic and would like some help in choosing "Import Settings" (under Peferences) when loading the iPod from the Mac. We want to be sure that we can maintain a constant sound level. Used with Bose sound dock. OS 10.6.8 iTunes 10.6.1.

Using an iPod Classic on a Bose sound dock....when loading the iPod from the Mac, what "Import Settings" (under iTune "Preferences"), should be used to maintain a constant sound level when playing music? Mac OS 10.6.8, iTunes 10.6.1.
There are many Import Settings available and it is somewhat confusing. Any suggestions?

Go to iTunes>Preferences>Playback. Tick "Sound Check."
iTunes: About Sound Check

How to display the value of level axis in a scattered graph

hi All,
I have created a scatterd graph and i am able to show the X-axis and Y-axis values as tool tip. my requirement is to display the value of level axis also within the tool tip.
please help me to configure the value of level axis as tooltip.
thanks in advance

Hi,
Thanks for the reply. i was able to configure the tool tip for X and Y axis, but i was not able to shoe the third or level axis value in the tool tip.
please help me in configuring the third or level axis value in tool tip.
thanks in advance.

How do I change the startup sound level on my desktop??

How do I change the startup sound level on my desktop?

use StartNinja ! worked for me.
it works under Mountain Lion and is even retina-ready:
http://www.allvu.com/index.php/sndownloadpage.html

My pc sound level is very low on playback from dvd and most websites even though its at 100 percent

the playback level on dvd and most video streams is very low.(youtube seems ok)This is my second pavillion g7 w/ windows 7 .The first had a defective fan but the sound level was ok and there was a graphic eq section for sound control with other output options.I've yet to find that area on this pc in the month I,ve had it even though their identical computers.I,m at a loss for the cause of the problem.Headphones work fine but are annoying.

i use professional studio monitors to monitor the audio
the issue , is if i turn up the audio it will clip on premieres main output. so i cant turn it up any more.
the specific moment i took the screenshot the audio volume was at -18db, but even if it was up at 0db it would not even reach half volume on my computers main output
this is the case regardless of the nature of the audio, be it stock music, dialogue, or sound effects maybe there is a hidden master output that im unaware of

Display waveform or sound levels

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for