binary code idea leads to timestretching

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
whitelight's picture
Joined: June 3, 2010

The structure of this text may not be good, I´m going to improve it:

Maybe the idea of the binary code is good for You, Ross, for a timestretching algorithm.

1.Other important basics: An biological introduction:

The cells of the ear only resonates at sinus tones- they are round, pleasant. They resonates especially at the main frequency, but a little bit on the frequencies next to it, so they are not as precise.

Leads to:

Squared tones have only the full spectrum of sinus tones. Boring? No. If you base your program/synths/timestretching algorithm on one sinus oscillator that imitates  the spectrum it will be perceived as pleasant, not, if you base on square waves, as it is friendly to the computer. The reason is that squares every time has additional very high sinus waves, that are percieved and are unpleasant.

The most good waves are round:

I´ve seen on the xils-lab side an analog sawtooth wave form. It was only round on the peak. I can imagine that it would be high frequencies that make it not round.

2. The binary code in this case:

Conclusion of previous said: It´s not the high frequencies that you should implement in an algorithm, but the round!


BUT: You can build up every waveform out of sinus and every number out of the binary code. Boring: No!

1. SINUS instead of square

Every program is built on 0 and 1 but if you have  sixtythree zeros and one "sinus wave" (no "1"= "square wave") its getting complicated. The space of zeros is no problem, but the sinus wave must be calculated until "1"="sinus wave".

2. SPACES instead of only frequency/ phase

I think the additive synthesis is build on frequencies and phase, but doesn´t implent that much noises are built on spaces between the waveforms! If you have a comb for your hair and use it to make noise, there are the spaces between the comb-needles.

3. Volume

The binary code can not imitate the volume of the sinus wave. It would be calculated again, but that shouldn´t be.

4.Beginning of code is the first 1. That´s important because you often had to show the program the first beat

5.Hold. Hold a Value


Algorithm must be build on sinus waves, that imitate the first beat. But the high frequencies can be limitet. Those calculate the rising, they do not repeat and swing one time. They have silence after them. But the volume of the sinus waves is important and if the sinus-waves are hold at zero or at the volume.

Why do I tell you all this?

The computer love square waves, But You Ross has to made things round from the ground of. Maybe it would be as punchy, with no high frequency sinus waves, but round is better than sinus waves build on squared waves. Then HOLDTIME, VOLUME the binary code must calculate. Maybe little Vibrations must be ignored, but its more pleasant for the ear to have a floating point strategie, than falling and rising sinuswaves that imitates at worst silence. So your code should ignore little volume changes

Algorithms specifications:

Sinus Rises Sinus Falls


Volume of Hold(floating point)

Ignore very High Frequencies, but all based on Sinus

Ignore Little Volumes from floating point (the code shouldn´t mirror them)

ravasb's picture
Joined: January 25, 2011

I am impressed by your devotion to this product and your continuing posting of interesting ideas. Are you getting any actual feedback from Ross on their viability?

whitelight's picture
Joined: June 3, 2010

Hello, ravasb! Unfortunately I don´t own my old e-mail adress anymore and I have not received any massage over my account from Ross.

But I think one thing is important now: We, the left users, should comfort Ross, those days, say to him what a wonderful program he had made, what potential it has, where. 

Maybe You open up a forum topic like that. I will write something in it!

P.S. I am not as often here at, because this time I have only access to the internet via my fathers computer.

Unguitar's picture
Joined: July 6, 2009

quoting whitelight: "But I think one thing is important now: We, the left users, should comfort Ross, those days, say to him what a wonderful program he had made, what potential it has, where."

I agree about Audiomulch being a wonderful program, always raved about it and shared my opinion whenever there was the opportunity.

However there is no doubt that Ross has no intention to develop this software further.
It is a real shame.
I offered him a money contribution or to apply for a funding but always seen such ideas rejected by him.
Additional sad thing is that this experience is showing how risky relying on a software developed and managed from a single person might become.
Really sorry, not even talking about the impressive waste of time which this abandon is causing.

ravasb's picture
Joined: January 25, 2011

I like AM quite a bit, though it is much less useful to me as 32 bit only. It does seem strange that it is still being sold, but Ross is no longer really making any involvement in it.

Babaluma's picture
Joined: June 24, 2009

Agree, very sad about this. The Mac version had an update earlier this year, but it's been nearly 3 1/2 years since the last PC version. I just hope it carries on working for a few more years which will give me time to slowly get to know another piece of software for my mastering business. I still hold out hope that there will be another update or two for 64 bit and multi CPU cores, as I think both would give it greater longevity.

Unguitar's picture
Joined: July 6, 2009

I have a strong trust in Ross.
I just cannot understand why he's dropping this software and allow it to become part of the sad abandoware bunch.
I also don't understand why he's not clear with his intentions. This is just doubling the pain.

whitelight's picture
Joined: June 3, 2010

Trusting in Ross ,like You Unguitar, is kind. But Ross may not develope audiomulch further. All of my thoughts say he will do, but I would find another program, other programs are developed further and will fit in due time. It´s harder for You, who need the organisation-stucture of audiomulch to find an equal program, but audiomulch was and will be my "love" under he programs....

Ross will be more sad than We are, but Ross ,if You ever read this, audiomulch was glowing from a beautiful mind, it was my first step in music, and You have given me more with it: familiarity.

Thank You for what You have done, Ross, until now, it was enough to give me dreams in music!!!!!!

whitelight's picture
Joined: June 3, 2010

THE IDEA AGAIN: There are a few things which are also important;

Low frequencies, that are not audible, are thing of the floating point at best. They are not transposed and the swing do not repeat to adapt the sample length, for they are a kind of volume rising. I think, if you do not so, a basedrum will repeat it´s punch.

The program had to analyse repeatings. If one swing repeats in exactly one of its phase, it´s set as a tone, so that it´s transposed or the sample length is kept by building more or less repeatings.

If there is a gap between one swing and the next, or less time to the next swing it is treat as a pulsewidth-tone, but if it´s not a pattern it´s no tone.

By all patterns the program analyses it´s important that little changes to volume and pitch like AM, PWM and at its best FM are registrated, implented again, but not changed, so that for example vibrato keep it´s length!