4
u/JohnTitorTieFighter 1d ago
Interesting idea, seems like a lot of math and resources would be needed for something that may or may not work as expected. I might consider extracting the wave shape as you suggested and turning it into an LFO for automating volume or reverb parameters might be easier.
3
u/rhymeswithcars 1d ago
Could you elaborate? What is the bottom pic? A room shaped like the spectrum?
1
u/qhost_revievv 1d ago
Pretty much. Use the spectrum as a contour for the terrain/room
3
u/Any-Sample-6319 23h ago
Just to clarify, you're aware that the shape of the room has pretty much nothing to do with the frequency response, right ?
You could drop the frequency analysis altogether, and if you were to implement an algorithm that calculates reverb response according to a shape (which would be insanely inefficient and CPU intensive mind you), just make it so you can draw an arbitrary room/reflective surface.But the resulting algorithm would essentially boil down to : how many reflections and what processing you apply to each grain, with the shape drawing and calculating being effectively useless, and that would be pretty much how any algorithmic reverb is made.
Not trying to rain on your parade there, maybe i'm not understanding your idea correctly
2
u/comport2 12h ago
Room modes.
1
u/Any-Sample-6319 6h ago
Room modes in an algorithmic reverb is just arbitrary parameters that control the timing, the quantity, the energy, and the processing of "reflection" iterations. The shape that may be displayed is absolutely arbitrary and has no impact on the actual processing, it's just a visual aid and interpretation of what a room with similar properties would look like.
No algorithmic reverb (to my knowledge) actually models rooms to apply a physics simulation of sound propagation to calculate the actual physical properties of it, and at sample rate no less.
To add, a physics simulation of a box with flat sides all around would be complicated enough, but a complex shape with curves all over the place would send your CPU straight to hell.
Think of it like ray-tracing for graphics rendering. The machines you need for 60-120 fps RTX-like processing are the most performant on the market, imagine something like that but for 44100, 48000, 192000 "frames" per seconds.
2
u/qhost_revievv 6h ago
Wouldn't an environment's response differ based on how the area is shaped? A valley would sound different from a cave, a room, or a mountain. Hills would occlude some of the sound depending on height and distance, right? If you recorded a in a field, then put a bunch of trees or walls in the area ot would definitely sound different. I don't know how processing works but i don't see why it couldn't physically make a difference (no matter the extreme resource cost)
1
u/Any-Sample-6319 6h ago
Yeah it would, absolutely. Like i said, i kind of misunderstood what you wanted to achieve with the frequency response.
I thought you wanted to "apply" somehow the frequency response of the source signal to a shape that would replicate that frequency response.If the goal is to create an arbitrary space in which you would bounce your source onto, then yes, of course the resulting impulse response would change according to it.
That would be quite the insane processing however, as you would have to model a physical space 44100 times a second (minimum), then model rays of sound bouncing onto that surface at the same rate, and of course decide what you would do with the rays at critical distance of the surface : what happens to a ray that was in a "dip" the frame before, but is now beyond a "bump" the next frame ?
A ~solution to this would be to average the frequency response of your source over several samples, or better yet, seconds. That wouldn't entirely negate the problem but the error margin would be a little shorter.
1
1
0
6
u/Ok_Impression1493 1d ago
Would love to hear what that would sound like