This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
I propose the article be named Audio timescale/pitch modification or something similar, since it is not always stretching, not always a constant scaling, not always timescale, etc. it is longer, but more accurate. I hope to add more detailed information to the article soon, but for now, does anyone have an opinion on a different name? Omegatron
Ok, I moved it to Audio timescale-pitch modification. Originally I used a slash but then i realized it looked like a subpage in the address bar. Let me know if i was a bad wikipedian. Omegatron
I agree that timestretching without changing pitch, or pitch shift without changing the time duration, both use the same algorithms.
But since we *percieve* time duration as something independent of pitch, that is the entire point of trying to adjust one without adjusting the other.
Perhaps it would be better to have 2 pages ( timestretching and pitch shift ), one on the applications of time stretching, the other one on the applications of pitch shifting, since they *seem* to be 2 different things.
(But we only need a detailed description of the algorithms on one page).
OK, I have a song stored as 2-channel, 16-bit linear PCM on my reasonably fast computer. I want to slow down the tempo because I'm trying to remix with another song.
"Re-perform it!" No, I don't have the source scoreorsamples, and I don't have the vocal training; all I have is this wav file I extracted from a CD.
"Resample it!" No, resampling digital audio has an effect analogous to that of slowing down a phonograph turntable: it transposes the song to a lower key and makes the singer sound like an ogre.
I took it out of the article. I covered why you would need this processing and why resampling doesn't cut it. Any other concepts from this intro you think should be in the article, add them. Omegatron
Hi, i you describe time-domain pitchshifting as 'time domain harmonic scaling' and 'synchronized overlap-add method'. I think it's safe to call it 'granular' (described in granular synthesis), however the term is mostly used for digital systems and there is an analog implementation. It's a tape delay with multiple heads on a rotating device (source "Electronic Music" by Alan Strange). Hope i could help a bit. Bladi
whoever wrote this artical on timestretching without mentioning the S950, S1000, S2000 needs to think if they deserve life on earth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.225.53 (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This can be speedy closed. Out of the first ten pages of google results, none use a slash. There are a very small number that use a space. This appears to be an attempt to systematically propose that every article that uses a hyphen in the title be moved to something else.Apteva (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Apteva's personalised remarks above are unhelpful, and possibly motivated by an RFC/U that Dicklyon has initiated for examination of Apteva's conduct (at RM discussions and in many other forums). Dicklyon is a recognised expert and a published author in areas that are directly relevant here.
To be at all helpful, any evidence from Google searches must take into account the likely variants. A search on "time scale pitch modification" -wikipedia (space in "time scale") shows that Dicklyon's recommendation of the slash is amply supported.
Even if the slash did have little support from external sources, this is a matter for Wikipedia styling as systematised in WP:MOS and its subpages. Note the correct and established relation between reliable sources and styling on Wikipedia: MOS is derived by consensual discussion among editors, drawing on best-practice publishing, and in particular the practices that are codified in other major style guides (CMOS, New Hart's Rules, etc.).
I suggest to Dicklyon that he evaluate the two-element alternative "time scale" (and indeed "time-scale"), and see if the proposal needs to be revised. (In fact a spaced slash may be warranted.) I am ready to advise, at my talkpage.
MOS:SLASH isn't totally clear whether the spaced or unspaced would be better when on item is hyphenated, but I've gone with unspaced to go with the hyphenated "time-scale". It's also not totally clear that the slash in unavoidable, but I don't see a correct way to do it with hyphen or en dash. The trouble is that we have a sort of "or" title, plus we have another overlapping article. So works remains to finish this or find a better solution. Thanks for your comments. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Your present solution fits with MOS style guidelines, and also with many occurrences "out there". A spaced slash would only be an option if one element already included a space ("to separate items that include at least one internal space (the NY 31 east / NY 370 exit), where for some reason use of a slash is unavoidable", at WP:MOS). NoeticaTea? 23:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this context timescale is normally spelled as one word, and it is not appropriate to consider that the MOS styles phrases such as this. The words of one expert are not relevant in determining common usage. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Time-scale modification" is indeed a better alternative per [1]. I'll just move it and cancel the RM. Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A better solution here would probably involve a merge with Pitch shift, or a cleaner split from it. Someone would need to do some work, and I'm not up for it right now. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. What is up with finding out that there is opposition to the proposed move and making the move anyway? This is highly inappropriate. [When an RM is withdrawn that means that the proposal is withdrawn and the page is not moved.] Apteva (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Audio time-scale/pitch modification → Time-scale modification – Article was moved with the comment "I'll just move it and cancel the RM" despite there being no indication of that being the most common title (in the first two pages of google web there are no pages that use that title). Alternatively, simply move back to original title, Audio timescale-pitch modification, which does appear to be the most commonly used. Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Apteva (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW close please. The proposal is too flawed to bother with more. A new proposal can be entertained when/if someone wants to work on the issues below. Dicklyon (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose – why was this unsupported proposal relisted? Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
omitting the "/pitch" part makes it sound like the topic is only time-scale modification, as opposed to the two uses of the methods currently discussed in the article; this narrowing of scope would be one of the possibilities I proposed above, of doing a cleaner "split" of topics, if someone wants to take that on, though I think a merge might be preferable.
omitting the "Audio" part leaves the title rather imprecise. The techniques discussed only make sense for audio, so the title without it seems to claim too much scope; it is not precise enough.
Audio timescale-pitch modification, the title from before my recent move, is a complete nonstarter, referring as it does to the nonexistent concept of "timescale pitch" (to one who reads the hyphen according to the usual rules of English punctuation).
Given the mess I made of the last (withdrawn) RM and unilateral move that didn't take Apteva's objection seriously, I'll refrain from opposing this one, and let others decide what to do about it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current page title is the one that is a non-starter, as a google search shows no support for a slash, and a majority support for a hyphen. If this RM fails, the article needs to simply be moved back to the original title. English does not follow rules - names just need to be memorized. Apteva (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how it's useful to remove "pitch"—in fact, it's decidedly unhelpful to readers who are groping for the right article. Tony(talk) 00:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I see is that there is a separate page for Pitch shift, but Time stretching goes to a disambiguation page that links to here (the article about both). If there is going to be an article here about the topic more generally, there ought to be a new page for just time stretching. Or, for the pitch modification reference to be removed, I think content from here should be moved to the Pitch shift article. Either way, both articles would need to be modified. I'd be more in favor of creating an article for Audio time stretching and things like Elastic Audio can go there, but that's a bit of a project. I don't oppose just changing the title of this article, but I think there are better solutions. You can't really separate the two concepts completely since they are essentially the same thing, but the differing applications can have their own articles as long as the organization is clear about their relationship. Radiodef (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified one external link on Audio time-scale/pitch modification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
