View Single Post
Old 02-27-2020, 07:21 AM   #240
suchatravesty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by juliansader View Post
I agree that, at present, REAPER's spectrogram does not work well for fine editing of individual frequencies, since the frequency resolution is far too low.

It would be very helpful if REAPER could use a higher FFT size for the spectragrams. Either as a default, or if possible, as a per-item setting.

Here is a comparison between REAPER and RX7's spectrograms for the same piece of music:

The RX7 spectrogram is obviously much sharper in the frequency domain, and much more informative.

RX7 offers advanced options such as "Adaptively sparse" analysis, and I don't know how difficult it would be to program these for REAPER.

However, even when using only the most basic settings, a spectrogram can be vastly improved by simply tweaking the FFT size. My guess is that REAPER uses an FFT size of 256 samples, since RX7 and Audacity's spectrograms look very similar to REAPER's, if they use that FFT size (and only basic analysis).

Here is Audacity's version, with an FFT size of 4096. Although not as good as RX7, it is a big improvement over REAPER:
I disagree about the Audacity or even RX view being "better". I guess it would depend on what kind of music you are working on and what you are trying to do with it at the time. There is definitely more information shown in the others but Reaper's is much easier to interpret for me. I can see the transients (vertical lines) much easier on Reaper vs the Audacity picture. To me there is too much information shown on the Audacity one and it's harder to see what I'm looking for, (usually transients), but that's just me.

I do agree it would be cool to be able to add more adjustability to spectrogram, RX is nice but editing is not near as fast as Reaper for me.

Sorry I truncated your comment, didn't want to fill the page with images again.
suchatravesty is offline   Reply With Quote