Does anyone know if this is worthwhile or will i just end up with some fucked up unusable samples?
Cheers

SoundcloudSoulstep wrote: My point is i just wanna hear more vibes
human speech in the 3 - 6K range? do you talk to dogs?Time Nice wrote:I have to be honest, recording on a mobile phone would certainly add much distortion. Cell phone mics and speakers only are able to record about 3khz-6khz. So no matter what using this method, you will probably lose more of the signal then you intended to and you'll end up with no low's or highs in your recording. You have to bear in mind that mobiles are only intended to transmit human speech which is the reason they only transmit the 3-6khz range. You could get a similar effect with less loss of signal just by using eq or compressing the fuck out of your samples, which essentially recording with a mobile would do but then you would have no control over your frequency ranges.
My mates rang up a random number and a cockney geezer picked up, they asked him for crack and he asked "youuuuuuu what?! Is this a fucking wind up or what you silly tnuc?"£10 Bag wrote:yeah phones are sick for getting samples
my old school nokia can record phone calls and play them back...shit hot.
nothing funnier than ringing someone you don't like, then putting the sample of them in a tune they wouldn't like!
You must be confused, dogs (and many other animals for that matter) can hear above 20KHZ which is the highest frequency that the human ear is capable of capturing (the human ear can capture from around 20hz-20KHZ), this is why humans can't hear dog whistles... the frequencies they produce are well over 20k. I assure you that human speech is in the 3-6k range. These are all aproximations and I'm no expert but I have studied frequency ranges in detail and have been working in the mobile industry for 7 years. I know very well that mobiles greatly limit bandwidth to the range of 3-6k to avoid transmitting un-necessary data through the hardware.setspeed wrote:human speech in the 3 - 6K range? do you talk to dogs?Time Nice wrote:I have to be honest, recording on a mobile phone would certainly add much distortion. Cell phone mics and speakers only are able to record about 3khz-6khz. So no matter what using this method, you will probably lose more of the signal then you intended to and you'll end up with no low's or highs in your recording. You have to bear in mind that mobiles are only intended to transmit human speech which is the reason they only transmit the 3-6khz range. You could get a similar effect with less loss of signal just by using eq or compressing the fuck out of your samples, which essentially recording with a mobile would do but then you would have no control over your frequency ranges.
i wasn't being entirely serious about the dogs thingTime Nice wrote:You must be confused, dogs (and many other animals for that matter) can hear above 20KHZ which is the highest frequency that the human ear is capable of capturing (the human ear can capture from around 20hz-20KHZ), this is why humans can't hear dog whistles... the frequencies they produce are well over 20k. I assure you that human speech is in the 3-6k range. These are all aproximations and I'm no expert but I have studied frequency ranges in detail and have been working in the mobile industry for 7 years. I know very well that mobiles greatly limit bandwidth to the range of 3-6k to avoid transmitting un-necessary data through the hardware.setspeed wrote:human speech in the 3 - 6K range? do you talk to dogs?Time Nice wrote:I have to be honest, recording on a mobile phone would certainly add much distortion. Cell phone mics and speakers only are able to record about 3khz-6khz. So no matter what using this method, you will probably lose more of the signal then you intended to and you'll end up with no low's or highs in your recording. You have to bear in mind that mobiles are only intended to transmit human speech which is the reason they only transmit the 3-6khz range. You could get a similar effect with less loss of signal just by using eq or compressing the fuck out of your samples, which essentially recording with a mobile would do but then you would have no control over your frequency ranges.
Nice, I do enjoy some good learning myselfsetspeed wrote:i wasn't being entirely serious about the dogs thingTime Nice wrote:You must be confused, dogs (and many other animals for that matter) can hear above 20KHZ which is the highest frequency that the human ear is capable of capturing (the human ear can capture from around 20hz-20KHZ), this is why humans can't hear dog whistles... the frequencies they produce are well over 20k. I assure you that human speech is in the 3-6k range. These are all aproximations and I'm no expert but I have studied frequency ranges in detail and have been working in the mobile industry for 7 years. I know very well that mobiles greatly limit bandwidth to the range of 3-6k to avoid transmitting un-necessary data through the hardware.setspeed wrote:human speech in the 3 - 6K range? do you talk to dogs?Time Nice wrote:I have to be honest, recording on a mobile phone would certainly add much distortion. Cell phone mics and speakers only are able to record about 3khz-6khz. So no matter what using this method, you will probably lose more of the signal then you intended to and you'll end up with no low's or highs in your recording. You have to bear in mind that mobiles are only intended to transmit human speech which is the reason they only transmit the 3-6khz range. You could get a similar effect with less loss of signal just by using eq or compressing the fuck out of your samples, which essentially recording with a mobile would do but then you would have no control over your frequency ranges.
that's really interesting tho - i used to work with landlines, and back in the day, UK landlines used to limit frequencies from 170Hz - 3kHz. so i just made an assumption based on that, and the fact that the fundamental of any human voice tone is clearly far below 3kHz. but then (i was bored) and i did a couple of tests and a 3-6K bandwidth is surprisingly intelligible... also i guess it corresponds more to the A-weighted frequency curve so requires less power to reproduce the signal at the other end. you learn something new everyday....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests