knex78 Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Hi I wonder if any one have any idea how I can get the fundamental frequency out of a signal I get from the soundcard input on my computer. The signal can be a instrument. I get a signal with the help of the functions SI read, SI configure av SI start. The signal is a 8 bit mono signal with 8000kb/s sample rate, and I use a buffer of 8000kb.Hope anyone can help Knex Quote Link to comment
Louis Manfredi Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Hi Knex: Welcome to the LAVA forum. Lots of different ways to get your frequency. Many kinds of FFT in the Waveform Measurements window. Tone Measurement might be the simplest for your needs. Hope this helps & Best Regards, Louis Quote Link to comment
knex78 Posted June 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Hi agian When I use tone measurement I and play a low E on my guitar I it says it a frequensy of 0,0158 and with the high e string i get o,o426.Is it anyone that can tell me reason for this? Is the numbers right, and I just have to convert them to frequency?Or is it anything with the porgram or computer?anyone have any idea? Knex Quote Link to comment
peteski Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Hi agianWhen I use tone measurement I and play a low E on my guitar I it says it a frequensy of 0,0158 and with the high E string i get o,o426.Is it anyone that can tell me reason for this? Is the numbers right, and I just have to convert them to frequency?Or is it anything with the porgram or computer?anyone have any idea? Knex Knex, I'm not sure how to interpret your results exactly. You seem to be using the "," to indicate the decimal place, and if so you seem to have readings which appear to be in the range of a few hundeths of a hertz. That is clearly not correct. If your "," is not the decimal palce and you outputs are really 158 Hz and 426 Hz, I would say that is almost believable, but seems to indicate that the two E strings are horribly out of tune. Those two E strings should be two octives apart which means that the "high" E should be 4 times the frequency of the "low" E, but if and only if they are well tuned. It is possible that the way you have provided the data to the tone analysis vi doesn't properly inform the vi as to what sample rate you are using. If so, it will not be able to give you accurate results. Could you post your code? -Pete Liiva Quote Link to comment
crelf Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Could you post your code? ...and maybe a wav file of your two E strings so we can help you tune your guitar? Quote Link to comment
knex78 Posted June 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 hihi..funny...not My guitar i tuned. And the , is a desimal yes. Im not american ... I will look a little more at it before a ask more. Quote Link to comment
Bob Y. Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Hi agianWhen I use tone measurement I and play a low E on my guitar I it says it a frequensy of 0,0158 and with the high e string i get o,o426.Is it anyone that can tell me reason for this? Is the numbers right, and I just have to convert them to frequency?Or is it anything with the porgram or computer?anyone have any idea? Knex Here is a quote from Wikipedia about what the frequencies should be: Quote: A variety of different tunings is used. The most common by far, known as "standard tuning" (EADGBE), is as follows: * sixth (lowest tone) string: E (a minor thirteenth below middle C Quote Link to comment
crelf Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 the , is a desimal yes. Im not american America isn't the only country that uses a "." as the decimal identifier I don't have any statistics, but I'd hazard a guess to say that "." is more popular that "," around the world... Quote Link to comment
Gary Rubin Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 America isn't the only country that uses a "." as the decimal identifier I don't have any statistics, but I'd hazard a guess to say that "." is more popular that "," around the world... It depends on how you define "more popular", I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_point Quote Link to comment
peteski Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 It depends on how you define "more popular", I guess:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_point Seeing that China and India are in the "dot" column, I would suggest that "dot" is more popular. For what its worth. -Pete Liiva Quote Link to comment
crelf Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 It depends on how you define "more popular" Dang! I knew someone would be able to find the stats - I'm kinda embarrassed that I didn't check Wikipedia first myself To cover my own arse I think I'll with peteski on this one an say that it's more popular on a capita basis... Quote Link to comment
knex78 Posted June 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 So you are using the same sign as the poeple in china..hmm. GO point, hammer and sickle! Anyway I have solved my problems by just multiply with a constat 16000 (thats 2x8000) and it probely has something to do with the dagital sampling. Now I'm sitting here laughting of you funny people discussing "." and "," . Theres nothing to argue about, its just the way the world are twisted togheter. What about inches, feets, pounds, kilograms, meters, liters and gallonds..what do they use in china? Thanks for the help , btw. Quote Link to comment
crelf Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 What about inches, feets, pounds, kilograms, meters, liters and gallonds.. Tell me about it! a confused Aussie in the USA... Quote Link to comment
jpdrolet Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 From the Wikipaedia article: Dot Countries: Canada(English speaking) Comma Countries: Canada(French Speaking) :headbang: A confused Canadian in Canada... Quote Link to comment
crelf Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 A confused Canadian in Canada... :laugh: you win! Quote Link to comment
Phil Duncan Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 :laugh: you win! It's not so different here. As an aeronautical engineer, we have to calculate lift in Newtons, altitude in feet, rate of descent in feet/min, take-off and landing distances in metres and use density in SLUGS!! :headbang: Confused Aussie in Aus!! Quote Link to comment
Phillip Brooks Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 How many stone do you weigh? Quote Link to comment
crelf Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 ...lift in Newtons, altitude in feet, rate of descent in feet/min, take-off and landing distances in metres and use density in SLUGS! I've been able to muddle my way through the imperial system here in the US, but when colleagues start talking in multiple units then I throw my hands in the air and say "you work it out". I had one ask me to consider a physical phenomena in something like inches per pounds per degrees F - I've got no chance! Quote Link to comment
AnalogKid2DigitalMan Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 Google calculator to the rescue for all those pesky conversions. http://www.google.com/help/features.html#calculator Quote Link to comment
crelf Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 Google calculator Now that is cool! :thumbup: Quote Link to comment
Phillip Brooks Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 OK. I'm 12.5 stones, or more precisely, 12 stone 7. http://www.google.com/search?q=175+pounds+...G=Google+Search Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.