Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

Thor Andreassen
Hi all. First of all, thank you very much for this great software.

I've recently been analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity, and I
have some, hopefully useful, suggestions/comments.

Comments with preliminary patches
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o In my experience, the name of the time/frequency plot is named
  'Spectrogram' or 'Oscillogram' and not, as it is now, 'Spectrum'.
  I'm referring here to the 'Trackpanel' and 'Preferences->Tracks'.

  Maybe this needs to be done differently?

o The 'Maximum frequency' in 'Preferences->Spectrograms' shouldn't be
  capped at 100 KHz, attached patch sets it at 10 MHz. Maybe the cap
  should be removed?

o Add more FFT window sizes. My patch causes a segfault when zooming
  out on the frequency axis of the spectrogram, this is also the case
  when enabling EXPERIMENTAL_FIND_NOTES. Not sure how to fix.

  Steps to reproduce:
  1. Open porpoise_clicks.
  2. Switch to spectrogram view.
  3. Change window size to > 8192.
  4. Zoom out on the frequency axis.

Feature requests
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've added a couple of feature requests to the wiki [1], which I didn't
have time and skills to implement, will have a look at it again when I
have time.

[1] http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Use_Cases#Wildlife

--
best regards
Thor Andreassen

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

rename_spectrum_to_spectrogram.patch (1K) Download Attachment
increase_max_freq_display.patch (625 bytes) Download Attachment
add_more_fft_window_sizes.patch (707 bytes) Download Attachment
add_more_fft_window_sizes.backtrace (4K) Download Attachment
porpoise_clicks.wav (133K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

MartynShaw
Hi Thor

I'm glad that you liked Audacity!  And you have some great suggestions!

On 27/04/2011 17:35, Thor Andreassen wrote:

> Hi all. First of all, thank you very much for this great software.
>
> I've recently been analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity, and I
> have some, hopefully useful, suggestions/comments.
>
> Comments with preliminary patches
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> o In my experience, the name of the time/frequency plot is named
>    'Spectrogram' or 'Oscillogram' and not, as it is now, 'Spectrum'.
>    I'm referring here to the 'Trackpanel' and 'Preferences->Tracks'.

I fully agree with this.  Anybody object to us following the
'Spectrogram' naming of this?  It is normal after all, but would mean
some changes to the manual.

>    Maybe this needs to be done differently?
>
> o The 'Maximum frequency' in 'Preferences->Spectrograms' shouldn't be
>    capped at 100 KHz, attached patch sets it at 10 MHz. Maybe the cap
>    should be removed?

Your patch works fine for me with your file.  I'd have to look harder
into whether we should have some cap on it.

> o Add more FFT window sizes.

I see no reason not to do this, and have had more sizes here locally
in the past.

  My patch causes a segfault when zooming
>    out on the frequency axis of the spectrogram, this is also the case
>    when enabling EXPERIMENTAL_FIND_NOTES. Not sure how to fix.

I hope to find time to look into this.

>    Steps to reproduce:
>    1. Open porpoise_clicks.
>    2. Switch to spectrogram view.
>    3. Change window size to>  8192.
>    4. Zoom out on the frequency axis.
>
> Feature requests
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I've added a couple of feature requests to the wiki [1], which I didn't
> have time and skills to implement, will have a look at it again when I
> have time.
>
> [1] http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Use_Cases#Wildlife

These are mostly much more difficult to implement.  Do you want to
have a go?

TTFN
Martyn

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
> The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
> management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial
> acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

MartynShaw
Hi Thor

On 30/04/2011 00:49, Martyn Shaw wrote:

> Hi Thor
>
> I'm glad that you liked Audacity! And you have some great suggestions!
>
> On 27/04/2011 17:35, Thor Andreassen wrote:
>> Hi all. First of all, thank you very much for this great software.
>>
>> I've recently been analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity, and I
>> have some, hopefully useful, suggestions/comments.
>>
>> Comments with preliminary patches
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> o In my experience, the name of the time/frequency plot is named
>> 'Spectrogram' or 'Oscillogram' and not, as it is now, 'Spectrum'.
>> I'm referring here to the 'Trackpanel' and 'Preferences->Tracks'.
>
> I fully agree with this. Anybody object to us following the
> 'Spectrogram' naming of this? It is normal after all, but would mean
> some changes to the manual.
>
>> Maybe this needs to be done differently?
>>
>> o The 'Maximum frequency' in 'Preferences->Spectrograms' shouldn't be
>> capped at 100 KHz, attached patch sets it at 10 MHz. Maybe the cap
>> should be removed?
>
> Your patch works fine for me with your file. I'd have to look harder
> into whether we should have some cap on it.

There has to be some cap, due to the size of integers (see below).  It
needs to be set with reference to the max size of the fft window as
well, and possibly something else we have not thought of, so we should
be careful.

>> o Add more FFT window sizes.
>
> I see no reason not to do this, and have had more sizes here locally
> in the past.
>
> My patch causes a segfault when zooming
>> out on the frequency axis of the spectrogram, this is also the case
>> when enabling EXPERIMENTAL_FIND_NOTES. Not sure how to fix.
>
> I hope to find time to look into this.

We have  an overflow in the arithmetic in lines 1809 & 1810 with these
bigger windowSize and minFreq/maxFreq values, which are both int.
Multiplying them together can cause an overflow with the larger
values, say windowSize = 32768 and min/maxFreq > 131072Hz.  Locally I
have fixed this with:
TrackArtist.cpp lines 1809-1810
    int minSamples = int ((double)minFreq * (double)windowSize / rate
+ 0.5);   // units are fft bins
    int maxSamples = int ((double)maxFreq * (double)windowSize / rate
+ 0.5);

Does that work for you?  Is it the best way of doing it?  I think the
the result will not exceed an int since maxFreq/rate is probably 1/2
at most.  Are there any other similar problems?

We are in a state of 'feature freeze' at the moment, trying to get to
that elusive 'Stable Release', and so one big patch is unlikely to get
accepted into Audacity at the moment.  Why don't you break this down
into different elements that could be applied in series, each one
checked for problems as we go along.  Start with the renaming patch.

HTH
Martyn

>> Steps to reproduce:
>> 1. Open porpoise_clicks.
>> 2. Switch to spectrogram view.
>> 3. Change window size to> 8192.
>> 4. Zoom out on the frequency axis.
>>
>> Feature requests
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> I've added a couple of feature requests to the wiki [1], which I didn't
>> have time and skills to implement, will have a look at it again when I
>> have time.
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Use_Cases#Wildlife
>
> These are mostly much more difficult to implement. Do you want to have
> a go?
>
> TTFN
> Martyn
>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
>> The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
>> management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial
>> acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> audacity-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

Gale
Administrator
Martyn wrote:
>>> o The 'Maximum frequency' in 'Preferences->Spectrograms' shouldn't be
>>> capped at 100 KHz, attached patch sets it at 10 MHz. Maybe the cap
>>> should be removed?
>>
>> Your patch works fine for me with your file. I'd have to look harder
>> into whether we should have some cap on it.
>
> There has to be some cap, due to the size of integers (see below).  It
> needs to be set with reference to the max size of the fft window as
> well, and possibly something else we have not thought of, so we should
> be careful.

In case you haven't seen it, Wiki Feature Requests has:
   
> Raise maximum visible frequency from 100KHz to 200KHz (4 votes) - to view spectrum of ultrasonic
> sounds recorded at up to 384 KHz. By changing lines 137-8 in the SpectrumPrefs.cpp file from 100000
> to 200000 I could view the full frequency content of a recording sampled at 288 KHz without any
> obvious side effects. Or replace the hard coded limit with a warning.




Gale

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

Thor Andreassen
In reply to this post by MartynShaw
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:54:26PM +0100, Martyn Shaw wrote:
> On 30/04/2011 00:49, Martyn Shaw wrote:
> > On 27/04/2011 17:35, Thor Andreassen wrote:

[...]

> > > o The 'Maximum frequency' in 'Preferences->Spectrograms' shouldn't
> > >   be capped at 100 KHz, attached patch sets it at 10 MHz. Maybe the
> > >   cap should be removed?
> >
> > Your patch works fine for me with your file. I'd have to look harder
> > into whether we should have some cap on it.
>
> There has to be some cap, due to the size of integers (see below).

Ok.

> It needs to be set with reference to the max size of the fft window as
> well,

Maybe I'm being dense, but could you explain how these are related?

> and possibly something else we have not thought of, so we should be
> careful.

Yes.
 
> > > o Add more FFT window sizes.

[...]

> > > My patch causes a segfault when zooming out on the frequency axis
> > > of the spectrogram, this is also the case when enabling
> > > EXPERIMENTAL_FIND_NOTES. Not sure how to fix.

[...]
 

> We have  an overflow in the arithmetic in lines 1809 & 1810 with these
> bigger windowSize and minFreq/maxFreq values, which are both int.
> Multiplying them together can cause an overflow with the larger
> values, say windowSize = 32768 and min/maxFreq > 131072Hz.  Locally I
> have fixed this with:
> TrackArtist.cpp lines 1809-1810
>     int minSamples = int ((double)minFreq * (double)windowSize / rate
> + 0.5);   // units are fft bins
>     int maxSamples = int ((double)maxFreq * (double)windowSize / rate
> + 0.5);
>
> Does that work for you?  

That's the problem, your solution fixes it.

> Is it the best way of doing it?

One cast should suffice, and float should be accurate enough:

  int maxSamples = int ((float) maxFreq * windowSize / rate + 0.5);

> I think the the result will not exceed an int since maxFreq/rate is
> probably 1/2 at most.

I agree.

[...]

> We are in a state of 'feature freeze' at the moment, trying to get to
> that elusive 'Stable Release', and so one big patch is unlikely to get
> accepted into Audacity at the moment.  Why don't you break this down
> into different elements that could be applied in series, each one
> checked for problems as we go along. Start with the renaming patch.

Ok.

[...]

--
best regards
Thor Andreassen

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

Thor Andreassen
In reply to this post by MartynShaw
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:49:38AM +0100, Martyn Shaw wrote:

[...]

> > Feature requests
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > I've added a couple of feature requests to the wiki [1], which I didn't
> > have time and skills to implement, will have a look at it again when I
> > have time.
> >
> > [1] http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Use_Cases#Wildlife
>
> These are mostly much more difficult to implement.

I agree, and I just added one more that seems even more daunting.

> Do you want to have a go?

If I can find some spare time, but that might not be for some time.

--
best regards
Thor Andreassen

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

Thor Andreassen
In reply to this post by Gale
Hi Gale.

Thanks, I missed that one. I would say that 1MHz would be more
appropriate as the harmonics of these animals would exceed 200KHz.

I've moved my requests to the correct place, but left a use-case
related item.

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:00:26AM -0700, Gale (Audacity Team) wrote:

[...]

> In case you haven't seen it, Wiki Feature Requests has:
>    
> > Raise maximum visible frequency from 100KHz to 200KHz (4 votes) - to
> > view spectrum of ultrasonic sounds recorded at up to 384 KHz. By
> > changing lines 137-8 in the SpectrumPrefs.cpp file from 100000 to
> > 200000 I could view the full frequency content of a recording
> > sampled at 288 KHz without any obvious side effects. Or replace the
> > hard coded limit with a warning.

--
best regards
Thor Andreassen

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

MartynShaw
Hi

Thinking further, I see no reason to restrict the maximum frequency
that the Spectrogram pref can be set to.  It will never actually go
beyond fs/2.  This is not a "Maximum Frequency" pref but a "Default
Maximum Frequency" pref.

The pref should exist, so that people can set what they 'normally'
desire, but I see that it is ignored if you zoom out on the frequency
scale (right click on the y axis).

I now think that we should remove the restriction.  It is unnatural to
restrict the default to less than half the sampling frequency.  I will
remove that in a few days unless I get advice to the contrary.

TTFN
Martyn

On 04/05/2011 17:01, Thor Andreassen wrote:

> Hi Gale.
>
> Thanks, I missed that one. I would say that 1MHz would be more
> appropriate as the harmonics of these animals would exceed 200KHz.
>
> I've moved my requests to the correct place, but left a use-case
> related item.
>
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:00:26AM -0700, Gale (Audacity Team) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> In case you haven't seen it, Wiki Feature Requests has:
>>
>>> Raise maximum visible frequency from 100KHz to 200KHz (4 votes) - to
>>> view spectrum of ultrasonic sounds recorded at up to 384 KHz. By
>>> changing lines 137-8 in the SpectrumPrefs.cpp file from 100000 to
>>> 200000 I could view the full frequency content of a recording
>>> sampled at 288 KHz without any obvious side effects. Or replace the
>>> hard coded limit with a warning.
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

MartynShaw
In reply to this post by Thor Andreassen


On 04/05/2011 15:53, Thor Andreassen wrote:

> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:54:26PM +0100, Martyn Shaw wrote:
>> On 30/04/2011 00:49, Martyn Shaw wrote:
>>> On 27/04/2011 17:35, Thor Andreassen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> o The 'Maximum frequency' in 'Preferences->Spectrograms' shouldn't
>>>>    be capped at 100 KHz, attached patch sets it at 10 MHz. Maybe the
>>>>    cap should be removed?
>>>
>>> Your patch works fine for me with your file. I'd have to look harder
>>> into whether we should have some cap on it.
>>
>> There has to be some cap, due to the size of integers (see below).
>
> Ok.

I was wrong, the pref does not need a cap (see my last post) as
Spectrograms are capped at fs/2.

>> It needs to be set with reference to the max size of the fft window as
>> well,
>
> Maybe I'm being dense, but could you explain how these are related?

Sorry, that was just me being dumb.

>> and possibly something else we have not thought of, so we should be
>> careful.
>
> Yes.

I think we'll be fine.

>>>> o Add more FFT window sizes.
>
> [...]
>
>>>> My patch causes a segfault when zooming out on the frequency axis
>>>> of the spectrogram, this is also the case when enabling
>>>> EXPERIMENTAL_FIND_NOTES. Not sure how to fix.
>
> [...]
>
>> We have  an overflow in the arithmetic in lines 1809&  1810 with these
>> bigger windowSize and minFreq/maxFreq values, which are both int.
>> Multiplying them together can cause an overflow with the larger
>> values, say windowSize = 32768 and min/maxFreq>  131072Hz.  Locally I
>> have fixed this with:
>> TrackArtist.cpp lines 1809-1810
>>      int minSamples = int ((double)minFreq * (double)windowSize / rate
>> + 0.5);   // units are fft bins
>>      int maxSamples = int ((double)maxFreq * (double)windowSize / rate
>> + 0.5);
>>
>> Does that work for you?
>
> That's the problem, your solution fixes it.
>
>> Is it the best way of doing it?
>
> One cast should suffice, and float should be accurate enough:
>
>    int maxSamples = int ((float) maxFreq * windowSize / rate + 0.5);

rate is a double, so let's play it safe.

TTFN
Martyn

>> I think the the result will not exceed an int since maxFreq/rate is
>> probably 1/2 at most.
>
> I agree.
>
> [...]
>
>> We are in a state of 'feature freeze' at the moment, trying to get to
>> that elusive 'Stable Release', and so one big patch is unlikely to get
>> accepted into Audacity at the moment.  Why don't you break this down
>> into different elements that could be applied in series, each one
>> checked for problems as we go along. Start with the renaming patch.
>
> Ok.
>
> [...]
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by MartynShaw
Martyn wrote:
> Thinking further, I see no reason to restrict the maximum frequency
> that the Spectrogram pref can be set to.  It will never actually go
> beyond fs/2.  This is not a "Maximum Frequency" pref but a "Default
> Maximum Frequency" pref.
>
> The pref should exist, so that people can set what they 'normally'
> desire, but I see that it is ignored if you zoom out on the frequency
> scale (right click on the y axis).
>
> I now think that we should remove the restriction.  It is unnatural to
> restrict the default to less than half the sampling frequency.  I will
> remove that in a few days unless I get advice to the contrary.

+1 unless you have received same. The fact that you can zoom out to fs/2 is decisive for me.


Thanks,


Gale    



On 04/05/2011 17:01, Thor Andreassen wrote:
> Hi Gale.
>
> Thanks, I missed that one. I would say that 1MHz would be more
> appropriate as the harmonics of these animals would exceed 200KHz.
>
> I've moved my requests to the correct place, but left a use-case
> related item.
>
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:00:26AM -0700, Gale (Audacity Team) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> In case you haven't seen it, Wiki Feature Requests has:
>>
>>> Raise maximum visible frequency from 100KHz to 200KHz (4 votes) - to
>>> view spectrum of ultrasonic sounds recorded at up to 384 KHz. By
>>> changing lines 137-8 in the SpectrumPrefs.cpp file from 100000 to
>>> 200000 I could view the full frequency content of a recording
>>> sampled at 288 KHz without any obvious side effects. Or replace the
>>> hard coded limit with a warning.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysing ultrasound recordings with Audacity

MartynShaw


On 12/05/2011 20:30, Gale (Audacity Team) wrote:

> Martyn wrote:
>> Thinking further, I see no reason to restrict the maximum frequency
>> that the Spectrogram pref can be set to.  It will never actually go
>> beyond fs/2.  This is not a "Maximum Frequency" pref but a "Default
>> Maximum Frequency" pref.
>>
>> The pref should exist, so that people can set what they 'normally'
>> desire, but I see that it is ignored if you zoom out on the frequency
>> scale (right click on the y axis).
>>
>> I now think that we should remove the restriction.  It is unnatural to
>> restrict the default to less than half the sampling frequency.  I will
>> remove that in a few days unless I get advice to the contrary.
>
> +1 unless you have received same. The fact that you can zoom out to fs/2 is
> decisive for me.

Done.

Martyn

> Thanks,
>
>
> Gale
>
>
>
> On 04/05/2011 17:01, Thor Andreassen wrote:
>> Hi Gale.
>>
>> Thanks, I missed that one. I would say that 1MHz would be more
>> appropriate as the harmonics of these animals would exceed 200KHz.
>>
>> I've moved my requests to the correct place, but left a use-case
>> related item.
>>
>> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:00:26AM -0700, Gale (Audacity Team) wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> In case you haven't seen it, Wiki Feature Requests has:
>>>
>>>> Raise maximum visible frequency from 100KHz to 200KHz (4 votes) - to
>>>> view spectrum of ultrasonic sounds recorded at up to 384 KHz. By
>>>> changing lines 137-8 in the SpectrumPrefs.cpp file from 100000 to
>>>> 200000 I could view the full frequency content of a recording
>>>> sampled at 288 KHz without any obvious side effects. Or replace the
>>>> hard coded limit with a warning.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://audacity.238276.n2.nabble.com/Analysing-ultrasound-recordings-with-Audacity-tp6314304p6356979.html
> Sent from the audacity-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability
> What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know.
> Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools
> to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
> _______________________________________________
> audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel