From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dr. Mark Bugeja MD" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.audio.sox Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: merging mono files Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:39:17 +0100 Message-ID: <3e4b090a-ae51-e069-f6b9-1cd35c23f8a1@gmail.com> References: Reply-To: sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5589813797247775866==" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1481654384 27453 195.159.176.226 (13 Dec 2016 18:39:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:39:44 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 To: sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net Original-X-From: sox-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Tue Dec 13 19:39:39 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcas-sox-users@gmane.org Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.210.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.174; envelope-from=marcusfb@gmail.com; helo=mail-wj0-f174.google.com; X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=8y/wzI4fWQ5xGWlrMFoZACB8aujr2E75HFXQ9P0MSnY=; b=UQGGphorMpRf1ozkl4EmlUN1zlu2azNi4DVHXmiBOsfOeZhf3UcW5Ztz6ZYME0ZvUx +qoRkh1bX4xEyaiCw+fdSkOzstvkW/3k2JKq1nLILBoxAkuuKEVJq2B4cQa9/I+EcJBz N6MKi/iJlv/A7EtMBRpVZ7YfT5+cAXDERoDt0Opu+8oguvhsPveAKL02/d463zrVltvB HJcTEdXsg+kuBJgbnuHL44zAYu5B2O3n/1G7eEvUMK/Yjqgif30dGDdud7XWTdm/4rBH FioHDtMmXaANORWv2+MMOFUqvON3Lanuesnr+4r9lVLjxgfHFyFRR2AtEZYUGgSGiZ1H Dr7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01f51IbAWj9vJShx6/e/Grs7/hq29dRpTtpy2KAcsfkaFfamlMUZfpOlV8O9phw8A== X-Received: by 10.195.30.43 with SMTP id kb11mr84646533wjd.131.1481654360948; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:39:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 161213-0, 13/12/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Headers-End: 1cGrz5-00074z-DT X-BeenThere: sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: sox-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.audio.sox:6439 Archived-At: Received: from lists.sourceforge.net ([216.34.181.88]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cGrzF-000629-AH for gcas-sox-users@gmane.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:39:37 +0100 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1cGrz7-000822-Om; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:39:29 +0000 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1cGrz6-00081x-U6 for sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:39:28 +0000 Received: from mail-wj0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1cGrz5-00074z-DT for sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:39:28 +0000 Received: by mail-wj0-f174.google.com with SMTP id tg4so108659696wjb.1 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:39:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.158.99.83]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 135sm3843138wmh.14.2016.12.13.10.39.19 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:39:19 -0800 (PST) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============5589813797247775866== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------AA59E0FD8CA0BA3755E9F18F" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------AA59E0FD8CA0BA3755E9F18F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have tested the wav samples. They won't load in the software GrandOrgue and give a PCM format error. Could this have something to do with the merging process we have just done? Mark On 13/12/2016 02:40, Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users wrote: > On 2016-12-12 20:07, Dr. Mark Bugeja MD wrote: >> This is one recent instance where I described the structure of the >> folders. Perhaps I should have stated: >> >> Each folder has a list of files + 3 /*sub*/folders, each with its own >> list of files. > Yes. > > I assumed (from your original post) that there could be any number of > sub- > folders, with arbitrary names, albeit (probably) all of form "rel" plus > a > five digit number. > > If those sub-folders are always present or at least are always meant to > be > then (if I'd been writing a script for myself) I'd have checked that > each > sample's folder contained the expected three sub-folders - no more and > no > fewer. But on the assumption that there could be any number of them, of > any name, I would have done what Kevin did, & made the script just > process > whatever subfolders it found. > > Also, your original example of file/folder layouts had quite a lot of > "etc"s > in them, which implies that we weren't necessarily seeing the whole set > of > possibilities. And, your text said "Each subfolder has similarly names > files > as shown.", which is too vague for anyone (writing a script) to be > certain of > what you meant. > > On the other hand, I do see - now - that your description, eg: > > Basson16L > ....rel00150 > ........036-C > ........037-C# > ........038-D > ........etc > ....rel00600 > ........036-C > ........037-C# > ........038-D > ........etc > ....rel99999 > ........036-C > ........037-C# > ........038-D > ........etc > 036-C > 037-C# > 038-D > etc > > > did include separate files (the lines at the end of that list) as well > as sub- > folders. My only excuse for not realising their significance is that I > thought > (wrongly!) that you'd forgotten to put lots of dots in front of one set > of names! > On the other hand, there's no good reason to put the "main files" at the > bottom > of a list. They'd have been far more obvious if they'd been described > first. > > > If I'd been describing this structure to someone else I'd have said > something > like: > > For each set of samples, eg "Basson16" there's two folders named with > "L" > and "R" suffixes. Each contains some audio files, one for each note > of > the scale, named accordingly, eg "037-C#.wav" - representing the C > sharp > that's the 37th note counted from the lowest pitched one in the sample > set (or whatever the significance of that number is). > > As well as the main data for each note there's three additional files, > each > holding data describing short, medium and long 'releases'. These are > always > stored in subfolders named "rel00150", "rel00600" and "rel99999". > Whatever > the set of main data files is, the subfolders should have the same > named set > of subsidiary files, so for example, as there's a 037-C#.wav file in > the main > folder there should be three more files with that name in the three > relnnnnn > folders. > > I would also have explained whether there could ever be any other > files in the > main or relnnnnn folders, which contain other things - eg any .txt > files that > contain descriptions of the data. > > Perhaps I'd also have said that all the individual files should have > names that > are a three digit number, a dash, and one of A A# B C C# D D# E F F# G > G#. I > might have said what the range of the three-digit numbers is: do they > always > start at 001, and always end at the (same) high value? Do they always > go up in > ones? What should the script do if there's a gap in the sequence? > > > I'd then have listed the full names (paths) of all the files describing > one note > for one sample eg: > > C:\my\organsamples\basson16l\037-C#.wav > C:\my\organsamples\basson16l\rel00150\037-C#.wav > C:\my\organsamples\basson16l\rel00600\037-C#.wav > C:\my\organsamples\basson16l\rel99999\037-C#.wav > > C:\my\organsamples\basson16r\037-C#.wav > C:\my\organsamples\basson16r\rel00150\037-C#.wav > C:\my\organsamples\basson16r\rel00600\037-C#.wav > C:\my\organsamples\basson16r\rel99999\037-C#.wav > > which hopefully would have removed some of the vagueness. Notice, no > unnecessary > dots, and the full names (with the ".wav" extensions) of the files. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus --------------AA59E0FD8CA0BA3755E9F18F Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have tested the wav samples. They won't load in the software GrandOrgue and give a PCM format error. Could this have something to do with the merging process we have just done?

Mark


On 13/12/2016 02:40, Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users wrote:
On 2016-12-12 20:07, Dr. Mark Bugeja MD wrote:

This is one recent instance where I described the structure of the
folders. Perhaps I should have stated:

Each folder has a list of files + 3 /*sub*/folders, each with its own
list of files.

Yes.

I assumed (from your original post) that there could be any number of 
sub-
folders, with arbitrary names, albeit (probably) all of form "rel" plus 
a
five digit number.

If those sub-folders are always present or at least are always meant to 
be
then (if I'd been writing a script for myself) I'd have checked that 
each
sample's folder contained the expected three sub-folders - no more and 
no
fewer.  But on the assumption that there could be any number of them, of
any name, I would have done what Kevin did, & made the script just 
process
whatever subfolders it found.

Also, your original example of file/folder layouts had quite a lot of 
"etc"s
in them, which implies that we weren't necessarily seeing the whole set 
of
possibilities.  And, your text said "Each subfolder has similarly names 
files
as shown.", which is too vague for anyone (writing a script) to be 
certain of
what you meant.

On the other hand, I do see - now - that your description, eg:

Basson16L
....rel00150
........036-C
........037-C#
........038-D
........etc
....rel00600
........036-C
........037-C#
........038-D
........etc
....rel99999
........036-C
........037-C#
........038-D
........etc
036-C
037-C#
038-D
  etc


did include separate files (the lines at the end of that list) as well 
as sub-
folders.  My only excuse for not realising their significance is that I 
thought
(wrongly!) that you'd forgotten to put lots of dots in front of one set 
of names!
On the other hand, there's no good reason to put the "main files" at the 
bottom
of a list.   They'd have been far more obvious if they'd been described 
first.


If I'd been describing this structure to someone else I'd have said 
something
like:

   For each set of samples, eg "Basson16" there's two folders named with 
"L"
   and "R" suffixes.  Each contains some audio files, one for each note 
of
   the scale, named accordingly, eg "037-C#.wav" - representing the C 
sharp
   that's the 37th note counted from the lowest pitched one in the sample
   set (or whatever the significance of that number is).

   As well as the main data for each note there's three additional files, 
each
   holding data describing short, medium and long 'releases'.  These are 
always
   stored in subfolders named "rel00150", "rel00600" and "rel99999".  
Whatever
   the set of main data files is, the subfolders should have the same 
named set
   of subsidiary files, so for example, as there's a 037-C#.wav file in 
the main
   folder there should be three more files with that name in the three 
relnnnnn
   folders.

   I would also have explained whether there could ever be any other 
files in the
   main or relnnnnn folders, which contain other things - eg any .txt 
files that
   contain descriptions of the data.

   Perhaps I'd also have said that all the individual files should have 
names that
   are a three digit number, a dash, and one of A A# B C C# D D# E F F# G 
G#.  I
   might have said what the range of the three-digit numbers is: do they 
always
   start at 001, and always end at the (same) high value?  Do they always 
go up in
   ones?  What should the script do if there's a gap in the sequence?


I'd then have listed the full names (paths) of all the files describing 
one note
for one sample eg:

   C:\my\organsamples\basson16l\037-C#.wav
   C:\my\organsamples\basson16l\rel00150\037-C#.wav
   C:\my\organsamples\basson16l\rel00600\037-C#.wav
   C:\my\organsamples\basson16l\rel99999\037-C#.wav

   C:\my\organsamples\basson16r\037-C#.wav
   C:\my\organsamples\basson16r\rel00150\037-C#.wav
   C:\my\organsamples\basson16r\rel00600\037-C#.wav
   C:\my\organsamples\basson16r\rel99999\037-C#.wav

which hopefully would have removed some of the vagueness.  Notice, no 
unnecessary
dots, and the full names (with the ".wav" extensions) of the files.



Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com


--------------AA59E0FD8CA0BA3755E9F18F-- --===============5589813797247775866== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot --===============5589813797247775866== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Sox-users mailing list Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users --===============5589813797247775866==--