Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrHaugen]

Are there any plans for improving the audio analyze function in MC? It seems to be a bit off when it comes to BPM.
The replay gain and intensity seems to work well enough. But some tracks just get the wrong BPM readings. The one thing I can't understand though, it that no tracks get a BPM above 179 BMP. Why this limit? Have to be some tracks with higher real BPM...

Are there any other good BPM tools that can give me a more accurate BPM reading, while this is solved?

[hit_ny]

Hard core techno tops out at around 150. Don't know what 170BPM sounds like.

AA has probs with syncopated music, sometimes its twice as high or low or a third.

Try counting beats then add it in yourself..the field is editable.

[MrHaugen]

Hard core techno tops out at around 150. Don't know what 170BPM sounds like.

Hmmm. Not certain at all. Just though that some trance tracks etc would go above... If what you say is true, then the main problem is just wrong reading sometimes.

AA has probs with syncopated music, sometimes its twice as high or low or a third.

As to what syncopated music is, I have no idea. But I konw there are special types of music that the analyzer have more problems with than others. Tracks with ambient music etc (no distinct beats) get crazy readings.

Try counting beats then add it in yourself..the field is editable.

I have been editing BPM for a long time. I just don't seem to ever get finished.

Anybody got a great BPM reader out there? Would like to try something else for comparison.

[Doof]

I was actually thinking today that it would be pretty easy to write a manual BPM calculator... I was thinking it could play the song for 15 seconds and have a big button you could click on for each beat, and then it would calculate it from there.

But I'm really no expert on BPM calculations, so I wasn't sure if it was more complicated than that or not.

[Matt]

BPM works by sending a little snippet of the song to JimH's office.  He taps his foot as he listens, and then sends the correct BPM back to your computer.

During off hours, a random number generator takes Jim's place.

Hopefully this explains any inaccurate results you may see.

[jgreen]

This is the kind of fact-based informational snippet that makes Forum membership worth the price of admission--heck, even worth 2X the price!  I think Matt left out the skewing/correcting algorythm that accounts for JimH's partiality to polka music.

FWIW, BPM calculations lie somewhere between Replay Gain and Intensity on the scale of Science vs. Art, IMO.  I'm not sure how a program (or even 9 out of 10 listeners) can reliably tell the difference between 6/8 and 3/4 time.

Haugen:  You say you're going through and manually (aurally) assigning BPM to your library?  All I can say to that is--really?

[MrHaugen]

Thanks to the technical input Matt 

As

Haugen: You say you're going through and manually (aurally) assigning BPM to your library? All I can say to that is--really?

Yes. I am I heavy user of smartlists with BPM restrictions. When I hear a song that goes far away from the suspected BPM range I correct it. Not every song. But maby 1/6 of them.

My question is still this. Is there a better alternative out there?

[Noman]

All the mixing and DJ programs I have seen have got BPM counters that works with more or less the same inaccuracy.

I have no "better" alternative right now

[Jonas]

Hard core techno tops out at around 150. Don't know what 170BPM sounds like.

I have no idea about techno, but there's lots of music faster than that.  Just checked my collection and some songs verified at 170 BPM are Bye bye Johnny (Status Quo recording) and Affirmation (Savage Garden). 

180: Queen / Breakthrough
188: John Fogerty / Bad moon rising (live)
192: Sweet / Peppermint Twist
197: Genesis / Jesus he knows me
214: Sweet / Ballroom Blitz

Techno might well sound faster, though...

[LonWar]

Here is what I have:

BPM   Name   Artist
171   Who You Are   Pearl Jam
171   The Finger   Danko Jones
171   Vicious Rumours   Alice Cooper
171   Dead Ringer For Love   Meat Loaf
171   Nick Of Time   AC/DC
171   Enid   Barenaked Ladies
171   Paranoid   Ozzy Osbourne
171   New Kid (On The Block)   Barenaked Ladies
171   Dressed To Kill   Nazareth
171   Dead Ringer For Love   Cher
171   Line & Sinker   Billy Talent
171   Stagefright   Def Leppard
171   Lose Yourself   Eminem
171   Bastard   Mötley Crüe
171   Bastard   Mötley Crüe
171   Serious   Alice Cooper
171   Hell Song, The   Sum 41
171   Serious   Alice Cooper
173   Party On The Patio   ZZ Top
173   Little Room   White Stripes, The
176   Real Love Survives, A   No Doubt
176   Intro (Curtain Call)   Eminem

[Sir Alan]

As to what syncopated music is, I have no idea.

Syncopated rhythm is typically where the accent on one part falls on the "weak" beat, while the other part remains accented on the normal "strong" beat; the effect is something like playing notes on a piano with each hand alternately, and should induce a nervous breakdown in all but the most robust BPM counter.  Listen to almost any of Scott Joplin's piano rags for more examples than you can shake a stick at.

[Mysticeti]

An example of syncopation:

http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/play/play.cfm/sound_iid.61193

[MrHaugen]

Yea. I get it.

Should trow in something like IF confused, follow heavy bass beat only

[benn600]

I was trying to figure out how to get it to analyze audio then I realized all I have to do is show the BPM field and what the heck!  There they are!  That guy in his little room tapping his feet must be busy as I have added over 7 thousand songs in the past few weeks.  I sure hope he can remember a few common songs to save his foot from the added stress of testing common songs numerous times.

By the way, that's a neat feature.  I'm gonna sort by it and now be able to pick based on speed!

[hit_ny]

By the way, that's a neat feature.  I'm gonna sort by it and now be able to pick based on speed!

... and after some time you will come to the same conclusion as the original poster.

The solution is to gift copies of said 'hard-to-analyze' music to the guy doing BPMs and maybe then it becomes more accurate.

[prod]

... and after some time you will come to the same conclusion as the original poster.

yeah absolutely i've been thru all this before - the BPM reading i've found to be very inconsistent. I use it to create a "gym" playlist, the idea being of course to only include songs that have a high bpm. however, quite frequently a few songs will get in there that don't belong. plus a lot of songs that do belong get left out. i haven't really sat down and thought about how else i can do this quickly and accurately but for now i'm just putting up with the fact i'll get the odd indie ballad cropping up when its not wholly appropriate. if anyone has any good ideas i'd be v interested.

[hit_ny]

if anyone has any good ideas i'd be v interested.

Do it by hand

Select the BPM field to be visible in Playing Now.

...when listening for the first time, if the BPMs seem too high/low then modify it, the field is editable.

Or create a custom field Gym (say) and fill it in when a gym worthy track comes up. Only you alone know what the criteria is.

..these ideas require some work, so maybe not exactly what you were looking for 

[prod]

..these ideas require some work, so maybe not exactly what you were looking for 

i spend most of my day trying to avoid work at the office, now you're telling me to look for it at home? thanks tho, it's an interesting concept!

[Johnny B]

I always do measure the BPM myself - it's the only way to be sure...

[benn600]

You know, I bet the YADB supports a lot more than Name, Artist, Album, Genre, & Year so people should add a very realistic and true BPM in before they submit..