What is the canonical voice-altering (obfuscation) freeware on Windows?

harry newton wrote:
He who is Char Jackson said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:26:06 -0500:

We could turn your posts into a drinking game. Take a sip each time you
hear the word canonical.

Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll give you the secret decoder clue...

I use the word canonical for two purposes with respect to software.

1. It means the official site of the software in question, or, 2. It
means the generally accepted best sofware for the task at hand.

: conforming to a general rule or acceptable procedure
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canonical
also: conforming to established doctrine

The whole point of being canonical is that it's already been decided by the
group, as a whole, en masse and individually, as the "best".


This maybe the cause of confusion, especially within the scope of computers:

https://www.canonical.com/

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:05:01 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is Char Jackson said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:26:06 -0500:

We could turn your posts into a drinking game. Take a sip each time you
hear the word canonical.

Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll give you the secret decoder clue...

No, I know what you mean by it. It's just that you're the only person I
know who uses the word, and you use it a LOT. ;-)

That's what makes it a candidate for a drinking game.

harry newton wrote:
Is the canonical voice-changing freeware an audacity plugin?
Or something else?

I recently created a video using Shotcut canonical freeware, learning how
to redact sections for privacy and now have a need for voice-changing
(voice obfuscation) freeware for voice overs (if that's what it's called).

Googling rarely comes up with the best freeware unless it's already known
to be canonical, but I did run the obligatory RTFM search:
https://screamingbee.com/support/MVPro40/MorphAudacity.aspx
https://digicompdiy.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/voice-changers/
https://tag.wonderhowto.com/change-voice-audacity/
http://www.nchsoftware.com/voicechanger/index.html
http://download.cnet.com/AV-Voice-Changer-Software/3000-2168_4-10056479.html

https://audacity.wonderhowto.com/how-to/change-pitch-formant-your-voice-with-audacity-335544/

etc.

Since the high cost of freeware is in testing all the apps that turn out to
be failures, I'd like to cut the testing costs, if I can, by *asking* if
any of you have *already* come to terms as to what is the best
voice-changing method extant on Windows using freeware.

If so, what's your opinion on the best voice changing freeware extant?

Remove the audio track and replace it with white noise.

If you need actual audio intelligence, use TTS software
to convert text files full of info, to sound.

This is how the phone scam for Revenue Canada works. The
*******s doing it ("demanding payment for back taxes via
credit card"), they make the script for their dialed call,
then use TTS to make a barely intelligible voice stream.
The purpose of doing this, is so when they're charged in
court, there is no voice recording to use against them.
All the voice content is computer-generated.

So TTS works for them. Good TTS costs money. There is also
free TTS, where the voices are no better than "Bubbles"
on a 20-year old Macintosh computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text-to-speech

An actual "voice changing software" is suitable for a
sound track that contains only voice content from one speaker.
If you apply voice changing software to a sound track
containing environmental noise, it's going to sound
like mush.

You also cannot just "null out" all the frequencies from 1KHz
to 4KHz, in the hopes of suppressing voice. As the
environmental noise will sound "abnormal". That would ruin
the sound track.

Someone did make a relatively successful plugin to remove
Vuvuzela noises from a World Cup audio track. But presumably
that works because the tone and attack/decay have some
predictable characteristics (even if thousands of
Vuvuzelas make sounds at random times).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuvuzela

http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/30760.html

"It is actually not as complex as...
source-separation algorithms which can take a recording
containing a singer and a piano and work out how to
extract just the singer's voice."

Paul

On 10/12/2017 10:41 AM, harry newton wrote:
He who is Rene Lamontagne said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:26:56 -0500:

Canonical: A word that means many, many, many, many Things.

I'm always up for learning new words.

To me:
1. It means the official site of the software in question, or, 2. It
means the generally accepted best software for the task at hand.

What word would you use to describe same?

Official?
Generally recognized as safe?
Acknowledged?
?

I associate that word with Linux, Otherwise I really don't use it.

Rene

On 12/10/2017 10:05, harry newton wrote:
Is t

CAN YOU JUST **** OFF AND STOP CROSS-POSTING ANYTHING TO WINDOWS 10.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS 10 OR YOUR TASTE FOR YOUNG BOYS.
THERE ARE NO YOUNG BOYS IN WINDOWS 10.




--
With over 500 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

In message , harry newton
writes:
He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:34:35 +0100:

Here is the original 8.22MB audio file in MP3 format:
https://files.fm/u/7c6qkc22
Hmm. I see a Download button, which doesn't do anything in my
browser (Firefox 26).

Hmmmmmm.... Thanks for testing that download site out as I'm also fleshing
out all the no-registration binary file download sites. I had used SRWare
Iron to download it the first time I uploaded it and the big red button for
"download" worked for me.

Using Firefox 56.0 on Windows to download the MP3 file, I had to first
agree to a popdown at the bottom saying that the site uses cookies, and
then it let me download. But, like you, I had to hit the Firefox download

I saw that too, but clicking on the OK didn't make it go away, or make
the Download button do anything. (Not the Firefox download button - I'm
not sure what that is - but the button in the webpage that had the word
Download on it.)

button a few times before I had figured that out. (Either that or there was
a very long delay sans countdown timer.)
So that download site has one strike against it and I'll demote it to lower
down on the list (since it does work, so I won't remove it from the list
altogether).
Didn't work for me (-: [Firefox 26 plus some plugins.]
[]
It's important, strategically, that you recognize the voice as that's the
whole point that people aren't supposed to recognize the voice!

I know that's what you're trying to do! I didn't hear the unmodified
file (as discussed above, I couldn't download it). I don't _know_ if I'd
have recognised the voice in the modified file (which I could download);
given that the filename had his name in it, I knew who it was anyway, so
couldn't decide whether I recognised it or not.
[]
Given that GoldWave doesn't specifically do voice obfuscation per se, and
that it doesn't seem to be any different (at first inspection) from
Audacity, and since it is restricted (eventually), I think I'll concentrate
my energy on finding a solution that is actually freeware.
[]
I toggled the Windows 10 narrator on, but it soon drove me nuts because it
read everything in sight, which wasn't what I wanted.

Yes; (most) web pages are now very irritating for my blind friends.

I'll keep looking for either a better-controlled text-to-speech engine
(which just reads out selected text and nothing else!) or find a specific
voice-obfuscation freeware algorithm.

Tell what you find.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:05:01 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is Char Jackson said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:26:06 -0500:

We could turn your posts into a drinking game. Take a sip each time you
hear the word canonical.

Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll give you the secret decoder clue...

No, I know what you mean by it. It's just that you're the only person I
know who uses the word, and you use it a LOT. ;-)

That's what makes it a candidate for a drinking game.

He likes "apologist" a lot, too, and "best", and "tribal", and ... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The fifth bestselling detail of all time: the Ford Transit. (RT/C4 2015-5-24.)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Didn't work for me (-: [Firefox 26 plus some plugins.]
[]

Maybe because Firefox 26 is ancient?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In message , Jonathan N. Little
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Didn't work for me (-: [Firefox 26 plus some plugins.]
[]

Maybe because Firefox 26 is ancient?

Sure it is; but why do sites use code that won't work under it?

This was a free filesharing site; I can't see why that needs any code
that needs a modern browser. The other such site in the same post worked
fine.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The fifth bestselling detail of all time: the Ford Transit. (RT/C4 2015-5-24.)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Jonathan N. Little
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Didn't work for me (-: [Firefox 26 plus some plugins.]
[]

Maybe because Firefox 26 is ancient?

Sure it is; but why do sites use code that won't work under it?

Security


This was a free filesharing site; I can't see why that needs any code
that needs a modern browser. The other such site in the same post worked
fine.

Why are you using such an old version?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 12/10/2017 22:19, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Why are you using such an old version?


BECAUSE HE IS MENTALLY RETARDED AND THEREFORE DECIDED TO JOIN THE
PAEDOPHILE RING RUN BY HARRY NEWTON AKA LIONEL MULLER AKA BLAKE SNYDER
AKA CHAYA EVE AND OTHERS.

I COULD POST A COMPLETE LOG FROM MY DATABASE BUT IT WILL TAKE TOO MUCH
SPACE HERE.

IN FUTURE PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN ASSUMING YOU HAVE ONE, NOT TO CROSS-POST
TO WINDOWS 10 NEWSGROUP. THERE ARE NO YOUNG BOYS IN WINDOWS 10
NEWSGROUP SO DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME GOING THERE AND SPREAD THIS MESSAGE
TO YOUR FELLOW MEMBERS OF YOUR PEDO RING.

--
With over 500 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:19:04 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Jonathan N. Little
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Didn't work for me (-: [Firefox 26 plus some plugins.]
[]

Maybe because Firefox 26 is ancient?

Sure it is; but why do sites use code that won't work under it?

Security


This was a free filesharing site; I can't see why that needs any code
that needs a modern browser. The other such site in the same post worked
fine.

Why are you using such an old version?

Butting in:

Probably for security reasons. Latter versions are blatant
dataminers/profilers .... and more and more developers are abandoning
their security/privacy extensions.
I read recently that Mozilla is thinking of launching
"Freemium" versions, the more you pay the less they datamine you ....
of course, the expensive versions will have to "phone home" to check
you are not using a pirated version ... the irony.

I'm getting up the **courage to dump Firefox which has been my
main browser since v0.something.
I "upgraded" v17 ESR to v31.8 (both ESR) yesterday. The latter
takes 20 seconds to load any page, with my Process Lasso icon at 100%
usage.. Previous version took under 2 seconds, PL just blinked..
Closing v31.8 it after browsing in "private mode" I found
persistent cookies in the disk cache.
anon&id=xxxxxUniqueIDxxxxxxxx&uri=http://clients1.google.com,
with an expiration date of 4 days.

Putting "anon" in the string shows someone in Mozilla has a
great sense of humor. And deep pockets.
Palemoon portable 26.5 takes 1.5 seconds. No "anon" cookies.
[]'s

"**Courage" because configuring the bl&^%%dy thing (Palemoon)
will take days ....
PS I use a cURL frontend for most downloads, and always check
the SHA256 on Jotti and/or Virustotal. PDFs and video files are
downloaded, never rendered in the browser.... simple security
measures....
EOR
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

In message , Shadow
writes:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:19:04 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Jonathan N. Little
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Didn't work for me (-: [Firefox 26 plus some plugins.]
[]

Maybe because Firefox 26 is ancient?

Sure it is; but why do sites use code that won't work under it?

Security

Hmm. See Sh@dow's thoughts below.

I still can't see why a filesharing site (at least where I just want to
download something someone has freely uploaded) _needs_ any security,
certainly not enough to break an old browser.

This was a free filesharing site; I can't see why that needs any code
that needs a modern browser. The other such site in the same post worked
fine.

Why are you using such an old version?

Butting in:

Probably for security reasons. Latter versions are blatant
dataminers/profilers .... and more and more developers are abandoning
their security/privacy extensions.

Interesting thought! No, it was because I didn't like the UI change they
implemented (at, I think, version 28). [Yes, I know there's an add-on
(though _that's_ killed by the web ruling now coming in) to make it look
back like the old one: "get a new version you don't like the look of,
then add an add-on to put it back". I didn't bother.]

I read recently that Mozilla is thinking of launching
"Freemium" versions, the more you pay the less they datamine you ....
of course, the expensive versions will have to "phone home" to check
you are not using a pirated version ... the irony.

(-:

I'm getting up the **courage to dump Firefox which has been my
main browser since v0.something.

I've been using it since it was Netscape - and I think version 0.94 of
_that_. (I think I have a copy of 0.90 somewhere.) I still have Netscape
7 installed on my '98SElite machine, though I usually use the Firefox 2.

I "upgraded" v17 ESR to v31.8 (both ESR) yesterday. The latter
takes 20 seconds to load any page, with my Process Lasso icon at 100%
usage.. Previous version took under 2 seconds, PL just blinked..
[]
Palemoon portable 26.5 takes 1.5 seconds. No "anon" cookies.
(Which version of FF is that based on?)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I like to think of her as Mary Poppins's evil twin - Michelle Gomez, on the
character "Missy" (female version of the Master?) she plays in Doctor Who
[RT 2017/6/24-30]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 04:02:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Shadow
writes:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:19:04 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Jonathan N. Little
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Didn't work for me (-: [Firefox 26 plus some plugins.]
[]

Maybe because Firefox 26 is ancient?

Sure it is; but why do sites use code that won't work under it?

Security

Hmm. See Sh@dow's thoughts below.

I still can't see why a filesharing site (at least where I just want to
download something someone has freely uploaded) _needs_ any security,
certainly not enough to break an old browser.

This was a free filesharing site; I can't see why that needs any code
that needs a modern browser. The other such site in the same post worked
fine.

Why are you using such an old version?

Butting in:

Probably for security reasons. Latter versions are blatant
dataminers/profilers .... and more and more developers are abandoning
their security/privacy extensions.

Interesting thought! No, it was because I didn't like the UI change they
implemented (at, I think, version 28). [Yes, I know there's an add-on
(though _that's_ killed by the web ruling now coming in) to make it look
back like the old one: "get a new version you don't like the look of,
then add an add-on to put it back". I didn't bother.]

I read recently that Mozilla is thinking of launching
"Freemium" versions, the more you pay the less they datamine you ....
of course, the expensive versions will have to "phone home" to check
you are not using a pirated version ... the irony.

(-:

I'm getting up the **courage to dump Firefox which has been my
main browser since v0.something.

I've been using it since it was Netscape - and I think version 0.94 of
_that_. (I think I have a copy of 0.90 somewhere.) I still have Netscape
7 installed on my '98SElite machine, though I usually use the Firefox 2.

I "upgraded" v17 ESR to v31.8 (both ESR) yesterday. The latter
takes 20 seconds to load any page, with my Process Lasso icon at 100%
usage.. Previous version took under 2 seconds, PL just blinked..
[]
Palemoon portable 26.5 takes 1.5 seconds. No "anon" cookies.
(Which version of FF is that based on?)

Sorry, I didn't check. Quoted from bad memory. Acceptable in a
rant.
EOR = End Of Rant.
I meant 24.7. It's based on FF 28, with enhancements. Has TLS
1.2 working, only available with later versions on FF.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012