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

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?

In message , harry newton
writes:
Is the canonical voice-changing freeware an audacity plugin?
Or something else?
(I do hope not: audacity seems to have gained the position you call
"canonical" when it comes to audio work, but I rather resent that [for
no _good_ reason; I like GoldWave, but am certainly not comparing the
two, since I don't actually know audacity].)

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).

(Why do you need to obscure your voice?)

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...ant-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?

A more productive - since less likely to start "x is best" wars -
question might be, "which of these (or others you've tried) is
rubbish?"; this would allow you to winnow down the list, at least. (OK,
not _entirely_ controversy-free - you still might get one person who
likes something someone else disses - but it's likely to eliminate the
ones that really don't do the job.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

31.69 nHz = once a year. (Julian Thomas)

He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:22:39 +0100:

(I do hope not: audacity seems to have gained the position you call
"canonical" when it comes to audio work, but I rather resent that [for
no _good_ reason; I like GoldWave, but am certainly not comparing the
two, since I don't actually know audacity].)

Thanks John (or do you go by J.P.?) for the suggestion of "GoldWave"
freeware for obscuring/obfuscating/changing voice on Windows.

This seems to be the canonical location for the softwa
http://www.goldwave.com/release.php/

I saved it to c:\apps\editors\audio\goldwave where I might note that the
only other directories there are "audacity" and "freeaudioeditor"
https://sourceforge.net/projects/audacity/
https://www.free-audio-editor.com/index.htm
But I only do audio editing when I have to (which is rare).

The description for GoldWave freeware is:
"GoldWave is a highly rated, professional digital audio editor.
It's fully loaded to do everything from the simplest recording
and editing to the most sophisticated audio processing, restoration,
enhancements, and conversions. It is easy to learn and use, so
get started now by downloading the fully functional evaluation
version!"

So the initial effort in quickly evaluating this freeware will be in
determining what part is crippled and what is actually functional.

As you know, if I expend, say, a dozen hours in testing of freeware, that
can be leveraged to *everyone*; but if I expend the same dozen hours of
testing payware, that can't be leveraged to everyone. So it's a waste from
that philosophical perspective if the Goldwave is really payware in
disguise.

One of the hallmarks of crappy software is that it doesn't tell you the
terms and conditions up front - where Goldwave doesn't seem to tell me what
the conditions are for the free versus pay part. Is it just trialware (in
which case it's utterly useless for our purposes)? Or is it crippleware (in
which case it could very well still be useful)? I don't know yet.

The GoldWave installer is badly written, as it won't let you choose the
exact name of your directory (where I had wanted
c:\apps\editor\audio\goldwave) but you can trick it into giving you the
directory (almost) location and name of your choice.

It installs quickly and doesn't seem to phone home (yet anyway).
Once you run GoldWave, you get the fine print:
"Evaluation Usage Limit
If you are using an evalution version of GoldWave, the upper right
status bar displays a command count (unlicensed usage), which gives
you a rough idea of how much you've used the program. The evaluation
version is limited to 200 commands each session and 2500 commands total.
When the session limit is reached, a reminder message appears whenever
you use a control in the Control window. Exiting and restarting GoldWave
lets you use another 200 commands without interruption. The program stops
working when the total command count is reached. Please purchase a
license to remove evaluation limits. You can give copies of the
evaluation version of GoldWave to anyone you think might find it
useful. See distribution information for details."

Of course, this is not an auspicious start for freeware, but we still need
to figure out if it's the best (aka canonical) software for the job of
freeware obfuscation of voice for privacy reasons.

(Why do you need to obscure your voice?)

I am well known in my field. I have given many scientific papers. I cannot
be known to have opinions on products made by Apple or Google that may
conflict with that of the people who know me well.

Privacy is important. Hence everything in my header is random except the
subject (and the body of the message of course). / tin hat answer

Voice privacy is as important as photo privacy which is as important as
fingerprint privacy which is as important as medical privacy which is as
important as email privacy which is as important as ...

A more productive - since less likely to start "x is best" wars -
question might be, "which of these (or others you've tried) is
rubbish?"; this would allow you to winnow down the list, at least.

I understand your point, or at least I think I understand your point, but
I'm not actually trying to ascertain which software not to test - but - to
your point - if that list existed - at least I could avoid testing that
software and hence I would avoid wasting my time on it.

However, I prefer to ask what's best first. In fact, I would be ecstatic
if, when I asked, what's the best freeware to do X, that everyone just says
"why, of course, it's Y".

Take, for example, the zillions of products to "burn optical media" discs.
We'd go crazy listing all the products that aren't as good as ImgBurn is.

Same here most likely, with voice-changing software.
I'd prefer to just know the canonical software that everyone uses for the
task at hand.

wax philosophically
If I could afford the luxury of having the perfect car on the first buy,
the perfect wife on the first marriage, the perfect job on the first hire,
the perfect employee on the first hire, the perfect town on the first move,
the perfect teacher in each class for the kids, etc., I would.

There's no advantage in listing the crappy products, if you can find the
best products right off the bat.
/ waxing philosophically

In reality, as you noted, there is an advantage to saying "stay away from
product X" when we're in a situation, such as we seem to be here, where the
canonical answer isn't obvious to everyone already.

So if folks know what NOT to use, then I'm all ears; but I still prefer to
know what's canonical for the task at hand, which is obscuring voice using
freeware on Windows.

not _entirely_ controversy-free - you still might get one person who
likes something someone else disses - but it's likely to eliminate the
ones that really don't do the job.)

I don't disagree that, in reality, having a list of software that doesn't
do the job can save time, since the major expense of freeware is in finding
the best one.

Of course, I prefer someone who has the experience to say which is the best
freeware for the task, where I appreciate your suggestion of GoldWave,
which I am testing as we speak, so to speak.

He who is harry newton said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:11:06 +0000 (UTC):

I saved it to c:\apps\editors\audio\goldwave where I might note that the
only other directories there are "audacity" and "freeaudioeditor"

OOops. Just to be clear, I maintain three identical (but different)
hierarchies... so I saved it to c:\software and not c:\apps

These are the three synchronized hierarchies on all my systems...

SOFTWARE INSTALLERS:
C:\software\editors\audio\goldwave\

INSTALLED SOFTWA
C:\apps\editors\audio\goldwave\

MENUS:
Start menu editors audio goldwave.lnk

--
In reality, I never use plurals but I put them here for ease of
understanding of the concept by others who may be confused by singularly
named directories.

He who is harry newton said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:17:24 +0000 (UTC):

INSTALLED SOFTWA
C:\apps\editors\audio\goldwave\

Oooh. GoldWave has a great tool called the "speech converter" which
converts text to speech.
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/12/goldwave1.jpg

I had not realized that speech synthesis instantly solves the problem
instantly of having my voice not be recognized on the net!

And, I think, speech synthesis is native on Windows anyway. (I think.)

The "Microsoft David" voice reminds me of the time we took a Commodore 64
and cut it open to replace the EPROM with the very first Radio Shack
available voice synthesizer, where the first words I ever synthesized were
"hello world".

He who is harry newton said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:27:01 +0000 (UTC):

INSTALLED SOFTWA
C:\apps\editors\audio\goldwave\

Following is my first GoldWave voice-obfuscation testcase.

As a good testcase for others to leverage, I chose this video of a
well-known voice that you all will recognize instantly (which is the point
after all, of the need for obfuscation):
https://youtu.be/mN3z3eSVG7A (Ronald Reagan about Soviet jokes)

For reference, the freeware command I used to extract the audio is:
youtube-dl.exe -x --audio-format mp3 --audio-quality 0 https://youtu.be/mN3z3eSVG7A

GoldWave doesn't seem to have a specific "randomization" or "obfuscation"
filter, per se, but it has a bunch of filters nonetheless, each with
sliders to set things such as pitch and reverberation.

Therefore, much like how Shotcut employed filters, I arbitrarily applied a
couple of the GoldWave filters to Ronald Reagan's voice, and then tried to
save.

Up popped this which worked fine after I hit the download button:
"A recent 64 bit version of the MPEG Layer-3 encoder (LAME)
cannot be found.
Use the Download button to allow GoldWave to download a copy.
Use the Browse button if it is already installed but in a
different folder."

Here is the original 8.22MB audio file in MP3 format:
https://files.fm/u/7c6qkc22

Here is the 11.7MB first pass obfuscation result in MP3 format:
https://ufile.io/k6s79

--
I am testing two different free no-registration binary-upload sites so let
me know if the files work out for you on the download.

In message , harry newton
writes:
He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:22:39 +0100:

(I do hope not: audacity seems to have gained the position you call
"canonical" when it comes to audio work, but I rather resent that [for
no _good_ reason; I like GoldWave, but am certainly not comparing the
two, since I don't actually know audacity].)

Thanks John (or do you go by J.P.?) for the suggestion of "GoldWave"
freeware for obscuring/obfuscating/changing voice on Windows.

Stop! Don't waste your time. I meant - though I realise I was far from
clear, in context - that I like GoldWave for what little audio
processing I do, so haven't expended the time to learn audacity; I don't
know if it even offers voice-changing as such as one of its functions.
(I don't remember seeing mention of it, or a button for it [though it
_could_ do anything, as you can write DSP equations for it to process,
but it's many years since I was in DSP, and never in GoldWave].)

This seems to be the canonical location for the softwa
http://www.goldwave.com/release.php/

Yes, and it's moderately expensive payware these days (though I'm not
sure if the option to try it out first is still offered). I bought it
many years ago, when I at the time thought the price asked was worth it
for what I wanted to do.

I saved it to c:\apps\editors\audio\goldwave where I might note that the
only other directories there are "audacity" and "freeaudioeditor"
https://sourceforge.net/projects/audacity/
https://www.free-audio-editor.com/index.htm
But I only do audio editing when I have to (which is rare).

Likewise.

The description for GoldWave freeware is:
"GoldWave is a highly rated, professional digital audio editor. It's
fully loaded to do everything from the simplest recording and editing
to the most sophisticated audio processing, restoration, enhancements,
and conversions. It is easy to learn and use, so
get started now by downloading the fully functional evaluation
version!"

So the initial effort in quickly evaluating this freeware will be in
determining what part is crippled and what is actually functional.

I'd say, for what it _can_ do, it _is_ fairly easy (and intuitive) to
use - but then, as a user, I would say that, wouldn't I. [And I like its
displays, especially the X-Y one to tell whether something is stereo,
and the coloured spectrum/intensity one to see intrusive whistles among
other things. Audacity probably has those too.]

As you know, if I expend, say, a dozen hours in testing of freeware, that
can be leveraged to *everyone*; but if I expend the same dozen hours of
testing payware, that can't be leveraged to everyone. So it's a waste from
that philosophical perspective if the Goldwave is really payware in
disguise.

When I initially got it, the evaluation version operated indefinitely,
though with increasing nags (which I still found tolerable). I
eventually bought it (a) because it did what I then wanted well (b) to
get rid of the nags (c) because I thought it a fair price at the time; I
don't know if the current evaluation version operates indefinitely, and
the current price is subjectively higher than I paid. [I can't remember
if that means it's actually higher - though I think it is - or if the
price I'd expect to pay has gone down due to there being more freeware
and cheapware available; I haven't checked its price lately.]

One of the hallmarks of crappy software is that it doesn't tell you the
terms and conditions up front - where Goldwave doesn't seem to tell me what
the conditions are for the free versus pay part. Is it just trialware (in
which case it's utterly useless for our purposes)? Or is it crippleware (in
which case it could very well still be useful)? I don't know yet.

When I got it, the evaluation version wasn't crippled in any way, just
nagged after a bit. I don't know currently.
[]
It installs quickly and doesn't seem to phone home (yet anyway).
Once you run GoldWave, you get the fine print:
"Evaluation Usage Limit
If you are using an evalution version of GoldWave, the upper right
status bar displays a command count (unlicensed usage), which gives you
a rough idea of how much you've used the program. The evaluation
version is limited to 200 commands each session and 2500 commands total.
When the session limit is reached, a reminder message appears whenever
you use a control in the Control window. Exiting and restarting GoldWave
lets you use another 200 commands without interruption. The program stops
working when the total command count is reached. Please purchase a
license to remove evaluation limits. You can give copies of the
evaluation version of GoldWave to anyone you think might find it
useful. See distribution information for details."

Of course, this is not an auspicious start for freeware, but we still need

I suppose I could say I never said it was freeware, but I really should
have said it wasn't given the subject line. My bad. Since I've had it so
long, I tend to forget it isn't freeware.

to figure out if it's the best (aka canonical) software for the job of
freeware obfuscation of voice for privacy reasons.

Definitely not - not freeware, and doesn't do voice (I think)! Sorry for
wasting your time.

(Why do you need to obscure your voice?)

I am well known in my field. I have given many scientific papers. I cannot
be known to have opinions on products made by Apple or Google that may
conflict with that of the people who know me well.

I see. How are you going to release these videos anonymously? (Of course
I understand you may not want to answer that publicly!)

Privacy is important. Hence everything in my header is random except the
subject (and the body of the message of course). / tin hat answer

Oh, I think we've met before in another thread (was it you where some
servers were adding the non-signature some AV software appends?).

Voice privacy is as important as photo privacy which is as important as
fingerprint privacy which is as important as medical privacy which is as
important as email privacy which is as important as ...

Each of us has his own thresholds, of course. I have a YouTube (so now
Google) identity which has a picture of me - though somewhat different
to how I look now; voice has never come up; I release my email; and I'm
certainly cagy about medical and fingerprint.

A more productive - since less likely to start "x is best" wars -
question might be, "which of these (or others you've tried) is
rubbish?"; this would allow you to winnow down the list, at least.

I understand your point, or at least I think I understand your point, but
I'm not actually trying to ascertain which software not to test - but - to
your point - if that list existed - at least I could avoid testing that
software and hence I would avoid wasting my time on it.

That was my point: knowing what _not_ to test would save you time.

However, I prefer to ask what's best first. In fact, I would be ecstatic
if, when I asked, what's the best freeware to do X, that everyone just says
"why, of course, it's Y".

That would be nice, wouldn't it!

(Though I must admit to a certain orneriness: when something is
_universally_ popular, I can't help wondering if there's something else
out there that is being overlooked because "everybody knows ...": like
it _used_ to be said "nobody gets fired for buying IBM" [I _think_ it
was IBM], or even older, "the emperor's new clothes".)

Take, for example, the zillions of products to "burn optical media" discs.
We'd go crazy listing all the products that aren't as good as ImgBurn is.

ImgBurn is good, certainly. I have an icon for it on this desktop.
Though I don't know if it's the best!

Same here most likely, with voice-changing software.
I'd prefer to just know the canonical software that everyone uses for the
task at hand.

So would I, though I don't have a need for it at the moment.

A thought: there may be a "best" software for voice-changing, that
nevertheless doesn't work well (or possibly even at all) when what you
want to change is the voice track of a video; obviously, you could still
use such software with something else (Shotcut?) that would allow you to
substitute one audio track for another, but it might be that there is a
_good_ - though inferior to the _best_ - voice-changer that _does_ work
with video files. [Obviously, the best outcome would be that the one
people mention as _best_ also _does_ do video files. I suppose you could
have asked "What's the best software for changing a voice track on video
files", but it's too late now, and that might be rather specialised
anyway.]

wax philosophically
If I could afford the luxury of having the perfect car on the first buy,
the perfect wife on the first marriage, the perfect job on the first hire,
the perfect employee on the first hire, the perfect town on the first move,
the perfect teacher in each class for the kids, etc., I would.

I don't think "afford" is the right word there! (I don't think most of
them are _possible_!)

There's no advantage in listing the crappy products, if you can find the
best products right off the bat.
/ waxing philosophically

True. But if people disagree on what's best, it does not harm knowing
what to avoid.

In reality, as you noted, there is an advantage to saying "stay away from
product X" when we're in a situation, such as we seem to be here, where the
canonical answer isn't obvious to everyone already.

So if folks know what NOT to use, then I'm all ears; but I still prefer to
know what's canonical for the task at hand, which is obscuring voice using
freeware on Windows.

On a video file (-:. [Unless you still want to know what's best even if
it doesn't "do" video files, and are willing to do the extract, change,
put back thing.]

not _entirely_ controversy-free - you still might get one person who
likes something someone else disses - but it's likely to eliminate the
ones that really don't do the job.)

I don't disagree that, in reality, having a list of software that doesn't
do the job can save time, since the major expense of freeware is in finding
the best one.

The only, really (-:

Of course, I prefer someone who has the experience to say which is the best
freeware for the task, where I appreciate your suggestion of GoldWave,
which I am testing as we speak, so to speak.

Sorry, don't. It's not free (I didn't realise the trialware now has an
absolute limit), and I don't think voice-changing is among its offerings
as such.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go. - Oscar Wilde

In message , harry newton
writes:
He who is harry newton said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:17:24 +0000 (UTC):

INSTALLED SOFTWA
C:\apps\editors\audio\goldwave\

Oooh. GoldWave has a great tool called the "speech converter" which
converts text to speech.
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/12/goldwave1.jpg

Ah, I hadn't been aware of that (it may not be there in the one I have)!

I had not realized that speech synthesis instantly solves the problem
instantly of having my voice not be recognized on the net!

Yes, I suppose it would!

And, I think, speech synthesis is native on Windows anyway. (I think.)

Yes and no. (I'm interested from my work [unpaid] with blind users.) I
_think_ there's a very basic version somewhere in XP, and better in
later versions (7 at least - don't know Vista). Though they're still
somewhat harsh, and I think would be tiring to listen to for a long
time. But there are "voices" that can be downloaded that are better (and
give more variety - male/female, regional accents [UK/US and maybe
others*]); some are free, some (unfortunately but as expected, the
better ones) aren't.

* the iPhone definitely has speech included as standard; my blind
friends use it. (I think you triple-press something to turn it on,
possibly the button.) He has a somewhat belligerent/grumpy Irish lady;
she has a nicely-spoken (UK) male voice. (Which, with the Google lady
when we're using it as a SatNav - which it does well, by the way - sound
like a married couple, as they speak at different times distances,
though they don't actually disagree on the route!) Frank also has the
Braille equivalent of a laptop/tablet (his latest one being the HIMS
Polaris), for which he can download 16 voices, including some foreign
ones: these seem to be just a novelty, as when he selects the German
one, she still speaks English, but with a German accent!

The "Microsoft David" voice reminds me of the time we took a Commodore 64
and cut it open to replace the EPROM with the very first Radio Shack
available voice synthesizer, where the first words I ever synthesized were
"hello world".

I remember when Kernighan or Ritchie - I forget which - died, someone
put out a post in his memory:

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

As individuals, politicians are usually quite charming, so it is quite hard to
dislike them, but in most cases, it is worth making the effort.
- Mark Williams (UMRA), 2013-4-26

He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:01:49 +0100:

Stop! Don't waste your time. I meant - though I realise I was far from
clear, in context - that I like GoldWave for what little audio
processing I do, so haven't expended the time to learn audacity;

After using Goldwave to change Ronald Reagan's voice and then using
Audacity to do the same thing, I've tentatively concluded (at the moment)
that they're the same thing (effectively) ... at least for my purpose.

Both Audacity & GoldWave apply filters to audio such as pitch and both seem
to use LAME (in the end) for encoding MP3 audio.

GoldWave:
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/12/goldwave2.jpg
Audacity:
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/12/audacity1.jpg

Neither Audacity nor GoldWave seem to have a specific voice randomized
recognition speech-distortion filter but one can be created out of existing
filters, with trial and error, I'm sure.

Of the two, making quick decisions (which one has to do with freeware just
as one does with choosing whom to interview by resumes), I'd say Audacity
has the upper hand because it's actually freeware, and it seems to have far
more filters than does GoldWave anyway (at least numerically).

I'll keep looking for a solution but there may be two other completely
different approaches possible which I should flesh out:
1. Use native text-to-speech generation
2. Find a specific randomizer for voice distortion

In message , harry newton
writes:
[]
After using Goldwave to change Ronald Reagan's voice and then using
Audacity to do the same thing, I've tentatively concluded (at the moment)
that they're the same thing (effectively) ... at least for my purpose.

Go with Audacity then, as it's free.
[]
I'll keep looking for a solution but there may be two other completely
different approaches possible which I should flesh out:
1. Use native text-to-speech generation 2. Find a specific randomizer
for voice distortion

3. (Less so for videos you've already made, but I sense you haven't made
many yet): use a hardware voice-changer! I'm sure I've seen them
remaindered for about a fiver in electronics stores (such as maplin in
the UK), possibly just after Christmas. (Look like a small megaphone.)
I've no idea how good/bad they are, mind.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... a series about a grumpy old man who lives in a phone box is unlikely to
have been commissioned these days. 798 episodes later ...

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
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).

Hard to tell if it's obfuscated enough to be unrecognisable, since I
knew who it was anyway, but sounds like you've got something viable out
of Goldwave anyway, despite my not really intending to recommend it as a
voice-changer!

It's important, strategically, that you recognize the voice as that's the
whole point that people aren't supposed to recognize the voice!

If it was "my" voice, you wouldn't recognize it even if I didn't obfuscate
it, while someone who knows me would recognize it. Anyway, the test proved
that both Audacity and GoldWave seem to do the same things, which is filter
audio by a plethora of methods, some of which can certainly be used to
obfuscate voice but none of which are specifically for obfuscating voice.

(And you've said this is only first-pass anyway.) Though
as it seems to have a final cut-off (how are you getting on with the
"usage counter"?), probably not a good idea to waste time with it.

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.

[Unless you might buy it anyway, but I thought that was against your
principles (-:, and it _is_ quite expensive (though perhaps not for what
it can do).]

I'll buy what I have to buy (e.g., Microsoft Office, Adobe Acrobat Pro,
etc.), but most of the time there are two reasons why I use freewa

1. Freeware does almost everything I need to do (where the expense of the
freeware is just in finding the right one to use for the stated task),
2. Freeware is highly leverageable where whatever I learn using freeware,
everyone else can benefit from, whereas with payware, that's not the case
at all (there's almost zero tribal leverage with payware).

Looking up text to speech options, I see there's decent info out there.
Text-to-Speech Tutorial
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms720163(v=vs.85).aspx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U25vhhE50kI
http://www.ilovefreesoftware.com/26/windows-10/how-to-configure-text-to-speech-settings-in-windows-10.html

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.

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.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:11:06 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:22:39 +0100:

(I do hope not: audacity seems to have gained the position you call
"canonical" when it comes to audio work, but I rather resent that [for
no _good_ reason; I like GoldWave, but am certainly not comparing the
two, since I don't actually know audacity].)

Thanks John (or do you go by J.P.?) for the suggestion of "GoldWave"
freeware for obscuring/obfuscating/changing voice on Windows.

This seems to be the canonical location for the softwa
http://www.goldwave.com/release.php/

I saved it to c:\apps\editors\audio\goldwave where I might note that the
only other directories there are "audacity" and "freeaudioeditor"
https://sourceforge.net/projects/audacity/
https://www.free-audio-editor.com/index.htm
But I only do audio editing when I have to (which is rare).

The description for GoldWave freeware is:
"GoldWave is a highly rated, professional digital audio editor.
It's fully loaded to do everything from the simplest recording
and editing to the most sophisticated audio processing, restoration,
enhancements, and conversions. It is easy to learn and use, so
get started now by downloading the fully functional evaluation
version!"

So the initial effort in quickly evaluating this freeware will be in
determining what part is crippled and what is actually functional.

As you know, if I expend, say, a dozen hours in testing of freeware, that
can be leveraged to *everyone*; but if I expend the same dozen hours of
testing payware, that can't be leveraged to everyone. So it's a waste from
that philosophical perspective if the Goldwave is really payware in
disguise.

One of the hallmarks of crappy software is that it doesn't tell you the
terms and conditions up front - where Goldwave doesn't seem to tell me what
the conditions are for the free versus pay part. Is it just trialware (in
which case it's utterly useless for our purposes)? Or is it crippleware (in
which case it could very well still be useful)? I don't know yet.

The GoldWave installer is badly written, as it won't let you choose the
exact name of your directory (where I had wanted
c:\apps\editor\audio\goldwave) but you can trick it into giving you the
directory (almost) location and name of your choice.

It installs quickly and doesn't seem to phone home (yet anyway).
Once you run GoldWave, you get the fine print:
"Evaluation Usage Limit
If you are using an evalution version of GoldWave, the upper right
status bar displays a command count (unlicensed usage), which gives
you a rough idea of how much you've used the program. The evaluation
version is limited to 200 commands each session and 2500 commands total.
When the session limit is reached, a reminder message appears whenever
you use a control in the Control window. Exiting and restarting GoldWave
lets you use another 200 commands without interruption. The program stops
working when the total command count is reached. Please purchase a
license to remove evaluation limits. You can give copies of the
evaluation version of GoldWave to anyone you think might find it
useful. See distribution information for details."

Of course, this is not an auspicious start for freeware, but we still need
to figure out if it's the best (aka canonical) software for the job of
freeware obfuscation of voice for privacy reasons.

(Why do you need to obscure your voice?)

I am well known in my field. I have given many scientific papers. I cannot
be known to have opinions on products made by Apple or Google that may
conflict with that of the people who know me well.

Privacy is important. Hence everything in my header is random except the
subject (and the body of the message of course). / tin hat answer

Voice privacy is as important as photo privacy which is as important as
fingerprint privacy which is as important as medical privacy which is as
important as email privacy which is as important as ...

A more productive - since less likely to start "x is best" wars -
question might be, "which of these (or others you've tried) is
rubbish?"; this would allow you to winnow down the list, at least.

I understand your point, or at least I think I understand your point, but
I'm not actually trying to ascertain which software not to test - but - to
your point - if that list existed - at least I could avoid testing that
software and hence I would avoid wasting my time on it.

However, I prefer to ask what's best first. In fact, I would be ecstatic
if, when I asked, what's the best freeware to do X, that everyone just says
"why, of course, it's Y".

Take, for example, the zillions of products to "burn optical media" discs.
We'd go crazy listing all the products that aren't as good as ImgBurn is.

Same here most likely, with voice-changing software.
I'd prefer to just know the canonical software that everyone uses for the
task at hand.

wax philosophically
If I could afford the luxury of having the perfect car on the first buy,
the perfect wife on the first marriage, the perfect job on the first hire,
the perfect employee on the first hire, the perfect town on the first move,
the perfect teacher in each class for the kids, etc., I would.

There's no advantage in listing the crappy products, if you can find the
best products right off the bat.
/ waxing philosophically

In reality, as you noted, there is an advantage to saying "stay away from
product X" when we're in a situation, such as we seem to be here, where the
canonical answer isn't obvious to everyone already.

So if folks know what NOT to use, then I'm all ears; but I still prefer to
know what's canonical for the task at hand, which is obscuring voice using
freeware on Windows.

not _entirely_ controversy-free - you still might get one person who
likes something someone else disses - but it's likely to eliminate the
ones that really don't do the job.)

I don't disagree that, in reality, having a list of software that doesn't
do the job can save time, since the major expense of freeware is in finding
the best one.

Of course, I prefer someone who has the experience to say which is the best
freeware for the task, where I appreciate your suggestion of GoldWave,
which I am testing as we speak, so to speak.

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

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".

--
I've been in a software industry for decades and that's how we use it.

On 10/12/2017 9:26 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:11:06 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:22:39 +0100:

(I do hope not: audacity seems to have gained the position you call
"canonical" when it comes to audio work, but I rather resent that [for
no _good_ reason; I like GoldWave, but am certainly not comparing the
two, since I don't actually know audacity].)

Thanks John (or do you go by J.P.?) for the suggestion of "GoldWave"
freeware for obscuring/obfuscating/changing voice on Windows.

This seems to be the canonical location for the softwa
http://www.goldwave.com/release.php/

I saved it to c:\apps\editors\audio\goldwave where I might note that the
only other directories there are "audacity" and "freeaudioeditor"
https://sourceforge.net/projects/audacity/
https://www.free-audio-editor.com/index.htm
But I only do audio editing when I have to (which is rare).

The description for GoldWave freeware is:
"GoldWave is a highly rated, professional digital audio editor.
It's fully loaded to do everything from the simplest recording
and editing to the most sophisticated audio processing, restoration,
enhancements, and conversions. It is easy to learn and use, so
get started now by downloading the fully functional evaluation
version!"

So the initial effort in quickly evaluating this freeware will be in
determining what part is crippled and what is actually functional.

As you know, if I expend, say, a dozen hours in testing of freeware, that
can be leveraged to *everyone*; but if I expend the same dozen hours of
testing payware, that can't be leveraged to everyone. So it's a waste from
that philosophical perspective if the Goldwave is really payware in
disguise.

One of the hallmarks of crappy software is that it doesn't tell you the
terms and conditions up front - where Goldwave doesn't seem to tell me what
the conditions are for the free versus pay part. Is it just trialware (in
which case it's utterly useless for our purposes)? Or is it crippleware (in
which case it could very well still be useful)? I don't know yet.

The GoldWave installer is badly written, as it won't let you choose the
exact name of your directory (where I had wanted
c:\apps\editor\audio\goldwave) but you can trick it into giving you the
directory (almost) location and name of your choice.

It installs quickly and doesn't seem to phone home (yet anyway).
Once you run GoldWave, you get the fine print:
"Evaluation Usage Limit
If you are using an evalution version of GoldWave, the upper right
status bar displays a command count (unlicensed usage), which gives
you a rough idea of how much you've used the program. The evaluation
version is limited to 200 commands each session and 2500 commands total.
When the session limit is reached, a reminder message appears whenever
you use a control in the Control window. Exiting and restarting GoldWave
lets you use another 200 commands without interruption. The program stops
working when the total command count is reached. Please purchase a
license to remove evaluation limits. You can give copies of the
evaluation version of GoldWave to anyone you think might find it
useful. See distribution information for details."

Of course, this is not an auspicious start for freeware, but we still need
to figure out if it's the best (aka canonical) software for the job of
freeware obfuscation of voice for privacy reasons.

(Why do you need to obscure your voice?)

I am well known in my field. I have given many scientific papers. I cannot
be known to have opinions on products made by Apple or Google that may
conflict with that of the people who know me well.

Privacy is important. Hence everything in my header is random except the
subject (and the body of the message of course). / tin hat answer

Voice privacy is as important as photo privacy which is as important as
fingerprint privacy which is as important as medical privacy which is as
important as email privacy which is as important as ...

A more productive - since less likely to start "x is best" wars -
question might be, "which of these (or others you've tried) is
rubbish?"; this would allow you to winnow down the list, at least.

I understand your point, or at least I think I understand your point, but
I'm not actually trying to ascertain which software not to test - but - to
your point - if that list existed - at least I could avoid testing that
software and hence I would avoid wasting my time on it.

However, I prefer to ask what's best first. In fact, I would be ecstatic
if, when I asked, what's the best freeware to do X, that everyone just says
"why, of course, it's Y".

Take, for example, the zillions of products to "burn optical media" discs.
We'd go crazy listing all the products that aren't as good as ImgBurn is.

Same here most likely, with voice-changing software.
I'd prefer to just know the canonical software that everyone uses for the
task at hand.

wax philosophically
If I could afford the luxury of having the perfect car on the first buy,
the perfect wife on the first marriage, the perfect job on the first hire,
the perfect employee on the first hire, the perfect town on the first move,
the perfect teacher in each class for the kids, etc., I would.

There's no advantage in listing the crappy products, if you can find the
best products right off the bat.
/ waxing philosophically

In reality, as you noted, there is an advantage to saying "stay away from
product X" when we're in a situation, such as we seem to be here, where the
canonical answer isn't obvious to everyone already.

So if folks know what NOT to use, then I'm all ears; but I still prefer to
know what's canonical for the task at hand, which is obscuring voice using
freeware on Windows.

not _entirely_ controversy-free - you still might get one person who
likes something someone else disses - but it's likely to eliminate the
ones that really don't do the job.)

I don't disagree that, in reality, having a list of software that doesn't
do the job can save time, since the major expense of freeware is in finding
the best one.

Of course, I prefer someone who has the experience to say which is the best
freeware for the task, where I appreciate your suggestion of GoldWave,
which I am testing as we speak, so to speak.

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


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

Rene

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?
?