Michel Rouzic releases Photosounder


Michel Rouzic has released Photosounder, a one-of-a-kind image-sound editing program.

It is unique in that it opens images and sounds indiscriminately, treats and processes them as images, and synthesizes them as sounds. Sounds, once turned into images, can be powerfully modified to achieve effects and results that couldn’t be obtained in any other way, while images of all sorts reveal the infinite kinds of otherworldly sounds they contain. Ultimately, knowing how sounds look and how images sound, you’ll be able to create images that sound like what you want to hear, or like what you couldn’t imagine to hear.

Photosounder features

  • Loads nearly all image formats
  • Loads OGG and WAV sounds
  • Can save the resulting sound into a WAV file
  • Analyses sounds into images for processing
  • Features spray tools to edit the image-sound by hand
  • Can adjust the frequency range, frequency scale, tempo (playback rate),
  • Can rotate and flip the image-sound

Photosounder is available for Windows PC (Mac OS and Linux versions coming soon) for 99 EUR. A demo version is available, with the ability to save the resulting sound to file disabled, and a small noise inserted every 3 seconds.

Visit the Photosounder website for more information and some audio & video demos.

Save 50% off discoDSP plugins
  • TCR

    99Euro? Is this guy kidding? Google “Coagula” for the same thing, for free.

  • But does Coagula open and processes sounds? Didn’t think so… ;)

  • TCR

    eh… yes?

  • TCR

    Okay, to get some more into this: Your program sure looks nifty and might even sound great, but maybe you should do some research before you claim things and define a pricetag… And Coagula is not even the only *freeware* doing image to sound conversion.

  • I have Coagula opened and I can’t see any way to open and process a sound. Maybe the reason for that absence is explained by the website which claims “Converting sounds to images will be in the retail version.”

    How about you try and understand what you’re talking about before making bogus comparisons? Coagula is about as comparable to Photosounder as Metasynth is, and that one costs $500. A major aspect of Photosounder is that you can transform sounds with Photosounder, so it voids comparisons with any of the two anyways. If anything, do watch the first video on the website and please indicate me how I can do that with any of the freewares out there. A shame I spent all these years working on that when it all existed for free already.. And thank you, I’ve done a bit of research to set this price tag, I’m quite happy with it.

  • Stefan

    Maybe not all for free, but converting sound to images is easy with lots of wav editors. Or with “Sonic Visualiser” which is free. Come on, there always have been lots of ways to visualise sound, it’s just a matter of which one to chose.
    Converting the other way round isn’t that hard either. But nice you made it in a nice gui anyway, I’d pay 10 or 20$ maximum.

  • Stefan : If all you want to do is visualise sound, then don’t buy it. That would be like buying a car to keep it in the garage for the sole purpose of using the trunk as a drawer. ;-)

    Amazing how people can entirely miss the point of something.

  • Stefan

    Nope, it’s amazing how you miss the point that your app is overpriced for what it’s doing. Just telling that all critics just don’t see the point of your app wont help that.
    My point was to show that the functionality the free version of Coagula is missing can easily be found in other free tools.

  • Oh sorry, I missed your point then. Well, hey, it’s like only $35 now, or whatever 25 euros is in dollars.

  • peripatopoulos

    I have to say , i’ve read all the ideas of photosounder on a paper about implementing them with jitter.
    If these are not the authors ideas, it would be nice to see him mention the origins.

  • I have no idea what you’re referring to sorry, could you provide a link please?

  • peripatopoulos
  • Yeah, it doesn’t really have much in common with what I do, or rather, it doesn’t have more in common than any other spectral editor does. And while a lot of spectral editing applications predate my work (which is not the case for that paper), what I do wasn’t based on anything ever done before, which is why my algorithms are somewhat outlandish (they’re not based on STFTs). So yeah, I have nothing to credit.

Producers Choice