In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
My own editing experience goes back to splicing 2"
24-track analogue tape. It required a stout heart and a firm
hand to take a Chinagreaph pencil and a razor-blade to the
one and only tape, especially when ten pairs of beady eyes
were watching:-)

Really no different from editing *any* master tape.

Except that there is no B master, as is usually the case
with 1/4.

Did you rely on getting a second shot?

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
When film studios operations changed over from optical sound recording
to using mag film the sound editors hated it, as they had been used to
a visual reference, which was denied them by mag film.

I'm not that well up on sound production using optical tracks - but surely
they were sound only rather than comopt?

--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I do use scrubbing when I edit video, but this is mostly because the
video editing software I use does not provide the same quality visual
environment for editing audio that CEP/Audition does. I periodically
export audio from A/V tracks, edit it in CEP, and then put it back,
including restoring lip-synch by hand if necessary.

As a matter of interest which video editing package do you use? I've
tried a few but haven't found the perfect one.

FWIW in the UK ProTools seems to be the editor of choice in the TV
field.

Many years ago I was forced to use Soundscape as a dubbing prog. I
hated it at first being used to AudioFile, but quite quickly got to
like it. With some development (and faster hardware) it could have
been pretty good for semi pro use. I *think* it got bought out by
Behringer - but a quick Google shows nothing.


Certainly in the film business, Avid is pretty much the standard. It is
a bit of a hotchpotch and has some file compatibility issues, but
everyone seems to know it.

Avid is certainly the main picture editing package - and will be used for
simple sound dubbing - but I'm not aware of any dubbing facility using it
for serious stuff. As I said it's ProTools for this these days in the UK.

d

--
*Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
When film studios operations changed over from optical sound recording
to using mag film the sound editors hated it, as they had been used to
a visual reference, which was denied them by mag film.

I'm not that well up on sound production using optical tracks - but surely
they were sound only rather than comopt?


Indeed they were sound only, but if you look closely at an optical track you
can see the modulation, a bit like seeing the waveform envelope displayed by
audio editing software (though smaller, and without zoom options!). That was
the "visual reference" to which I referred.

David.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

For professional music editing you need to be able to
sweep across perhaps six or eight bars and stop the
cursor right on the point of the intended splice.

People have told me that this could not really be done
with sufficient accuracy in CEP2.1 and I wondered if
Audition was any better.

CEP 2.1 implements no scrubbing at all, so it isn't a matter of accuracy,
its a matter of simple existence.

For continuity, some conductors and producers
want you to scrub in real time from say the beginning
of a movement,

That's called playing.

Going to the start of a movement or the like is something that knowledgeable
editors do with cue points. In a DAW environment, cue points are a little
more sophisticated than anything that was possible with analog tape, so it
may be an unfamiliar concept for people who haven't changed their mindsets
since the middle 1950s.

and then crawl to the edit point, in
which case the view would need to be wide.

Wrong. You can change the width of the track that is being viewed in most
DAW software at will.

The visual reference is not enough.

That's another myth, no doubt based on inexperience and prejudice.

Both producers
and conductors expect to hear what is going on
and hear it with precision.

If you change your mentality to match the power of the new tools (DAWs have
only been around for about 30 years), then hearing and viewing are often
interchangeable.

They either have their
heads buried in the score, or their eyes closed
when they listen. They often will not look at an
editing screen

That's their problem. Besides its no problem at all - all they have to do is
tell a well-trained operator what to do, and he turns that into effective
editing commands.

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...


The visual reference is not enough. Both producers
and conductors expect to hear what is going on
and hear it with precision. They either have their
heads buried in the score, or their eyes closed
when they listen. They often will not look at an
editing screen


For those of us who have neither producers nor conductors
to worry about the visual reference is entirely good
enough.

IME its not only good enough, its better.

IMO it's better, because you can see the whole
waveform at the same time, no memory is required as when
scrubbing.

Do you use cue marks?

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...


Audio scrub was one of the features added to bring
CEP into line with professional audio editors, hence the
suffix Pro. Conductors and producers are part of the
professional scene.


Part of the professional music-recording-industry scene
maybe. There are many other sorts of "professional
scenes" that use audio editing software.

Some of the heaviest users of audio and video editing software are news and
broadcast organizations. The output of works for distribution by any of a
number of larger news and broadcast organizations would probably dwarf the
entire music industry.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi

But it would be nice if you could undo for instance, the
change before last. As it stands if you can only do it
on a "last in, first out" basis. Obviously this can't be
done for all edits because they aren't necessarily
linear.

So is there only one level of undo in Audition. Don?

No, there are essentially an unlimited number of undos.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi

Ahaa. Similar to what one does in a word processor then?

That's pretty much the paradigm.

That not too good for audio editing.

It's actually very good.

I liked the approach
used by ProDisk which took snapshots of the cue marks
inserted on the sequencer screen, keeping a record of each
edit (EDL edit decision list - compatible with professional video editing
systems) so that you could go back to a
particular point to fix something while still keeping the
splices that followed.

Now to let a little secret out of the bag. There are two separate editors in
Cool Edit Pro and sequel software products. One is a destructive editor, and
one is a non-destructive editor that in essence implements EDL editing under
the covers.

A non-destructive editor is generally an EDL editor under the covers, but it
has been found that managing an edit list explicitly is beyond most users.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Iain
Churches wrote:
My own editing experience goes back to splicing 2"
24-track analogue tape. It required a stout heart and a
firm hand to take a Chinagreaph pencil and a razor-blade
to the one and only tape, especially when ten pairs of
beady eyes were watching:-)

Really no different from editing *any* master tape.

Been there, done that, and really appreciate modern DAW software for that
reason, if no other.