Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:40:16 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote

So-many-to-1 just isn't relevant as a figure. What you see at what
zoom will depend on how long the original bit of music was.


Hmm, that's not my understanding of how the programme works but, whatever,
it's academic to me - zoomimg in and out is simply a question of spinning
the (mouse) wheel back and forth to show me what amd how much I want to
see
on the screen. It's very fast and easy to do in SF; the only constraint is
that the zoom factor has to be 1:32, or bigger, to be able to use the
pencil
tool.


What you
need from your software is what Audition tells you down the bottom.
The exact start and stop times of the visible window and whatever you
have selected inside it. You can see that easily without the box when
it is zoomed in far enough to show the sample points.

Now, as for that second edit waveform, I'm afraid it shows the
limitations of Sound Forge.


Like how? (Not that I GAS - I'm not selling it for a living or
anything...??)



Because what you see on the screen bears only the most passing
resemblance to what emerges from the DAC.


And in Audition, I don't think anyone
would ever bother to "paint" out a click.


Quick and easy to do in SF but I'm picking up Izotope RX in a little while
and that may well alter the way I do things - my only interest in 'sound
editing' atm is cutting whole side/whole disc LP recordings into tracks,
trimmimg them and removing bothersome pops and clicks. If Izotope can do
that well enough ('de-clicking' software I tried in the misty past was
pretty much NFG) it will alter the way I do things and obviously speed up
the workflow....

(Except that I don't *need* the workflow speeded up....???)



When I digitize vinyl I tend not to trim (except at the finish of a
side, I leave the needle drop in place).



Nice touch! Get an 'auto return' deck for that lovely little 'syonara/see
you later' lift-off sound!! :-)



I leave the inter-track
spaces exactly as they are, and just drop in zero delay track markers
to separate them. That way I can play what sounds exactly like a whole
side of the original lp.


OK, but no good for me - I need individual numbered and titled tracks that
can be found in a search. I frequently know a track I want to hear but don't
know/can't remember which album it's from!! (An album is a folder with
individual track files in it; if I want to play the whole disc I just hit
'Play All' - I cba with playlists and the like!)

Messing with the 'vinyl digitisations' is no chore to me - I get to listen
(over and over, if I want or just let a track run) as I cut up the 'sausage
string', trim the individual tracks to the right 'lead in' and lead out'
lengths, add fades where I want and mute intertrack 'dead wax' surface noise
so the **quiet bits aren't noisy**!!

(Nutter Allison, are you reading this? :-)

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:24:16 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

[snip lots]


Another reason is to bear in mind that a waveform composed of a series
of harmonics can - with them in phase - generate very sharp peaks with
relatively little HF content. (And if you look at other measurements
these peaked waveforms certainly arise for some instruments like violin
or trumpet.)

OK, let me think about that. You're probably right, because you
obviously have thought about it - which has prompted your posts.

Or at least worried at this problem for some time! :-)

The difference isn't large in many practical cases *if* the user is
cautious and avoid scaling sample values into the region around or about
-2dBFS. But the problem seems to be that people *do* alter values in this
range. So may cause DAC problems they are unaware of.

Hard clipping is essentially an 'all or nothing' problem. So best avoided
entirely unless inevitable. And in this context less than a dB can make
the difference.

What I haven't (yet) done is compare 'sinusoidal spline fit' with sinc
to see how much they differ as I hadn't thought anyone would use that.
Have looked at quadratic interpolation and the distortion that causes,
though.

The problem with sine fitting is that it probably works very well indeed
*when* the input series if for a sinusoid! So may look great when tested
that way. But then not work well for other more general waveforms, like
music!

Actually I should have twigged this ages ago when I noticed that one
of the options with the ALSA (Linux) sound system is for resampling
to use a 'sine' fit. Should have rung warning bells, but I just decided
not to do that an find hardware which didn't need to resample at all.
Thus avoiding any errors due to resampling. Better if you can to avoid
processes that can introduce problems than to worry about minimising the
problems the processes can cause.



The problem with a programmer treating this as an exercise in 'getting
a smooth fit' is that this is *not* the basis in Information Theory. So
the result of a correct reconstruction may look 'less smooth' but
actually be the waveform the samples define.

I'll ask the person who said CEP does use sinc if this is stated in the
documentation for the program.


Remember that CEP started in days when processor power was at a bit of a
premium, and a programmer couldn't afford to waste cycles on errors
which were probably going to be contained within the width of the trace
for 99.99% of users.

Yes. That's fair enough. Indeed, I also often plot/display with 'join up
the dots' as it is a quick way to visualise the data sample series. It is a
quick way to see what you have.

Indeed, I have a feeling that many people didn't realise that the data can
generate peaks above all the samples until quite recently.

However I've known about the way this is a bit like a map with blank areas
on which should be stamped "Keep clear! Here be dragons!" :-) This was as
much as anything from working with data in contexts that are nowt to do
with audio. So with any recordings I make I avoid every getting any samples
above -4dBFS and then avoid scaling upwards. For me this is just good
practice.

But following the thread elsewhere (uk.tech.digital-tv) it has made me
think some people will be falling into the trap because the software
doesn't display the consequences properly and people don't know about the
problem. And some seem to feel you have to scale up to maximise the of all
the bits available, particularly when then using the result for lossy
reduction systems. Which might make the situation *worse* not better!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:29:30 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:40:16 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote

So-many-to-1 just isn't relevant as a figure. What you see at what
zoom will depend on how long the original bit of music was.


Hmm, that's not my understanding of how the programme works but, whatever,
it's academic to me - zoomimg in and out is simply a question of spinning
the (mouse) wheel back and forth to show me what amd how much I want to
see
on the screen. It's very fast and easy to do in SF; the only constraint is
that the zoom factor has to be 1:32, or bigger, to be able to use the
pencil
tool.


What you
need from your software is what Audition tells you down the bottom.
The exact start and stop times of the visible window and whatever you
have selected inside it. You can see that easily without the box when
it is zoomed in far enough to show the sample points.

Now, as for that second edit waveform, I'm afraid it shows the
limitations of Sound Forge.


Like how? (Not that I GAS - I'm not selling it for a living or
anything...??)



Because what you see on the screen bears only the most passing
resemblance to what emerges from the DAC.


And in Audition, I don't think anyone
would ever bother to "paint" out a click.


Quick and easy to do in SF but I'm picking up Izotope RX in a little while
and that may well alter the way I do things - my only interest in 'sound
editing' atm is cutting whole side/whole disc LP recordings into tracks,
trimmimg them and removing bothersome pops and clicks. If Izotope can do
that well enough ('de-clicking' software I tried in the misty past was
pretty much NFG) it will alter the way I do things and obviously speed up
the workflow....

(Except that I don't *need* the workflow speeded up....???)



When I digitize vinyl I tend not to trim (except at the finish of a
side, I leave the needle drop in place).



Nice touch! Get an 'auto return' deck for that lovely little 'syonara/see
you later' lift-off sound!! :-)



I leave the inter-track
spaces exactly as they are, and just drop in zero delay track markers
to separate them. That way I can play what sounds exactly like a whole
side of the original lp.


OK, but no good for me - I need individual numbered and titled tracks that
can be found in a search. I frequently know a track I want to hear but don't
know/can't remember which album it's from!! (An album is a folder with
individual track files in it; if I want to play the whole disc I just hit
'Play All' - I cba with playlists and the like!)


The tracks are still numbered, named and findable. It is just that
when you play the whole thing you don't hear the joins. It sounds
exactly like the LP. This is only for ripping to CD, you understand.
On the PC they are like yours - files in a folder.

Messing with the 'vinyl digitisations' is no chore to me - I get to listen
(over and over, if I want or just let a track run) as I cut up the 'sausage
string', trim the individual tracks to the right 'lead in' and lead out'
lengths, add fades where I want and mute intertrack 'dead wax' surface noise
so the **quiet bits aren't noisy**!!

(Nutter Allison, are you reading this? :-)


d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:40:16 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


When I digitize vinyl I tend not to trim (except at the finish of a
side, I leave the needle drop in place). I leave the inter-track spaces
exactly as they are, and just drop in zero delay track markers to
separate them. That way I can play what sounds exactly like a whole side
of the original lp.

FWIW in essence that is also what I do when making recordings. So when a
long recording has been divided into tracks the output series of samples is
the same as if playing the original recording.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote

When I digitize vinyl I tend not to trim (except at the finish of a
side, I leave the needle drop in place).

Er... why? Isn't one of the nice things about a CD copy that you can get rid
of the thump as the needle hits the disc and the "snap crackle and pop" of
the lead in?

David.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:30:14 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote

When I digitize vinyl I tend not to trim (except at the finish of a
side, I leave the needle drop in place).

Er... why? Isn't one of the nice things about a CD copy that you can get rid
of the thump as the needle hits the disc and the "snap crackle and pop" of
the lead in?

David.


No, I digitize vinyl purely for fun. I can always get hold of clean
copies other ways.

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


And don't joke about Des O Connor's Greatest Hits - I'm sure that's
kicking about somewhere around here, or has done in the past!!

Yes, Des O'Connor CBE, He probably still lives in that wacking great
house down in Sussex and drives his maroon and grey turbo Bentley. :-)

Poor chap :-((


Yes, never underestimate the power of the *ample-bosomed matron* bloc to
make or break anyone's career in the entertainment industry! No strong
feelings either way about the bloke myself - not my sort of thing by a
country mile, but good luck to him anyway!!

Another one of the Old School who has achieved nobility through longevity
is Bruce Forsyth - same difference and good luck to him also!!l


I agree. Nothing succeeds like success:-)

Remember the famous Liberace quote: Once I used to go laughing all
the way to the bank. Now I own it"

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

FWIW what prompted this was someone saying it was a good idea to always
normalise so the max came to -0.5dBFS. I was then pointing out this could
be a mistake if you only looked at the sample values - for reasons shown
on
the page I reference above. The question then became, what does CEP
actually display? Does it show the user a waveform that would allows them
to see if this problem was causing their output to exceed 0dBFS or not for
arbitrary waveforms?


Jim.

Personally, I would not trust software like CEP at anywhere close to OdBFS.
I have seen .wav files made on CEP (which the person who made them claims
are
*clean*) that are considerable clipped when uploaded to to mastering DAW.

Iain

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:51:31 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

FWIW what prompted this was someone saying it was a good idea to always
normalise so the max came to -0.5dBFS. I was then pointing out this could
be a mistake if you only looked at the sample values - for reasons shown
on
the page I reference above. The question then became, what does CEP
actually display? Does it show the user a waveform that would allows them
to see if this problem was causing their output to exceed 0dBFS or not for
arbitrary waveforms?


Jim.

Personally, I would not trust software like CEP at anywhere close to OdBFS.
I have seen .wav files made on CEP (which the person who made them claims
are
*clean*) that are considerable clipped when uploaded to to mastering DAW.

Iain



Finger trouble, I think, Iain. I've been using first CEP then Audition
for a long time and I've never seen anything like that.

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. ..
Well, The two pianos of.. etc, were a thing of their time. Made in the
days of radiograms to show off with, never mind realism. I think you
have
forgotten that there are times when exciting stereo can be fun. Its not
realism, of course its not,



The Two Pianos Of... and recordings of that ilk, were very much a
fashion statement, as is much popular music. I worked on many
of the Phase Four recordings at Decca.

After the initial stereo showcase recordings, many of them were
multi-microphone multitrack productions. And very popular
they were too:-) No one pretended it had anything to do with
realism.


The trouble with 'stereo' is that it encourages the geeks who think they
can replicate a real live experience in their own living rooms like '3D
depth/spatiality' is *everything*!! (Even now there are ****s in here who
will blather on about 'proper stereo'!!)

Listening to well-recorded stereo material can be a very exciting
experience.


Once the 'audio ping pong' trick was played out I suspect Joe Ordinaire
just ignored it and listened to the music. A 'stereo' label on a record
doesn't particularly excite me - like I have said often before, I guess
I'm too 'off axis' to care much of the time!!

Many good stereo recordings, especially multi-mic multitrack productions
often offer something new at each listening (well not new, because it has
been there all the time, but something that you had not noticed previously)
One can use "stereo" to greast effect. For example a single tambourine hit
-on the left _ can be sent to a digital delay, repeated with a multi delay
attenuating by 3dB at each hit, and brought back centre-left panning
across to the right. It works a lot better if it is neither too loud or
obvious.

For that reason I greatly enjoyed listening in depth to band like Queen.
The Devil is indeed in the detail.

Oh yes and I don't care how 'primitive' the recordings are by today's
standards (?? are you kidding??) - all part and parcel of the experience
for me!

It's refreshing to hear someone say that.

(Caruso had a little tinny voice in real life, didn't he? :-)

Rumour has it that his re-incarnation frequently stood in for Kate Bush


Iain