On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:35:05 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

That looks so *lo-res* - is it the best Audition can do?

No.

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:35:05 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


I'm afraid only the programmer could tell you how that line is
computed, but I can at least show you the context of that last gif.
Here it is a bit wider. The data point you saw is the highest one on
the top trace - just to the right of the marker line. It is part of a
snare drum transient, so not a sine wave, although I have to say that
if we are talking about something narrow enough to poke up between
adjacent data points, it is going to have major frequency content
right up just below Nyquist, so it is to all intents and purposes
sinusoidal as far as the digital domain is concerned.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/wider.gif

Audition, obviously, has no say the way the DAC goes about creating
that trajectory, so unless every DAC uses the same FIR filter, which
will define the line, the displayed line may as well do whatever it is
doing here. I guess they used whatever method they found
computationally easiest - spline probably



That looks so *lo-res* - is it the best Audition can do? What 'zoom factor'
applies?

Here's a similar strength waveform in Sound Forge at 8:1

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/waveform.jpg


(It can be flattened out considerably at 24: 1 with correspondingly more
'dots' which I suspect are sampling points..??)




No, that is doing pretty much the same thing. Apart from the fact that
Sound Forge clearly just joins the dots with straight lines, while
Audition makes curves.

d

"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'!!)

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!!

That all said, of course, ignoring the 'stereo capabilities' of one's
'stereo hifi' is one thing - the said hifi' not having any decent stereo
capabilities to start with is quite another!



Some of the very best playing
dated from the early thirties.(there were probably more
professional saxophone players then than there are now,
so the standard was high and competition very stiff.
The recordings were of course primitive by modern
standards, and the playing (due to the fast vibrato
which was the fashion then) was deemed to be "corny"
Most people couldn't see past these two obstacles
and realise that there were in fact some very good players
indeed at work


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!

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

"Don Pearce" wrote


No, that is doing pretty much the same thing. Apart from the fact that
Sound Forge clearly just joins the dots with straight lines, while
Audition makes curves.



OK, but at what 'zoom'? - Sound Forge smooths out at 6:1 as per:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...thwaveform.jpg


But I like that SF isn't too smoothed out, it makes it easier to do creative
editing - normally straightening out the waveform, but here's a bit of
hi-res 24:1 editing going fairly deliberately the other way:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...edwaveform.jpg


:-)

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote


I'm afraid only the programmer could tell you how that line is
computed, but I can at least show you the context of that last gif.
Here it is a bit wider.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/wider.gif


That looks so *lo-res* - is it the best Audition can do? What 'zoom
factor' applies?

Here's a similar strength waveform in Sound Forge at 8:1

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/waveform.jpg

Not clear what you mean by "8:1". However the above seems to just show
straight lines between adjacent pairs of (sample?) points. That would be a
useless form of display for detecting overshoots as it can't represent them
at all.

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

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:08:11 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


No, that is doing pretty much the same thing. Apart from the fact that
Sound Forge clearly just joins the dots with straight lines, while
Audition makes curves.



OK, but at what 'zoom'? - Sound Forge smooths out at 6:1 as per:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...thwaveform.jpg


But I like that SF isn't too smoothed out, it makes it easier to do creative
editing - normally straightening out the waveform, but here's a bit of
hi-res 24:1 editing going fairly deliberately the other way:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...edwaveform.jpg


:-)

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

d

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

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:17:46 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


*How* is the waveform line being computed? if it is on an incorrect
basis it may still go though the samples and show some overshoot. But
not be the correct shape or amount of overshoot.


I'm afraid only the programmer could tell you how that line is computed,
but I can at least show you the context of that last gif. Here it is a
bit wider.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/wider.gif

OK.

The data point you saw is the highest one on the top trace -
just to the right of the marker line. It is part of a snare drum
transient, so not a sine wave, although I have to say that if we are
talking about something narrow enough to poke up between adjacent data
points, it is going to have major frequency content right up just below
Nyquist, so it is to all intents and purposes sinusoidal as far as the
digital domain is concerned.

I don't really agree with the last point for a number of reasons. For
example, consider how high an f2/s sinusoid could go above the samples. Yet
fs/2 is well below fs. Another is to see some of the real-world examples I
found are reported on the webpage. Overshoots in the +1dBFS to +2dBFs
region certainly occur with some 'max loudness' CDs.

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.

Audition, obviously, has no say the way the DAC goes about creating that
trajectory, so unless every DAC uses the same FIR filter, which will
define the line, the displayed line may as well do whatever it is doing
here. I guess they used whatever method they found computationally
easiest - spline probably

That shows the problem. The point here is that a correctly working DAC
should use the well-defined sinc TDA or equivalent. So far as I know, that
approach has been pretty much the common standard since the first Philips
chipsets for CDDA replay. It also accords well with what the sampling
theorem specifies for correct reconstruction. So if CEP or some other
program uses another method because the programmer found it "easier" we
have no idea if what CEP shows is what most domestic DACs would produce.

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.

d

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote


No, that is doing pretty much the same thing. Apart from the fact that
Sound Forge clearly just joins the dots with straight lines, while
Audition makes curves.



OK, but at what 'zoom'? - Sound Forge smooths out at 6:1 as per:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...thwaveform.jpg

Can't see any samples represented on that so no idea what it is doing.

But I like that SF isn't too smoothed out, it makes it easier to do
creative editing - normally straightening out the waveform, but here's
a bit of hi-res 24:1 editing going fairly deliberately the other way:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...edwaveform.jpg

As with your earlier example that seems to just 'join dots' with straight
lines. Which is almost worthless as a representation of the actual waveform
you'd get from a correctly working player. For the kinds of examples I've
been discussing the results would be quite different.

So if you were using software with such a display you'd have to keep all
the samples below -5dBFS to be certain no out-of-range peaks were being
produced on replay - even though the display didn't show them. Although in
practice you'd *probably* be safe with waveforms that hadn't already been
boogered if you kept well below -2dBFS.

That's fine if you were aware of this problem. But if not, using such a
display to adjust/edit the sound and make it 'louder' would be bad news for
the listeners.

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

"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...??)



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....???)

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). 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.

d