Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise' and
they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as 'dual
mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning on
these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried in
the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!

Here are a couple of near-identical samples to compa

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBdualmono.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBmonomono.mp3

Anyone with any thoughts?

TIA, as usual....

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them
as 'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??


Do you mean by 'dual mono' using a stereo cart and keeping things stereo
throughout? Or feeding a 'proper' mono signal to left and right legs of a
stereo signal?

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

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

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Keith G"
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as
'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning
on these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried
in the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!


** The interesting thing about surface noise on a vinyl LP is that it is
always in stereo !!

In the case of a mono LP, the music is gonna appear smack in the centre of a
pair of stereo speaker - if everything is well matched up.

This makes it possible to mentally " tune out " such surface noise as it is
not coming from the same direction as the music but rather from the far left
and far right of it.



....... Phil

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:24:36 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise' and
they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as 'dual
mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning on
these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried in
the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!

Here are a couple of near-identical samples to compa

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBdualmono.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBmonomono.mp3

Anyone with any thoughts?

TIA, as usual....






You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.

Also if you need to do any real repairs to remove a pop, you can
select the option to copy and paste from one channel to the other.

Then save it as pure mono, and it will halve the file size.

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:24:36 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:



You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre),

Also if you need to do any real repairs to remove a pop, you can
select the option to copy and paste from one channel to the other.

The click energy can be mostly in the L, R, difference or sum channels
depending on how the damage was done. In the case of a click that is mainly
L or R then a copy & paste from the "good" channel to the "bad" can be very
effective, when the click energy is mainly difference averaging the signal
can largely eliminate it. But there are a hard core (far more than 1%) of
cases when none of those work, and we are back to removing the click the
hard way.

Then save it as pure mono, and it will halve the file size.

And will remove a lot (though nothing like 99%) of the surface crackle and
much of the distortion.

David.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

Well, I prefer mono after recording so at least out of phase crackles are
removed, and nasty wear artefacts do not spread over the sound stage.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Keith G" wrote in message
...
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as
'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning
on these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried
in the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!

Here are a couple of near-identical samples to compa

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBdualmono.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBmonomono.mp3

Anyone with any thoughts?

TIA, as usual....

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them
as 'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??


Do you mean by 'dual mono' using a stereo cart and keeping things stereo
throughout? Or feeding a 'proper' mono signal to left and right legs of a
stereo signal?


The former: a 100% two channel 'stereo' setup all the way from the pickup to
the soundcard; then either capturing/saving as two, L+R channels - what I
call 'dual mono' when from a 'mono' source, or one channel - what I call
'mono mono' in this instance, to differentiate from a more usual mono
capture from a stereo recording!

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Keith G"
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as
'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning
on these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried
in the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!


** The interesting thing about surface noise on a vinyl LP is that it is
always in stereo !!


Certainly is when you are playing it, but it gets nicely buried (to a point)
when transcribed to a mono recording!



In the case of a mono LP, the music is gonna appear smack in the centre of
a pair of stereo speaker - if everything is well matched up.


A 'dual mono' waveform is a good visual check for the overall channel
balance of the recording/replay sysytem!



This makes it possible to mentally " tune out " such surface noise as it
is not coming from the same direction as the music but rather from the far
left and far right of it.


And is always 'up front and in your face' when the music 'soundstage' goes
*way back over there*! The trick I suspect successful vinylistas manage to
achieve most of the time is simply to follow the music and ignore the
fireworks off to the side!

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??



Also if you need to do any real repairs to remove a pop, you can
select the option to copy and paste from one channel to the other.


Serious pops are easily removed in SoundForge; it's the continuous crackle
that can be a nuisance (if it bothers you), but I am hoping for a
breakthrough *offlist* on that a little later on.

Might be worth a mention that the 'mono' clips I posted are off the Brubeck
'Jazz Goes To College' album which dates from 1954 - my copy is an original
Columbia CL566 in stunning condition. Neither of those clips have had any
cleaning whatsoever!



Then save it as pure mono, and it will halve the file size.


Yes - another bonus of mono recordings.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. ..
Well, I prefer mono after recording so at least out of phase crackles are
removed, and nasty wear artefacts do not spread over the sound stage.


There are times when 'stereo' helps (large scale, orchestral) but most of
the time it's a gimmick I don't *have* to have, I find!! Done badly (20 foot
wide pianos and ping pong solo instruments) it is atrocious and has me
reaching for the 'mono button' I haven't got on any of my amps!!

Said it before - I do a lot (if not most) of my listening 'off axis'
anyway!!

But then, that's just me!! ;-)

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:13:50 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??

Nope, it will just add the two channels together. The crackling will
become a little less evident because it is now coming from the same
spot as the music, and a bit better hidden than when it was separated
spatially.

I don't know what Sound Forge (is that what you use?) does. It is
there in Audition.



Also if you need to do any real repairs to remove a pop, you can
select the option to copy and paste from one channel to the other.


Serious pops are easily removed in SoundForge; it's the continuous crackle
that can be a nuisance (if it bothers you), but I am hoping for a
breakthrough *offlist* on that a little later on.


Is this what you are after?

http://81.174.169.10/odds/DBnoclicks.mp3

I used Izotope RX to do that. If I had some groove noise without music
to sample, I could have got rid of loads more.

Might be worth a mention that the 'mono' clips I posted are off the Brubeck
'Jazz Goes To College' album which dates from 1954 - my copy is an original
Columbia CL566 in stunning condition. Neither of those clips have had any
cleaning whatsoever!


Remarkably good given the age.



Then save it as pure mono, and it will halve the file size.


Yes - another bonus of mono recordings.



But not what I would describe as a selling point.

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Keith Git "

"Phil Allison"


** The interesting thing about surface noise on a vinyl LP is that it is
always in stereo !!


Certainly is when you are playing it, but it gets nicely buried (to a
point) when transcribed to a mono recording!


** Totally false assertion.

Surface noise is independent of the signal level impressed on the disk.

****head.



In the case of a mono LP, the music is gonna appear smack in the centre
of a pair of stereo speaker - if everything is well matched up.


A 'dual mono' waveform is a good visual check for the overall channel
balance of the recording/replay sysytem!

** Meaningless drivel.

Yawwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn......


This makes it possible to mentally " tune out " such surface noise as it
is not coming from the same direction as the music but rather from the
far left and far right of it.


And is always 'up front and in your face' when the music 'soundstage' goes
*way back over there*!


** This trolling ****head asked folk for information.

But all the ****ing stupid ass REALLY wanted was a fight.

Game on.




...... Phil

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:13:50 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??

Nope, it will just add the two channels together. The crackling will
become a little less evident because it is now coming from the same
spot as the music, and a bit better hidden than when it was separated
spatially.


OK, that's really what I said originally.



I don't know what Sound Forge (is that what you use?) does. It is
there in Audition.


I've not looked at it since I stopped combining Swim's se[parate clart and
piano recordings - I find SoundForge just too handy for chopping up and
trimming recordings and the easy removing of serious pops and farts.



Is this what you are after?

http://81.174.169.10/odds/DBnoclicks.mp3


Yes, that is nice - seems this sort of software has come on a bit since I
first heard it!



I used Izotope RX to do that. If I had some groove noise without music
to sample, I could have got rid of loads more.


OK. I've noted the name (and found the download sites) - thanks for the
tip....

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Keith Git "


??

Uh oh, he's *gone* again....

silly nutter crap snipped - saves wasting time....



** This trolling ****head asked folk for information.


'Trolling' is a bit strong - more of a 'roll call' if anything (it has been
very quiet in here)....



But all the ****ing stupid ass REALLY wanted was a fight.


No, that's you....


Game on.


I think not: a) you're a nutter and I was once advised never to waste time
reasoning with nutters and b) you really aren't that interesting!

(Sorry...)

So - guess again, sunshine!

;-)

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

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, but if you really want to hear what happens
when you let a demented sound mixer loose on a multitrack master, look out
for a track called Mandrill, by Mandrill and beware, do not listen on
headphones.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. ..
Well, I prefer mono after recording so at least out of phase crackles are
removed, and nasty wear artefacts do not spread over the sound stage.


There are times when 'stereo' helps (large scale, orchestral) but most of
the time it's a gimmick I don't *have* to have, I find!! Done badly (20
foot wide pianos and ping pong solo instruments) it is atrocious and has
me reaching for the 'mono button' I haven't got on any of my amps!!

Said it before - I do a lot (if not most) of my listening 'off axis'
anyway!!

But then, that's just me!! ;-)

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Keith Git "


??

Uh oh, he's *gone* again....


Haven't you noticed, Keith?
There's a full moon.

Iain

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Keith the Trolling Git "

"Phil Allison"


** The interesting thing about surface noise on a vinyl LP is that it is
always in stereo !!


Certainly is when you are playing it, but it gets nicely buried (to a
point) when transcribed to a mono recording!


** Totally false assertion.

Surface noise is independent of the signal level impressed on the disk.

****head.



In the case of a mono LP, the music is gonna appear smack in the centre
of a pair of stereo speaker - if everything is well matched up.


A 'dual mono' waveform is a good visual check for the overall channel
balance of the recording/replay sysytem!

** Meaningless drivel.

Yawwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn......


This makes it possible to mentally " tune out " such surface noise as it
is not coming from the same direction as the music but rather from the
far left and far right of it.


And is always 'up front and in your face' when the music 'soundstage' goes
*way back over there*!


** This trolling ****head asked folk for information.

But all the ****ing stupid ass REALLY wanted was a fight.

Game on.




...... Phil

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

Iain Churches said...

There's a full moon.

Aye, young 'un, we here in UKRA know to fear the full moon, tis said
that at this time of the month a fearful apparition called the
"keithG" comes roaring through the newsgroup on a terrible dark steed
called "Moaty Bike" and as he comes he cries foul blasphemies the likes
of which us goodly Strictly watchers should never have to hear. Tis
said that old Gran-pa LeSurf was out in the fields tending his crop of
speaker cables and hear the KeithG cry "Hell Pees sound alright" and
his beard turned white overnight. Tis also said that Mother Allison was
in her allotment planting seedies one night when the foul thing came
a'roaring past and she heard the awful cry of "Devils Audio
Broadcasting is OK for casual listening purposes" Well, the poor old
things brain was addled and she hasn't spoken a word of sense since.

Some old 'uns tell that the KeithG's head was turned when he bought a
copy of Des O'Connors Greatest Hit with his paper round money and he's
been a'haunting the neighbourhood ever since. Some also say that on
some days he can be seen in underpasses fiddling with his equipment and
flashing.

Mark my words, no good'll come of it. Beware.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Nutter Allison" wrote in message
...

"Keith the Trolling Git "

"Phil Allison"


** The interesting thing about surface noise on a vinyl LP is that it is
always in stereo !!


Certainly is when you are playing it, but it gets nicely buried (to a
point) when transcribed to a mono recording!


** Totally false assertion.


Oh dear, I know he's a nutter but wot a **** also....



Surface noise is independent of the signal level impressed on the disk.


So what? When recording to mono *everything* the pickup gathers is centred,
be it surface noise, groove damage or the music groove itself and
consequently a lot of the unwanted noise is buried in the music. I posted
two examples of the same clip, one mono and one stereo (dual mono) which
demonstrates this - ****ing play them, nutter...



****head.


This is a newsgroup - there's no need to *sign* your posts, nutter....

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Keith Git "


??

Uh oh, he's *gone* again....


Haven't you noticed, Keith?
There's a full moon.


:-)

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
Iain Churches said...

There's a full moon.

Aye, young 'un, we here in UKRA know to fear the full moon, tis said
that at this time of the month a fearful apparition called the
"keithG" comes roaring through the newsgroup on a terrible dark steed
called "Moaty Bike" and as he comes he cries foul blasphemies the likes
of which us goodly Strictly watchers should never have to hear. Tis
said that old Gran-pa LeSurf was out in the fields tending his crop of
speaker cables and hear the KeithG cry "Hell Pees sound alright" and
his beard turned white overnight. Tis also said that Mother Allison was
in her allotment planting seedies one night when the foul thing came
a'roaring past and she heard the awful cry of "Devils Audio
Broadcasting is OK for casual listening purposes" Well, the poor old
things brain was addled and she hasn't spoken a word of sense since.

Some old 'uns tell that the KeithG's head was turned when he bought a
copy of Des O'Connors Greatest Hit with his paper round money and he's
been a'haunting the neighbourhood ever since. Some also say that on
some days he can be seen in underpasses fiddling with his equipment and
flashing.

Mark my words, no good'll come of it. Beware.


'Strictly' watchers...??

:-)

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!!

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"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.


Hah! I've heard no end of 'Stereo Spectacular' type 'demo records' in the
past and almost certainly have one or two kicking about here somewhere!!
Some of them weren't too bad, as I recall (??) - I'll have to fish them out
and give 'em a spin!


Its not
realism, of course its not, but if you really want to hear what happens
when you let a demented sound mixer loose on a multitrack master, look out
for a track called Mandrill, by Mandrill and beware, do not listen on
headphones.


Gawd - sounds like it's summat 'orrible like a baboon's purple arse...??

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Keith the Moronic Git"
"Keith the Trolling Git "

"Phil Allison"


** The interesting thing about surface noise on a vinyl LP is that it
is always in stereo !!


Certainly is when you are playing it, but it gets nicely buried (to a
point) when transcribed to a mono recording!


** Totally false assertion.

Surface noise is independent of the signal level impressed on the disk.


So what?


** How ****ing stupid is this DUMB POMMY **** !!!

The NOISE is NOT gonna be buried during quiet passages !!!

IMBECILE !!!



.... Phil

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"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 :-((

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"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.

but if you really want to hear what happens when you let a demented sound
mixer loose on a multitrack master, look out for a track called Mandrill,
by Mandrill and beware, do not listen on headphones.

Fun to blame the sound mixer isn't it? One needs to consider
why the particlar project was made, what it is trying to achieve
and for whom it was intended, Brian. Maybe (probably) not
for the likes of you or I. If it is made for "headbangers", then you
should ask those headbangers if they enjoyed it. If they say
"yes" then the project, even with the demented sound mixer has
reached its goal, and pleased the adiencve for which the music
was intended.

It's rather like asking people who enjoy a Peter
Katin rendition of Debussy, to listen to Thelonius
Monk or Charles Bell playing "And Satan Said"

I find the various categtories of music and also the
styles within those categories fascinating. I was at
a lecture recently where we were asked to listen to
some saxophone clips. 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

Iain

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:36:25 -0000, Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:13:50 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??

Nope, it will just add the two channels together. The crackling will
become a little less evident because it is now coming from the same
spot as the music, and a bit better hidden than when it was separated
spatially.

I don't know what Sound Forge (is that what you use?) does. It is
there in Audition.


Don - this is actually something that is unique to Audition as far as I
know. The Centre Channel Extractor is much cleverer than it may first
appear as it actually looks at the correlation between channels and leaves
(or removes) signals with the correlation that you choose.

Cheers

James.


--
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:03:14 -0000, "James Perrett"
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:36:25 -0000, Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:13:50 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??

Nope, it will just add the two channels together. The crackling will
become a little less evident because it is now coming from the same
spot as the music, and a bit better hidden than when it was separated
spatially.

I don't know what Sound Forge (is that what you use?) does. It is
there in Audition.


Don - this is actually something that is unique to Audition as far as I
know. The Centre Channel Extractor is much cleverer than it may first
appear as it actually looks at the correlation between channels and leaves
(or removes) signals with the correlation that you choose.

Cheers

James.

Is that so? I didn't know it was unique. I really only use Audition
because I have sort of grown up with it throughout its CoolEdit
incarnations, and I now use it more or less by instinct.

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:03:14 -0000, "James Perrett"
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:36:25 -0000, Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:13:50 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in
the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??

Nope, it will just add the two channels together. The crackling will
become a little less evident because it is now coming from the same
spot as the music, and a bit better hidden than when it was separated
spatially.

I don't know what Sound Forge (is that what you use?) does. It is
there in Audition.


Don - this is actually something that is unique to Audition as far as I
know. The Centre Channel Extractor is much cleverer than it may first
appear as it actually looks at the correlation between channels and leaves
(or removes) signals with the correlation that you choose.

Cheers

James.

Is that so? I didn't know it was unique. I really only use Audition
because I have sort of grown up with it throughout its CoolEdit
incarnations, and I now use it more or less by instinct.''

But AFAIK this Centre Channel Extractor does not exist in CEP Pro
(or at least in the beta testers version that I am familiar with)

Iain

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:12:14 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Is that so? I didn't know it was unique. I really only use Audition
because I have sort of grown up with it throughout its CoolEdit
incarnations, and I now use it more or less by instinct.''

But AFAIK this Centre Channel Extractor does not exist in CEP Pro
(or at least in the beta testers version that I am familiar with)

Did it only appear once Adobe bought it? I'm glad they did something
more useful than just making the interface "pretty".

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:12:14 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Is that so? I didn't know it was unique. I really only use Audition
because I have sort of grown up with it throughout its CoolEdit
incarnations, and I now use it more or less by instinct.''

But AFAIK this Centre Channel Extractor does not exist in CEP Pro (or
at least in the beta testers version that I am familiar with)

Did it only appear once Adobe bought it? I'm glad they did something
more useful than just making the interface "pretty".

Pardon me for hijacking this thread, but the mentions of CEP prompt me to
ask a question about it.

I don't use CEP or know anything about how it works. However in a thread on
a couple of tv/broadcasting technical groups I've been discussing the
problem of intersample peaks that can produce 'overshoots' that can go
above 0dBFS of someone scales up the samples to be too close to 0dBFS.

I've been told that CEP shows the shape inbetween samples if you 'zoom in'
and that it uses an approx to the formally correct sinc function to do
this. But in the discussion there is also mention of using 'sinusoid
curves' as if the process were a simple one of generating a 'smooth fit'
using a spline fit (or similar) of sinusoidal curves.

Can someone here who uses and understands CEP comment on how it displays
waveforms from LPCM data samples, and - critically - does it do the
formally correct sinc method to show the correctly defined output waveform
between samples?

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, 07 Nov 2009 09:46:40 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:12:14 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Is that so? I didn't know it was unique. I really only use Audition
because I have sort of grown up with it throughout its CoolEdit
incarnations, and I now use it more or less by instinct.''

But AFAIK this Centre Channel Extractor does not exist in CEP Pro (or
at least in the beta testers version that I am familiar with)

Did it only appear once Adobe bought it? I'm glad they did something
more useful than just making the interface "pretty".

Pardon me for hijacking this thread, but the mentions of CEP prompt me to
ask a question about it.

I don't use CEP or know anything about how it works. However in a thread on
a couple of tv/broadcasting technical groups I've been discussing the
problem of intersample peaks that can produce 'overshoots' that can go
above 0dBFS of someone scales up the samples to be too close to 0dBFS.

I've been told that CEP shows the shape inbetween samples if you 'zoom in'
and that it uses an approx to the formally correct sinc function to do
this. But in the discussion there is also mention of using 'sinusoid
curves' as if the process were a simple one of generating a 'smooth fit'
using a spline fit (or similar) of sinusoidal curves.

Can someone here who uses and understands CEP comment on how it displays
waveforms from LPCM data samples, and - critically - does it do the
formally correct sinc method to show the correctly defined output waveform
between samples?

Slainte,

Jim

I think the drawing method is actually pretty crude. You can get all
sorts of artefacts showing up as you zoom in from a simply block of
colour to individual waves.

Here's an example. I have generated a sine sweep from 100Hz to 10kHz.
Checking it, it is a good sweep, with no amplitude variations.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/sweep.gif

Now zooming in a bit, you can see amplitude anomalies.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/sweep2.gif

But zooming in enough to resolve samples and the waveform, it appears
to have sorted itself out enough that the curve doesn't appear to go
above -6dB, which was the chosen value.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/sweep3.gif

Does that answer the question? I can prod a bit deeper if you like.

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:02:21 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:46:40 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:12:14 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Is that so? I didn't know it was unique. I really only use Audition
because I have sort of grown up with it throughout its CoolEdit
incarnations, and I now use it more or less by instinct.''

But AFAIK this Centre Channel Extractor does not exist in CEP Pro (or
at least in the beta testers version that I am familiar with)

Did it only appear once Adobe bought it? I'm glad they did something
more useful than just making the interface "pretty".

Pardon me for hijacking this thread, but the mentions of CEP prompt me to
ask a question about it.

I don't use CEP or know anything about how it works. However in a thread on
a couple of tv/broadcasting technical groups I've been discussing the
problem of intersample peaks that can produce 'overshoots' that can go
above 0dBFS of someone scales up the samples to be too close to 0dBFS.

I've been told that CEP shows the shape inbetween samples if you 'zoom in'
and that it uses an approx to the formally correct sinc function to do
this. But in the discussion there is also mention of using 'sinusoid
curves' as if the process were a simple one of generating a 'smooth fit'
using a spline fit (or similar) of sinusoidal curves.

Can someone here who uses and understands CEP comment on how it displays
waveforms from LPCM data samples, and - critically - does it do the
formally correct sinc method to show the correctly defined output waveform
between samples?

Slainte,

Jim

I think the drawing method is actually pretty crude. You can get all
sorts of artefacts showing up as you zoom in from a simply block of
colour to individual waves.

Here's an example. I have generated a sine sweep from 100Hz to 10kHz.
Checking it, it is a good sweep, with no amplitude variations.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/sweep.gif

Now zooming in a bit, you can see amplitude anomalies.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/sweep2.gif

But zooming in enough to resolve samples and the waveform, it appears
to have sorted itself out enough that the curve doesn't appear to go
above -6dB, which was the chosen value.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/sweep3.gif

Does that answer the question? I can prod a bit deeper if you like.

d

Better still, here's a short flash movie showing a slow zoom from the
complete sweep to a single wave.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/sweep.html

I trust you can play flash?

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:02:21 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:46:40 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf


I've been told that CEP shows the shape inbetween samples if you 'zoom
in' and that it uses an approx to the formally correct sinc function
to do this. But in the discussion there is also mention of using
'sinusoid curves' as if the process were a simple one of generating a
'smooth fit' using a spline fit (or similar) of sinusoidal curves.


I think the drawing method is actually pretty crude. You can get all
sorts of artefacts showing up as you zoom in from a simply block of
colour to individual waves.

Yes. if you don't zoom in to be able to resolve individual samples it looks
like it just skips over samples and then joins the remainder, so giving
artefacts.

[snip]

But zooming in enough to resolve samples and the waveform, it appears
to have sorted itself out enough that the curve doesn't appear to go
above -6dB, which was the chosen value.

Thanks for the above. Alas the snag is that using a sinusoid as the test
waveform may not sort out the question I have in mind!

*If* CEP uses a 'sinusoidal fit' approach then the result could look fine
when the test waveform *is* a simple sinusoid as the waveform is of the
shape the fit presumes. But what if the waveform is nothing like a
sinusoid?

Obvious examples being.

1) An impulse - maybe time-offset as shown on

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/OverTheTop/OTT.html

2) Squarewave with an even integer number of samples per period. (i.e. can
be defined by a regular alternation between two values.)

The formally correct method is to use a process equivalent to filter with a
time symmetric sinc founction. Or some near approx. Other forms of
interpolation or 'smooth fit' will be OK for specific examples of waveform
shape, but be in error for others.

Better still, here's a short flash movie showing a slow zoom from the
complete sweep to a single wave.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/sweep.html

I trust you can play flash?

Yes. ...Or rather FireFox on my new Xubuntu laptop can. :-)

Thanks for the above. The 'movie' is quite useful for me as I hadn't any
idea what kind of presentation CEP would give as you adjusted the 'zoom'.
problem is that with a sinusoid the result doesn't resolve what I was
wondering about!

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?

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, 07 Nov 2009 12:09:41 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:02:21 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:46:40 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf


I've been told that CEP shows the shape inbetween samples if you 'zoom
in' and that it uses an approx to the formally correct sinc function
to do this. But in the discussion there is also mention of using
'sinusoid curves' as if the process were a simple one of generating a
'smooth fit' using a spline fit (or similar) of sinusoidal curves.


I think the drawing method is actually pretty crude. You can get all
sorts of artefacts showing up as you zoom in from a simply block of
colour to individual waves.

Yes. if you don't zoom in to be able to resolve individual samples it looks
like it just skips over samples and then joins the remainder, so giving
artefacts.

[snip]

But zooming in enough to resolve samples and the waveform, it appears
to have sorted itself out enough that the curve doesn't appear to go
above -6dB, which was the chosen value.

Thanks for the above. Alas the snag is that using a sinusoid as the test
waveform may not sort out the question I have in mind!

*If* CEP uses a 'sinusoidal fit' approach then the result could look fine
when the test waveform *is* a simple sinusoid as the waveform is of the
shape the fit presumes. But what if the waveform is nothing like a
sinusoid?

Obvious examples being.

1) An impulse - maybe time-offset as shown on

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/OverTheTop/OTT.html

2) Squarewave with an even integer number of samples per period. (i.e. can
be defined by a regular alternation between two values.)

The formally correct method is to use a process equivalent to filter with a
time symmetric sinc founction. Or some near approx. Other forms of
interpolation or 'smooth fit' will be OK for specific examples of waveform
shape, but be in error for others.

Better still, here's a short flash movie showing a slow zoom from the
complete sweep to a single wave.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/sweep.html

I trust you can play flash?

Yes. ...Or rather FireFox on my new Xubuntu laptop can. :-)

Thanks for the above. The 'movie' is quite useful for me as I hadn't any
idea what kind of presentation CEP would give as you adjusted the 'zoom'.
problem is that with a sinusoid the result doesn't resolve what I was
wondering about!

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?

Slainte,

Jim

Just as a quickie, here is a piece of music normalized to 0dB, just
looking at the one sample that maxed out. There clearly is overshoot
of the waveform above the zero line; it goes up to about + 0.1dB. The
place I can see that being a possible problem is in the oversampler,
which will presumably try to reproduce that curve as a trajectory of
points, all above full scale. So maybe they have a point, although
0.5dB may be a little excessive.

Now of course if the normalizer worked at the oversampled rate, this
would cease to be a problem.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/over.gif

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:09:41 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Just as a quickie, here is a piece of music normalized to 0dB, just
looking at the one sample that maxed out. There clearly is overshoot of
the waveform above the zero line; it goes up to about + 0.1dB.

Alas, that still doesn't necessarily answer my question.

*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.

The gif you reference below does look to me like just one sample point with
a section of a sinusoid drawn though it. But is the waveform shown part of
a sinusoid - or something else? Afraid I can't tell by looking at the gif.


The place
I can see that being a possible problem is in the oversampler, which
will presumably try to reproduce that curve as a trajectory of points,
all above full scale. So maybe they have a point, although 0.5dB may be
a little excessive.

Now of course if the normalizer worked at the oversampled rate, this
would cease to be a problem.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/over.gif

d

--
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, 07 Nov 2009 13:17:46 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Just as a quickie, here is a piece of music normalized to 0dB, just
looking at the one sample that maxed out. There clearly is overshoot of
the waveform above the zero line; it goes up to about + 0.1dB.

Alas, that still doesn't necessarily answer my question.

*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.

The gif you reference below does look to me like just one sample point with
a section of a sinusoid drawn though it. But is the waveform shown part of
a sinusoid - or something else? Afraid I can't tell by looking at the gif.


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

d

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

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.)

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.

Thanks.

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...
 

"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!!

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Phil 'I can't help it, it's the Mixie' Allison" wrote
in message ...

"Keith the Moronic Git"


Maybe...


"Keith the Trolling Git "


No, not unless the word 'troll' is in the subject line....




"Phil Allison"


** The interesting thing about surface noise on a vinyl LP is that it
is always in stereo !!


Certainly is when you are playing it, but it gets nicely buried (to a
point) when transcribed to a mono recording!


** Totally false assertion.

Surface noise is independent of the signal level impressed on the disk.


So what?


** How ****ing stupid is this DUMB POMMY **** !!!

The NOISE is NOT gonna be buried during quiet passages !!!


:-)

Ooh, you *are* a wag.....

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"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..??)