cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

On 13/03/2010 15:24, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article6dCdnTyMYPMkOAbWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@giganews. com, Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim wrote in message


One consequence of which has become the use of PPT files on the web.
(Sometimes converted crudely into PDF.) Generally meaning an
excessively large file with very little info as content presented as a
series of bloated bitmaps. Alas you often can't tell what the
contents/bloat ratio will be until after you have fetched the file and
looked at it!

That's one reason why we have high speed internet these days.

It may well be one of the reasons *you* have it. But it certainly isn't one
of mine! I have no wish to waste my time or HD space on such daft and lazy
behaviours propagated by ignorant MicroSoftHeaded users. :-)

However I'd expect it to be trivial with a Linux machine to write a
simple app (program) that plays files in a user-controlled way on
cue. I'd hope the same was true with a Windows box but can't say.
I'd also assume someone has already done this. Have they not?

Why would I care?

Go to the trouble of writing a program just to run a presentation?

???????????????

Your confusion may be because you assumed I meant writing a simple app
for a *presentation*. But my point was an app just to do what the OP
was interested in. To be able to play SFXs from a set of audio files
in a simple and convenient manner.

From a user standpoint, PPT does that job, and well.

Yes, you can indeed use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, as we already
agreed.

You also may assume the OP will choose Windows.

Or Mac. There is PPT on the Mac, ya know.

Yes. But does it also run "well" on small mp3 players that might
cost rather less than the "399 USD" you mention below?... If so,
that is news to me.


However for a box to use just for playing/arranging/editing sfx files
it might make more sense for him to use something cheaper/older and
run a lighter OS that will work with lower resources, etc.

Yeah sure. We're supposed to take our $399 PCs with 100's of MIPs of
processing power, gigabytes of RAM and Terabytes of disk and worry
ourselves to death about "lower resources"?

You can of course spend your own money as you choose and do things as suit
you. I'm just pointing out that others may choose other ways which they
find more convenient, cheaper, etc, even if daring to be different to
yourself. The point being that they can choose to follow you or do
otherwise as suits them *once* they know alternatives exist. I have no
idea what would suit the OP best. But simply saying "use PPT" doesn't
strike me as what I'd call an extensive menu of options. Although I
guess it would suit MicroSoft nicely if people believed there were
no alternatives. :-)


Your notion of choice could be a little tedious.

Microsoft has been dragged through the courts precisely because of its
restrictive behaviour, which has in turn influenced what a lot of people
learn and see. It's not right, but choice is fettered and it takes a
little bit more than you seem to suggest to pick an option.

Wake up man, lightweight OSs are even being expunged from cellphones.

What a superbly chosen technical argument. :-) Particularly when
a "lightweight OS" might have left them more memory space and CPU
power for the actual applications they wanted to run. Isn't modern
technology wonderful! :-)


Intuitively, I agree, although I think the 'fat' shows in battery life.
Memory and CPU aren't issues.

Rob

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Well, the discs themselves are still around at about a quid apiece.
I'm guessing that from here on that will be going up rather than down.
I wonder how many recorders are still functional though - no idea how
robust the mechanisms are.

I've got six of them - all still working. Think they're a bit more robust
than a CD writer.

--
*Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:22:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Well, the discs themselves are still around at about a quid apiece.
I'm guessing that from here on that will be going up rather than down.
I wonder how many recorders are still functional though - no idea how
robust the mechanisms are.

I've got six of them - all still working. Think they're a bit more robust
than a CD writer.

Are they all shelf units, or do you have the walkman ones as well?

d

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:22:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Well, the discs themselves are still around at about a quid apiece.
I'm guessing that from here on that will be going up rather than down.
I wonder how many recorders are still functional though - no idea how
robust the mechanisms are.

I've got six of them - all still working. Think they're a bit more
robust than a CD writer.

Are they all shelf units, or do you have the walkman ones as well?

All Sony domestic mains units - two models. Used for studio stuff so
didn't need a portable. All modified to balanced in/out. One has also has
a pair of mic amps with phantom power.

--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses.

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:31:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I've got six of them - all still working. Think they're a bit more
robust than a CD writer.

Are they all shelf units, or do you have the walkman ones as well?

All Sony domestic mains units - two models. Used for studio stuff so
didn't need a portable. All modified to balanced in/out. One has also has
a pair of mic amps with phantom power.

Ah. You've invested heavily in equipment (with moving parts) which is
no longer supported. Maybe an underground support culture will
develop, as for some analogue tape gear. Though I rather doubt as
many people have fallen in love with minidisk as did with their Ampex
or Otari :-)

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:22:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman
(News)" wrote:

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Bottom line, though, is that there are a variety of
ways to do this, so the 'best' will be whatever suits
the OPs taste, requirements, and experience.

Absolutely.

The last thing you want when playing in SFX etc to a
'live' event is overcomplicated hardware or software. A
MiniDisc which plays the cue then re-cues waiting for
the next - so all you have to do is hit the play button
at the right time - is fine. One with a play button four
times the size of any other even better...;-)

But it must have a decent display to tell you exactly
what is cued up - nothing worse than the clips getting
out of sync and no way to recover bar playing them out
until you find the right one.

Many modern digital players provide exactly that kind of display.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article ,
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:31:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I've got six of them - all still working. Think they're a bit more
robust than a CD writer.

Are they all shelf units, or do you have the walkman ones as well?

All Sony domestic mains units - two models. Used for studio stuff so
didn't need a portable. All modified to balanced in/out. One has also
has a pair of mic amps with phantom power.

Ah. You've invested heavily in equipment (with moving parts) which is
no longer supported. Maybe an underground support culture will
develop, as for some analogue tape gear. Though I rather doubt as many
people have fallen in love with minidisk as did with their Ampex or
Otari :-)

Not 'invested heavily' - and they've all long since paid for their keep.
As has the 360.

--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
But it must have a decent display to tell you exactly
what is cued up - nothing worse than the clips getting
out of sync and no way to recover bar playing them out
until you find the right one.

Many modern digital players provide exactly that kind of display.

As does MiniDisc - one of the things which attracted me to it as a
replacement for 1/4" tape and NAB cart machines etc for SFX use.
Of course things have moved on - but if it was fine then it will still be
fine now.

Does anyone do software designed for this sort of use? Cool Edit etc are
just too complicated, IMHO, for someone who just wants something basic.

--
*The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese *

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

Does anyone do software designed for this sort of use? Cool Edit etc are
just too complicated, IMHO, for someone who just wants something basic.

Not sure what you mean by "this sort of use". Do you preparing SFXs, or
playing them out?

If the former I'd say that Cool Edit is exactly the sort of thing you need,
but it's not appropriate for play out. I've found WMP to be fine for that.

David.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article , Rob
wrote:
On 13/03/2010 15:24, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article6dCdnTyMYPMkOAbWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@giganews. com, Arny
Krueger wrote:


You can of course spend your own money as you choose and do things as
suit you. I'm just pointing out that others may choose other ways
which they find more convenient, cheaper, etc, even if daring to be
different to yourself. The point being that they can choose to follow
you or do otherwise as suits them *once* they know alternatives exist.
I have no idea what would suit the OP best. But simply saying "use
PPT" doesn't strike me as what I'd call an extensive menu of options.
Although I guess it would suit MicroSoft nicely if people believed
there were no alternatives. :-)


Your notion of choice could be a little tedious.

Only as "tedious" the individual chooses - and as the default view allows
(cf below). But yes, reality does mean that at times we have to put in some
effort if we want to do anything other that "follow sheep".

Microsoft has been dragged through the courts precisely because of its
restrictive behaviour, which has in turn influenced what a lot of people
learn and see. It's not right, but choice is fettered and it takes a
little bit more than you seem to suggest to pick an option.

I'd agree with the bulk of the above. But that is, I am afraid, the
reality. If people cannae be bothered then they will simply pick the
'popular' option. Again that is their choice. The question is regarding if
it is an *informed* choice, of course.

I used 'popular' above deliberately as I've noted MicroSoft use that term
on more than one occasion. e.g. in this week's "Click" TV prog on BBC News
24 where the M$ browser was said to be "popular" by their droid. Yes it is,
of course, in the same sense that "death" and "taxes" are 'popular'... 8-]

In the end, education and understanding do take some effort, time, etc. And
we do find at times that big companies, etc, get into dominating positions
where they end up fogging the view people have of alternatives. But as the
maxim says, "If you think Education is expensive - try ignorance!"

As I think I've said more than once, of people cannae be bothered and just
take a default that is their choice, and the outcomes then follow. Either
they are happy with that or not. Their choice. All I and others can do is
point out that alternatives do exist. Up to people to investigate or not as
they choose.

Wake up man, lightweight OSs are even being expunged from cellphones.

What a superbly chosen technical argument. :-) Particularly when a
"lightweight OS" might have left them more memory space and CPU power
for the actual applications they wanted to run. Isn't modern
technology wonderful! :-)


Intuitively, I agree, although I think the 'fat' shows in battery life.
Memory and CPU aren't issues.

That depends on the application and circumstances. e.g. I don't want a CPU
that essentially demands a noisy fan if the box is to be for playing music.
The higher the power demand of the CPU, the more likely you will end up
needing a fan or extra hardware of some other kind. And memory is like
money. It doesn't matter *once* you have 'enough'. :-)

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:
But it must have a decent display to tell you exactly what is cued
up - nothing worse than the clips getting out of sync and no way to
recover bar playing them out until you find the right one.

Many modern digital players provide exactly that kind of display.

As does MiniDisc - one of the things which attracted me to it as a
replacement for 1/4" tape and NAB cart machines etc for SFX use. Of
course things have moved on - but if it was fine then it will still be
fine now.

Does anyone do software designed for this sort of use? Cool Edit etc are
just too complicated, IMHO, for someone who just wants something basic.

FWIW I'd take it for granted that someone *had* already produced (more than
one!) app/prog that did this and allowed the user to play sound files in an
orderly way on cue. if not, maybe I can use it as an example for 'Archive'
magazine at some point and do both RO and ROX versions. Should be trivial
on ROX I suspect, but more limited in filetypes, etc, with RO.

I was assuming something like:

Have your sfx files in a directory (folder) as the 'project'. Drag that to
the 'sfx player' and it will list them in a user-defined order. Then either
play each in turn at a given click or keypress, showing which was playing
and which was 'next' on the list. But also let you step up or down to cue a
different sfx. Using something like gstreamer I assume the files could be
an arbitrary mix of LPCM, MP3, AAC, various bitrates, etc, however the user
liked.

Surely someone has already done this with a few added bells and
whistles?... Dunno, though as I've never done anything to do with playing
sounds for something like a theater performance!

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
But it must have a decent display to tell you exactly
what is cued up - nothing worse than the clips getting
out of sync and no way to recover bar playing them out
until you find the right one.

Many modern digital players provide exactly that kind of
display.

As does MiniDisc - one of the things which attracted me
to it as a replacement for 1/4" tape and NAB cart
machines etc for SFX use.

The continued discussion of MD mystefies me.

Of course things have moved on - but if it was fine then
it will still be fine now.

By modern standards MD was never fine.

Does anyone do software designed for this sort of use?

If CEP is "too powerful", then Audacity must be about right.

Cool Edit etc are just too complicated, IMHO, for someone
who just wants something basic.

The trouble with "something basic" is that people's applications often grow
with their understanding of the problem at hand.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote

Well David .. Two plays I saw over the lest few months were blighted one
very badly by computer generated noises.

Both had a good dose of 'umm on as well both events used standard in the
PC soundcards.

Well Tony.. That was very unlikely to be caused by using a laptop's on-board
audio.

David..

I'm not bloody stupid thank you they were caused by computer problems as
I was asked to sort them out!.

Thanks also but I'm involved in studio and transmission maintenance on a
daily basis.

I do see quite a few sound cards both good and not so good....


I don't know how you know that these noises were "computer
generated", nor that they would not have been there if an external sound
card had been used. Interference with theatre audio is FAR more likely to be
due to pick-up from the stage lighting or other electrical equipment than
anything to due with using a computer's on-board audio.

It was nothing at -all- to do with lighting thanks..

I've dealt with a lot of RFI and EMC problems over time thanks..

An external preferably with balanced outputs.. a much better bet!...
--
Balanced outputs are better certainly, but how many external soundcards have
balanced outputs?


"'Umm" is now't to do with "computer noises" and needs to
be cured by good old-fashioned analogue audio engineering.


With respect David .. Cobblers...
David.




--
Tony Sayer

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"tony sayer" wrote

I'm not bloody stupid thank you they were caused by computer problems as
I was asked to sort them out!.

Oh my! you really are losing your rag aren't you!

So, if you sorted these problems out, what were they?

Thanks also but I'm involved in studio and transmission maintenance on a
daily basis.

I do see quite a few sound cards both good and not so good....

Even the not so good sound cards are quite good enough for this purpose.

snip

"'Umm" is now't to do with "computer noises" and needs to
be cured by good old-fashioned analogue audio engineering.


With respect David .. Cobblers...

So are you denying that hum is an analogue domain problem?

David.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote


I do see quite a few sound cards both good and not so good....

Even the not so good sound cards are quite good enough for this purpose.

However the distinction between yourself and Tony in this specific case is
that he worked on the systems he is talking about whereas you are
theorising as a generalisation about "not so good sound cards".

snip

"'Umm" is now't to do with "computer noises" and needs to be cured by
good old-fashioned analogue audio engineering.


With respect David .. Cobblers...

So are you denying that hum is an analogue domain problem?

Unfortunately Tony's orginal wording has been snipped. That said


On 13 Mar in uk.rec.audio, tony sayer wrote:

Well David .. Two plays I saw over the lest few months were blighted one
very badly by computer generated noises.


Note the phrase "computer generated". I take that to mean the hum was
sourced from or caused by the computer system. Not a "denial" that "hum is
an analogue domain problem". Distinction between symptom and causal
mechanism.

No idea about the specific systems Tony actually worked with. However I've
certainly encountered a situation where the analogue output of a computer
generated unwanted noises on its analogue output that were due to its
internal psu or wiring - even when just listened to via headphones. So I
can't at present see any reason to doubt his practical experience simply on
the basis of a general theory.

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

Does anyone do software designed for this sort of use? Cool Edit etc
are just too complicated, IMHO, for someone who just wants something
basic.

Not sure what you mean by "this sort of use". Do you preparing SFXs, or
playing them out?

Not asking for me. I use Pro Tools.

If the former I'd say that Cool Edit is exactly the sort of thing you
need, but it's not appropriate for play out. I've found WMP to be fine
for that.

I was wondering about a simple play out/editing package for amateur
theatricals, etc.

--
*When cheese gets it's picture taken, what does it say?

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
As does MiniDisc - one of the things which attracted me
to it as a replacement for 1/4" tape and NAB cart
machines etc for SFX use.

The continued discussion of MD mystefies me.

Because it was first mentioned as being ideal for the job?

Of course things have moved on - but if it was fine then
it will still be fine now.

By modern standards MD was never fine.

You're welcome to your opinion - no matter how wrong it is.

Does anyone do software designed for this sort of use?

If CEP is "too powerful", then Audacity must be about right.

Too complicated too for what is needed.

Cool Edit etc are just too complicated, IMHO, for someone
who just wants something basic.

The trouble with "something basic" is that people's applications often
grow with their understanding of the problem at hand.

Programs are usually written to appeal to those who think they need all
the bells and whistles - even although they never use them.

--
*No radio - Already stolen.

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

Does anyone do software designed for this sort of use? Cool Edit etc
are just too complicated, IMHO, for someone who just wants something
basic.

Not sure what you mean by "this sort of use". Do you preparing SFXs, or
playing them out?

Not asking for me. I use Pro Tools.

If the former I'd say that Cool Edit is exactly the sort of thing you
need, but it's not appropriate for play out. I've found WMP to be fine
for that.

I was wondering about a simple play out/editing package for amateur
theatricals, etc.

I think CEP is perfect for the whole application,
recording,editing and play back of SFX. You can
set labelled markers,. and also see the envelope
of the effect that is coming up, to make gain change
if required. The sequencer will skip from marker to
marker instantly as required. You can zoom to
event level or keep the whole sequence in view.

Perfect, and simple too.

Iain

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Programs are usually written to appeal to those who think they need all
the bells and whistles - even although they never use them.


How True.

Even Studer fell into this trap when they lauched their
Dyaxis DAW, which tried to be all things to all people.
They had thought about audio post, music editing, recording,
radio, TV, theatre, everything. The user interface became so
complex that it was incredibly difficult to use, with many
alternative keystrokes suggested by beta testers from different
sectors of the industry, all of whom had a different idea of how
things should be done.

In hind sight, it would have been better to have made
separate, slimmer versions of the software tailored to each
application. But Studer was too late by this time, and
Pro Tools became the standard.

Iain

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"tony sayer" wrote

Well David .. Two plays I saw over the lest few months were blighted one
very badly by computer generated noises.

Both had a good dose of 'umm on as well both events used standard in the
PC soundcards.

Well Tony.. That was very unlikely to be caused by using a laptop's
on-board audio. I don't know how you know that these noises were "computer
generated", nor that they would not have been there if an external sound
card had been used. Interference with theatre audio is FAR more likely to
be due to pick-up from the stage lighting or other electrical equipment
than anything to due with using a computer's on-board audio.

An external preferably with balanced outputs.. a much better bet!...
--
Balanced outputs are better certainly, but how many external soundcards
have balanced outputs?

EM-U 1212M for a start.
http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?product=9872

Iain

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"p.mc" wrote in message

Hi all

I'm new to this group and was hoping to get some sound
advice from here.
I've been with an amatuer theatre for the last few years
providing bespoke sfx for their productions. I've been
using minidisc format for most of the time untill
recentley I invested in a dual cd player
http://www.numark.com/cdn35

What you really should have done is moved into the 21st century, and
started using a computer as your delivery platform for SFX.

But, the CD format is not all that bad.

The most annoying thing I found was;

1...How to remove the silence bit and still have the unit
autopause. (it's annoying when you have some cues
pretty close together, but it adds 2 to 5 secs before next track can
play)

+1 to all the other people who pointed out that you need to learn how to
do digital audio editing.

It doesn't take a degree in rocket science or all of the hardware at Cape
Canaveral. In fact all you need is:

(1) Just about any modern PC, even a laptop.

(2) Hardware and software that will allow you to load audio from the
various delivery sources that you use.
(a) The internet
(b) CDs
(i) EAC freeware for pulling digital audio files off of audio CDs
(ii) Audacity freeware is a good servicable audio editor for your
purposes

(c) DVDs
(i) FFMPEG and other freeware video editing software
(ii) Adobe Premiere Elements

(3) Hardware and software for re-encoding your finished work into a
delivery format.
(i) Nero

2...How to stop some tracks playing a millisecond of the
neaxt track just before autopausing.

Track marks and burning software that honors them.

I use mixcraft to edit and produce my sfx, which adds
approx 3 sec silence to the end of the saved file, and CD
burning software adds approx 2 sec silence to the
beggining of a track.

It doesn't have to be that way. Nero CD burning software for example has
an option for not inserting the 2 second silence.

Is there a workaround, or can these points be resolved
with CD media?

I know dual mp3 players and HDD tech would do the job,
but I need to get the most using CD media with this unit.

I did that for a number of years before I moved on.

The superset of what you are doing is basically the same thing but also
with video. I've been doing that for the past 3 years at church. But, I
still remember the audio-only days.

Professional SFX libraries, Hollywood Edge, Sound Ideas,
De Wolfe etc etc, issue material on CD, so professional
installations still use accurately cueable CD players to spin
these effects in on the fly.

So much for Arny "moving on" :-)

But for the OP's use, SFX from something like CEP (Audition)
would be ideal. You can place visible markers accurately in the
sequencer, and then cue to them with pinpoint accuracy.
Burning to CD would seem unneccessary in this instance.
If you work from a CD library, the required tracks could be
extracted straight into the CEP.

Iain

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"p.mc" wrote in message
...

A lot of actors use there ipods for sfx lately and you can get a unit
that docks two ipods and has play,pause and autopause functions, anyway
ignore that, thats for another day.


I used to do what you are doing now 30 years ago, using reel-to-reel tape,
with each effect cut out and assembled in order, linked by pieces of
coloured leader tape to mark the cue positions. *Anything* you use these
days has to be an improvement on that!

Yes. I have done that too. Sometimes just with three bits of editing tape
as markers if the tape was too good to be cut:-)

But you could line the marks up woith say the erase head, and get
pretty accurate with the playing in with a little practice.

I can also remember the days in the late 60s early 70s
when library music, used in TV docs was supplied on vinyl
78s course fixed-pitch groove, so that they could be spun
in accurately from a turntable on cue. A pal of mine, a
sound assistant at Levers Rich Studios in Wardour Street,
was a master at this. They had four Garrard 301, he used to
set up and pre cue as the mix progressed.

Iain

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"tony sayer" wrote


An external preferably with balanced outputs.. a much better bet!...
--
Balanced outputs are better certainly, but how many external soundcards
have balanced outputs?

EM-U 1212M for a start.
http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?product=9872


That's not an external card, it's an internal one. You will note that to
Tony it's being an *external* card that is critical, having balanced outputs
is just a "for preference".

In any case you missed the point. I wasn't saying there are NO sound cards
with balanced outputs, I was saying there weren't many. Giving an example of
one means nothing.

David.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"p.mc" wrote in message
...

A lot of actors use there ipods for sfx lately and you can get a unit
that docks two ipods and has play,pause and autopause functions, anyway
ignore that, thats for another day.


I used to do what you are doing now 30 years ago, using reel-to-reel
tape,
with each effect cut out and assembled in order, linked by pieces of
coloured leader tape to mark the cue positions. *Anything* you use these
days has to be an improvement on that!

Yes. I have done that too. Sometimes just with three bits of editing tape
as markers if the tape was too good to be cut:-)

But you could line the marks up woith say the erase head, and get
pretty accurate with the playing in with a little practice.

Great, until in rehearsal the director says, "can we take it again from the
top of page 12" and you suddenly need to cue up 3 cues back. Or worse,
during a performance when an actor jumps ahead and you need to play the next
cue but one with almost no notice.:-(

David.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Iain Churches" wrote

Professional SFX libraries, Hollywood Edge, Sound Ideas,
De Wolfe etc etc, issue material on CD, so professional
installations still use accurately cueable CD players to spin
these effects in on the fly.


In my experience with amateur dramatics SFXs as supplied were rarely
suitable without some sort of editing, to make them longer or shorter,
repeat a certain number of times etc. So whilst CD is a perfectly
satisfactory medium for distribution and storage of effects, I question it's
suitability for playout. What do you mean by "professional installations"?,
which "profession"?

David.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:



I think CEP is perfect for the whole application, recording,editing and
play back of SFX. You can set labelled markers,. and also see the
envelope of the effect that is coming up, to make gain change if
required. The sequencer will skip from marker to marker instantly as
required. You can zoom to event level or keep the whole sequence in
view.

Perfect, and simple too.

Seems neither 'perfect' nor 'simple' to me when the task comes to just
playing the sfx files on cue. Too many options for an 'Oops!' moment at
that point.

Makes sense to use flexible editing software, etc, to prepare the sfx
files. But if it were me waiting anxiously for cues in the dark wings of a
performance I'd prefer a much simpler way to play them on cue.

To me it makes more sense to distinguish between preparing the content and
delivering it. I write all my lecture notes, etc, using a computer and
various items of software. But I don't take any of them into the (lecture)
theatre.

But of course we are all free to make our own mistakes in our own preferred
ways. :-)

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote


I do see quite a few sound cards both good and not so good....

Even the not so good sound cards are quite good enough for this purpose.

However the distinction between yourself and Tony in this specific case is
that he worked on the systems he is talking about whereas you are
theorising as a generalisation about "not so good sound cards".

I take the point, though Tony didn't say when he first mentioned these
systems that he had been asked to sort out the noises, merely that he'd
heard them. Since he has now stated that he was asked to sort them out I'd
be interested to hear whether he succeeded in sorting them out, and, if so,
what steps he took to do so.

If I am not generalising just from theory, but also my own experience. Tony
appears to be generalising from one case so I'm not sure that the
distinction is as clear as you suggest.

"'Umm" is now't to do with "computer noises" and needs to be cured by
good old-fashioned analogue audio engineering.


With respect David .. Cobblers...

So are you denying that hum is an analogue domain problem?

Unfortunately Tony's orginal wording has been snipped. That said


On 13 Mar in uk.rec.audio, tony sayer wrote:

Well David .. Two plays I saw over the lest few months were blighted one
very badly by computer generated noises.


Note the phrase "computer generated". I take that to mean the hum was
sourced from or caused by the computer system. Not a "denial" that "hum is
an analogue domain problem". Distinction between symptom and causal
mechanism.

No idea about the specific systems Tony actually worked with. However I've
certainly encountered a situation where the analogue output of a computer
generated unwanted noises on its analogue output that were due to its
internal psu or wiring - even when just listened to via headphones. So I
can't at present see any reason to doubt his practical experience simply
on
the basis of a general theory.

Would you describe those noises as "hum"? I wouldn't.

As you are no doubt well aware it's possible to detect background noise far
more easily listening on headphones than on speakers. I'm not disputing that
some computer sound cards, particularly integrated audio on laptops, create
noises that can be readily detected on headphones, or even on speakers in a
quiet room. But a theatre is not a quiet room, my point of disagreement is
whether any computer sound card (except possibly a faulty one) creates
unwanted noises so loud as to cause a problem in the context of this thread,
ie. a SFX sound system used with a stage performance.

David.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I can also remember the days in the late 60s early 70s
when library music, used in TV docs was supplied on vinyl
78s course fixed-pitch groove, so that they could be spun
in accurately from a turntable on cue. A pal of mine, a
sound assistant at Levers Rich Studios in Wardour Street,
was a master at this. They had four Garrard 301, he used to
set up and pre cue as the mix progressed.

BBC designed drop start turntables could do this with any record. Not a
difficult skill to master. What was, was playing in an entire program off
discs where you had to do changeovers in the middle of it.

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Programs are usually written to appeal to those who think they need all
the bells and whistles - even although they never use them.


How True.

Even Studer fell into this trap when they lauched their
Dyaxis DAW, which tried to be all things to all people.
They had thought about audio post, music editing, recording,
radio, TV, theatre, everything. The user interface became so
complex that it was incredibly difficult to use, with many
alternative keystrokes suggested by beta testers from different
sectors of the industry, all of whom had a different idea of how
things should be done.

In hind sight, it would have been better to have made
separate, slimmer versions of the software tailored to each
application. But Studer was too late by this time, and
Pro Tools became the standard.

Just the point I was making. If you accept MiniDisc was satisfactory for a
particular use, a prog which offered those facilities and not much more
might be very suitable for amateur theatricals. Without being daunting at
first look.

Other thing often overlooked is something like a MiniDisc or two could
well be left unattended backstage. A nice new laptop maybe not...

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Professional SFX libraries, Hollywood Edge, Sound Ideas,
De Wolfe etc etc, issue material on CD, so professional
installations still use accurately cueable CD players to spin
these effects in on the fly.

These are only building blocks for your own SFX list. You'd hardly ever
use them direct. You'd compile the wanted ones on to your own medium - no
matter what that was. The last thing you need is swapping CDs etc
unnecessarily.

BTW - you missed out the BBC library. Far, far, better than any of the
above for UK use.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
As you are no doubt well aware it's possible to detect background noise
far more easily listening on headphones than on speakers. I'm not
disputing that some computer sound cards, particularly integrated audio
on laptops, create noises that can be readily detected on headphones,
or even on speakers in a quiet room. But a theatre is not a quiet room,
my point of disagreement is whether any computer sound card (except
possibly a faulty one) creates unwanted noises so loud as to cause a
problem in the context of this thread, ie. a SFX sound system used with
a stage performance.

A theatre system may well be unused between cues, and any rubbish on it
could be distracting. I've certainly known computers that put out plenty
rubbish on their audio outputs - enough to annoy in those circumstances.
Varying 'digital buzz' would be worse than plain ol' hum.

--
*Don't squat with your spurs on *

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

Well David .. Two plays I saw over the lest few months were blighted one
very badly by computer generated noises.


Note the phrase "computer generated". I take that to mean the hum was
sourced from or caused by the computer system. Not a "denial" that "hum is
an analogue domain problem". Distinction between symptom and causal
mechanism.

No idea about the specific systems Tony actually worked with. However I've
certainly encountered a situation where the analogue output of a computer
generated unwanted noises on its analogue output that were due to its
internal psu or wiring - even when just listened to via headphones. So I
can't at present see any reason to doubt his practical experience simply on
the basis of a general theory.

Thats good enough Jim. In fact there were Two PC's, one had a lot of
internally generated noise due to limitations of the soundcard and the
PC itself. The other was a laptop in use and an external soundcard is
the only way to go due to space limitations!..

I once had here a Terratec Phase 22 which isn't a bad card expect that
the PC imposed its own noises on the output which was balanced. I now
have in use a Digigram albeit an elderly one which -- IIRC -- generates
its own supply rails with internal onboard DC to DC converters..

That one is quiet, very quiet and has digital AES/EBU and balanced
analogue outputs thereon but these cards aren't that cheap..

There are some good PC cards but -sometimes- the limitation is what's
going on inside the PC, not the best environ for high quality audio
especially when a large PA is hung on the output.

Hence the idea of an external card with balanced outs....



Slainte,

Jim


--
Tony Sayer

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Programs are usually written to appeal to those who think they need
all the bells and whistles - even although they never use them.



In hind sight, it would have been better to have made separate,
slimmer versions of the software tailored to each application. But
Studer was too late by this time, and Pro Tools became the standard.

Just the point I was making. If you accept MiniDisc was satisfactory for
a particular use, a prog which offered those facilities and not much
more might be very suitable for amateur theatricals. Without being
daunting at first look.

Other thing often overlooked is something like a MiniDisc or two could
well be left unattended backstage. A nice new laptop maybe not...

That was one of the reasons why I wondered if a small 'personal' mp3 player
might do for playing the sounds. Could be carried in the pocket of the user
or locked in a drawer. Or be cheap to replace if nicked/broken.

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message

Balanced outputs are better certainly, but how many
external soundcards have balanced outputs?

Dozens if not 100s.

In my case the I personally own the following sound cards with balanced
outputs:

Card Deluxe
Delta 24192
Delta 1010
LynxOne
LynxTwo

But, they are all internal (PCI).

Ironically, all of the external audio interfaces that I own have only
unbalanced outputs.

Doesn't matter because I use them primarily for recording and also with
headphones.

Here are some external interfaces with balanced outputs:

M-Audio Firewire 1814
M-Audio ProFire 610
M-Audio ProFire 2626
EMu 0404
M-Audio Fasttrack Ultra
Roland UA101
Alesis IO2
Motu 828
etc.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


No idea about the specific systems Tony actually worked with. However
I've certainly encountered a situation where the analogue output of a
computer generated unwanted noises on its analogue output that were
due to its internal psu or wiring - even when just listened to via
headphones. So I can't at present see any reason to doubt his
practical experience simply on the basis of a general theory.

Would you describe those noises as "hum"? I wouldn't.

Erm... when did you hear the unwanted noises on the specific machines I was
referring to above? I don't recall you being here at the time. :-)

However, in answer to your question, "No". The most obvious problems were
audible and measurable noises on the analogue outputs whenever an event
like a HD access caused the dc lines inside the laptop to fluctuate. The
hum/buzz level was also high because the psu was working poorly. But what
was most noticable was a sort of 'clicking and rattling' when the heads of
the HD moved. To be clear I *do* mean this could be heard on the analogue
outputs. Not just mechanically. The same effect could be observed on
recordings from the analogue output.

However given how poor I have found a lot of computer psu, etc, electronics
to be, it would not surprise me at all to find some of them generate
audible hum or buzz with no need for an external 'cause' like a ground
loop. I'm sure there are some excellent machines and soundcards out there.
But from my own experience I would not trust any machine/card I did not
already know was one of that subset of all the items on sale!

As you are no doubt well aware it's possible to detect background noise
far more easily listening on headphones than on speakers.

Agreed. However I actually first noticed the effect on speakers. Then
investigated with headphones both to make it more audible and to check it
wasn't something being produced outwith the computer.

I'm not
disputing that some computer sound cards, particularly integrated audio
on laptops, create noises that can be readily detected on headphones,
or even on speakers in a quiet room. But a theatre is not a quiet room,

No. But in my experience the gain and level of the reproduced sounds in
theatres is often very high. Far higher than I would choose at home. The
sound can also be quite coloured and boomy. So what might pass notice in
some circumstances can easily become more obvious.

Our local theatre had a 'rebuild' a few years ago to tart up the place.
They installed a new sound system. Can probably sum up how awful the
results are in two comments.

The use Bose 'plastic shoebox with pipes sticking out' speakers.

The level is routinely high and hum is clearly audible. (Although lacking
other info I assume the hum is due to poor sheilding or loops or one of the
other 'usual suspects'.)

So far as I can tell they are blissfully unware of how really dire the
sound is.

I suspect they assume all patrons are either semi-deaf crumblies or young
people who expect everything to sound LOUD.

my point of disagreement is whether any computer sound card (except
possibly a faulty one) creates unwanted noises so loud as to cause a
problem in the context of this thread, ie. a SFX sound system used with
a stage performance.

Well, given my experience with a local theatre I'd expect the sound level
to easily make any such problems audible. I'm pretty sure I'd have easily
heard the effects I found on my old laptop to be audible in the theater.

I'm quite sure people can make systems that don't have these problems. But
I am also quite sure that some machines and the way they get used in public
venues *will* show audible problems as a result of poor equipment and use.

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
..

That one is quiet, very quiet and has digital AES/EBU and balanced
analogue outputs thereon but these cards aren't that cheap..

There are some good PC cards but -sometimes- the limitation is what's
going on inside the PC, not the best environ for high quality audio
especially when a large PA is hung on the output.

Hence the idea of an external card with balanced outs....

I now have a number of computers in the house with a wide range of
hardware. I would not use any of the analogue outputs from any of them for
serious listening. Yet with an external DAC they can provide excellent
results. The snag is then obviously the cost, etc, of an external DAC.

Afraid my own experience of 'computer audio' makes me rather doubt the
general level of quality from their analogue outputs. I fear the problem
here is an extreme version of the one with hi fi mags. No-one in the
computer mags is actually carefully testing this on a routine basis to a
high standard. So makers cheerfully get away with things.

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

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
As does MiniDisc - one of the things which attracted me
to it as a replacement for 1/4" tape and NAB cart
machines etc for SFX use.

The continued discussion of MD mystefies me.

Because it was first mentioned as being ideal for the job?

Because it is obsolete. Becuase I have a MD recorder that has been sitting
on the shelf for over 5 years. Because I'm on my second generation of
replacements for it.

Of course things have moved on - but if it was fine then
it will still be fine now.

By modern standards MD was never fine.

You're welcome to your opinion - no matter how wrong it
is.

In this case I'm 100% correct. As soon as something better came along, MD
was dropped by the marketplace like a hot potato. If it wasn't dying fast
enough, Sony drove a spike through its heart with an acute attack of DRM.

For example, modern standards for portable digital media include the absence
of moving parts. As much as I think its a useless format for audio
recording, another requirement is 24/96 PCM. To be a professional tool it
needs to handle professional microphones with professional Phantom power.

Does anyone do software designed for this sort of use?

If CEP is "too powerful", then Audacity must be about
right.

Too complicated too for what is needed.

Prove it.

Cool Edit etc are just too complicated, IMHO, for
someone who just wants something basic.

The trouble with "something basic" is that people's
applications often grow with their understanding of the
problem at hand.

Programs are usually written to appeal to those who think
they need all the bells and whistles - even although they
never use them.

I'm trying to remember what feature CEP has that I've never used. I'm
stitting here looking at its command menu. I've used everything on it, and
down several levels.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message

Just the point I was making. If you accept MiniDisc was
satisfactory for a particular use, a prog which offered
those facilities and not much more might be very suitable
for amateur theatricals. Without being daunting at first
look.

The key word is "was". As in the past.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"p.mc" wrote in message

Hi all

I'm new to this group and was hoping to get some sound
advice from here.
I've been with an amatuer theatre for the last few years
providing bespoke sfx for their productions. I've been
using minidisc format for most of the time untill
recentley I invested in a dual cd player
http://www.numark.com/cdn35

What you really should have done is moved into the 21st
century, and started using a computer as your delivery
platform for SFX. But, the CD format is not all that bad.

The most annoying thing I found was;

1...How to remove the silence bit and still have the
unit autopause. (it's annoying when you have some
cues pretty close together, but it adds 2 to 5 secs before
next track can play)

+1 to all the other people who pointed out that you need
to learn how to do digital audio editing.

It doesn't take a degree in rocket science or all of the
hardware at Cape Canaveral. In fact all you need is:

(1) Just about any modern PC, even a laptop.

(2) Hardware and software that will allow you to load
audio from the various delivery sources that you use.
(a) The internet
(b) CDs
(i) EAC freeware for pulling digital audio files
off of audio CDs (ii) Audacity freeware is a
good servicable audio editor for your purposes

(c) DVDs
(i) FFMPEG and other freeware video editing
software (ii) Adobe Premiere Elements

(3) Hardware and software for re-encoding your finished
work into a delivery format.
(i) Nero

2...How to stop some tracks playing a millisecond of the
neaxt track just before autopausing.

Track marks and burning software that honors them.

I use mixcraft to edit and produce my sfx, which adds
approx 3 sec silence to the end of the saved file, and
CD burning software adds approx 2 sec silence to the
beggining of a track.

It doesn't have to be that way. Nero CD burning software
for example has an option for not inserting the 2 second
silence.
Is there a workaround, or can these points be resolved
with CD media?

I know dual mp3 players and HDD tech would do the job,
but I need to get the most using CD media with this
unit.

I did that for a number of years before I moved on.

The superset of what you are doing is basically the same
thing but also with video. I've been doing that for the
past 3 years at church. But, I still remember the
audio-only days.

Professional SFX libraries, Hollywood Edge, Sound Ideas,
De Wolfe etc etc, issue material on CD, so professional
installations still use accurately cueable CD players to
spin these effects in on the fly.

I'm you are doing a theatrical presentation, you're going to need that
collection of SFX to be only the items you need, and readily playable in the
order desired. That precludes playing from commerical library distribution
media. IOW, as the OP has pointed out, re-recording is in order.


So much for Arny "moving on" :-)

So much for Iain having any real-world experience with SFX and drama.

But for the OP's use, SFX from something like CEP
(Audition) would be ideal.

CEP has no SFX library that merits mention for this application.

You can place visible markers
accurately in the sequencer, and then cue to them with
pinpoint accuracy.

Been there, done that, and wouldn't use it as a production tool during an
actual dramatic presenation or rehearsal on a bet.

Burning to CD would seem unneccessary in this instance.

So speaks the voice of ignorance.

If you work from a CD library, the required tracks could
be extracted straight into the CEP.

That is good as far as it goes. Then you use CEP to burn a CD or otherwise
prepare a sequence of files for your actual presentation device.

A custom-burned CD can work well, but there are other modern alternatives
(such as an ordinary Walkman) that can be equally effective.

BTW, the portable digital player word for a script of media to be played is:
"Playlist".

Just drag and drop your SFX from the distribution media onto your portable
digital player and click up a playlist for it.

cd recordings v's minidisc recordings
 

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

Professional SFX libraries, Hollywood Edge, Sound Ideas,
De Wolfe etc etc, issue material on CD, so professional
installations still use accurately cueable CD players to
spin these effects in on the fly.


In my experience with amateur dramatics SFXs as supplied
were rarely suitable without some sort of editing, to
make them longer or shorter, repeat a certain number of
times etc.

Exactly.

So whilst CD is a perfectly satisfactory
medium for distribution and storage of effects, I
question it's suitability for playout.

Well the distribution media has questionable suitability, to say the least.

If you edit up the longer or shorter, repeated, files and burn them to a CD,
then the CD can be played during the actual performance or rehearsal.