1237ceed3de4
tech



Hello Roy - 

CA>>> When you realize how time consuming this is to do a
CA>>> decent job of it you will not want to lose it all and
CA>>> start over again. 

RJT>> I know how time-consuming it can be, we've been through
RJT>> all of that, in here, a while back. But if I'm going to
RJT>> bother with it at all, then I'm going to want to play it
RJT>> at least once, right? The rest of the steps are not the
RJT>> time-consuming part... 

CA>> Not sure what you refer to as "the rest of the steps"? 

RJT> If I'm going to be bothered playing it, that time is
RJT> already used up, right? It doesn't take much other time
RJT> besides that for me to fire up whatever I'm going to use
RJT> to record the tune,  or to process the results into .mp3
RJT> or .ogg files, and put 'em where I want... 

Sort of. 

CA>> Take one 3:30 minute track as an example. You have to cue
CA>> that track then wait 3:30 minutes while it plays/records
CA>> into software that can create the WAV file. Then you have
CA>> to listen to the WAV file to be certain there are no
CA>> dropouts, clip the 'silence' off the ends of the WAV file
CA>> and normalize the volume to match all the other tracks you
CA>> have saved. Another 3:30 minutes (7:00 minutes at this
CA>> point). 

RJT> Maybe. 

If you don't listen to the WAV file you don't know if there are
dropouts or other problems (clicks etc.). 

CA>> If you need to improve the recording using the equalizer
CA>> or reverb or any other WAV editor function you wait for
CA>> that and listen once more which adds time for the
CA>> equalization and listening (7+2+3:30 = 12:30 minutes). 

RJT> EQ and reverb are also applicable during the playback
RJT> process. 

It's best to record the music 'flat' with no enhancements from
the amplifier then add them later if need be. If you save the
'vanilla' version you can make adjustments later to suit the
size speakers and a change in your preferences. 

RJT> Much of what's out there dommercially recorded has way too
RJT> much of that sort of thing in it in the first place. 

True. 

CA>> Then you try to make an MP3. This is usually trial and
CA>> error since some music has more drums and other music has
CA>> more high pitched instruments. 

RJT> I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Recording
RJT> rate? Something else? 

MP3 has various ways of compressing the audio which will, at
times, turn high pitched cymbals into 'crystal tinkles' or the
MP3 will decide that the bass drum is not important and muffle
it somewhat. It's not a one-size-fits-all proposition. 

It helps if you can sort the music according to how much is
'high' and how much is 'low' and do them in groups. That way
one setting might be 'good' for an entire grouping. 

CA>> Making the MP3 can take as long as playing the music so we
CA>> have 3:30 x 2 here (19:30 minutes). If your first guess
CA>> setting up the MP3 conversion sounds wrong you do this
CA>> again and again until you get what you consider a
CA>> reasonable facsimile of the original and keep that one. 

RJT> I've never had that much trouble doing all of this. Maybe
RJT> you're fussier than I am, and maybe I have more hearing
RJT> damage than you do (I have _some_, for sure). 

Could be the type of music involved. Symphony, big-band, and
others have a wider frequency range of instruments. Some who
prefer only vocals don't care if the instruments are heard or
not and the human voice is at the low end of midrange
frequencies. 

Very soft hollow body guitar music has to be heard or it's of
no value, etc. I substituted a hollow body guitar as the lead
instrument in a big-band tune of "Tico Tico". It's not
something you would normally find in a commercial recording. ;-) 

CA>> It's not unusual to spend from 20-45 minutes to get one
CA>> good MP3 of one track of music assuming nothing goes wrong
CA>> in the process. For vinyl with maybe a dozen tracks it
CA>> could take from 4 hours to as much as 9 hours for just one
CA>> record. 

CA>> Even if you're not fussy and skip listening to the
CA>> recordings I would guess an hour or more per record would
CA>> be 'normal'. 

RJT> Not much more time than it takes to listen to one... 

About double but that's if you're doing no 'quality control'
and have no clicks, scratches, etc. to remove. 

CA>> That's why kids want to 'rip' from CDs. It can be done on
CA>> automatic somewhat. Still is slow but you can do something
CA>> else in the meantime. :-) 

RJT> As I can when some of this other stuff is going on, too. 

Yes you can, but the days come and the days go and when you are
finished you don't want to lose what you've accomplished. 

RJT>>> Just the convenience of being able to play it without
RJT>>> having to deal with the hassle of *finding* it, and the
RJT>>> sequential-access hassles of tape, is probably a lot of
RJT>>> why I'd consider this worth my time. 

CA>>> They have this new technology called CDs that can hold
CA>>> 100s of MP3 files now. You should give them a try. :-) 

RJT>> Yeah? I have some of those here. Also have a *lot* of
RJT>> stuff on tape and on vinyl that I'd just as soon not pay
RJT>> the CD prices for replacing, just to get them in a new
RJT>> format. 

CA>> That was a joke, sort of. What I meant was you can burn
CA>> your MP3s to CDs once you have created them. You don't
CA>> need all of them on the hard drive and once on CDs there
CA>> is less chance you would have to redo them anytime soon. 

RJT> Yeah, I was aware of that, and planning to do something of
RJT> the sort, probably. 

You might want to make the probably a definitely. ;-) 

CA>> fwiw: Buying commercial CDs has the advantage of saving
CA>> you the 4-9 hours of time converting vinyl plus the pros
CA>> have better turntables, better software, and more
CA>> experience at removing imperfections from the originals.
CA>> Usually the 'remastered' CDs are very very clean and sound
CA>> quite good (to me). 

RJT> I've encountered some where I wasn't that thrilled with
RJT> the results, but then maybe the condition of the source
RJT> material had something to do with that, it was pretty old
RJT> stuff. 

The microphones used for old Benny Goodman (for instance)
weren't too good and audio technicians are not all created
equal either. I've read it requires a minimum of three
microphones just for the drummer and I've not seen three mikes
in documentaries where bands were being recorded in an audio
studio. :-)

Apparently they only recently discovered that a steel drum
requires a mike _below_ the surface of the drum and at least
one foot away from the drum. Things like that. 

RJT> I'm familiar with pro audio gear, a company selling and
RJT> otherwise dealing with that stuff is what got me away from
RJT> NYC and into PA in the first place. There is some
RJT> advantage to a better turntable, but a lot of it is the
RJT> longevity of the medium, I don't think I'm fussy enough to
RJT> be _that_ picky about the quality of the audio. 

Each person would have their own preferences. 

RJT> Better software? I'm not so sure about that. 

Yes, they do have better software. 

RJT> More experience?  No doubt, but that'll change as I get
RJT> further into doing this... 

From usenet messages and websites I've read audio is a career
more than a hobby. A good audio tech can earn $100K per year. 

--8<--cut 

CA>> I put a great deal of effort into the 'useability' and
CA>> user interface to make the software as easy to use as
CA>> possible. 

RJT> Sometimes I think that's a lost art, these days. That kind
RJT> of thing is a priority with me, too. I "test" such stuff
RJT> by having a non-technical person try it out. :-) 

I would stand behind a person who had never seen the program
before but was aware of it's purposes and watch. I would then
make changes and get another person. Eventually I would show
the results to all of them and ask for suggestions. Seemed to
be easy enough to do and it made everyone feel they were a part
of the solution. 

CA>> I did, it was fun, but I don't really want to do that
CA>> again if I  can avoid it. :-) 

CA>> Consumed 8 years of my life. 

RJT> Yeah, sometimes I think of programming but don't
RJT> particularly want to do it for a living -- that'd surely
RJT> take all the fun out of it. :-) 

There is a downside to programming that may only be a problem
for me or others may just not want to talk about it. You put
your knowledge and talents into the computer using software to
replace you at the keyboard. It's interesting to try and can
often be done rather well but then YOU aren't needed anymore
and that software can be YOU for the company long after you've
drawn your last paycheck. It feels like leaving children behind
to take your place and work for strangers you may have never
even met. 

You sell a 'piece' of yourself at a time until you are all sold
out.  I suspect this was a factor in the death of Phil Katz and
others who began as talented programmers then took their own
lives at a young age.

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

___ * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/

--- Maximus/2 3.01