1237cefd3302
tech



Hello Roy - 

--8<--cut 

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... 

CA>> Sort of. 

RJT> I've even run across a reference to scripts that would
RJT> tend to automate even those aspects of it... 

You can't automate 'quality control' and that means a human
(you) must sit and listen for mistakes in the recording or you
get some very mediocre results. 

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
CA>>> you have saved. Another 3:30 minutes (7:00 minutes at
CA>>> this point). 

RJT>> Maybe. 

If you don't do any 'qc' you'll not like what you end up with.
Normalizing the tracks so that one does not blair and another
whisper makes a big difference in your ability to 'jukebox' a
series of tracks and actually enjoy the experience. 

--8<--cut 

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? 

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

RJT> I guess that depends on what parameters you feed it when
RJT> you invoke it. I had a pretty good set of them figured
RJT> out, and wrote them down. Someplace in this mess I call a
RJT> desk.  

Also depends what files sizes you are anticipating. The higher
the bps the less the compression. One track in the WAV format
can be from 40-70 meg in size which most people want to reduce
by at least a factor of 10x. 

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

RJT> I haven't really run into too much of a problem in this
RJT> regard. 

Possibly _all_ of your music is very similar? 

--8<--cut 

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). 

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

RJT> Maybe I'll find out when I get to some of those
RJT> categories. I do have all sorts of music on hand here. 

I think you will notice differences and some that are
unpleasant if they are just ignored. 

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

RJT> I'll have to get to the music stuff on your page, too. 

At it's peak there were 40 streaming music files. I think it's
less than half of that now and might get even smaller. "Tico
Tico" isn't there anymore. There is a duette between a Tuba and
the Cor Anglais of "All by Myself" that I think is exceptional
though (took alot of work here). 

RJT> Oh, and while we're on this subject, I hit some page the
RJT> other day that decided to dump a .mid file on me while I
RJT> was waiting for the page to load. It didn't do anything
RJT> when it got here, and eventually I got a notification box
RJT> popping up that said that the software couldn't open
RJT> /dev/sequencer, maybe somebody else was using it? 

RJT> Later on, I checked to see if that device existed (which
RJT> doesn't mean that much in and of itself) and when I tried
RJT> to do anything with it, got a (command-line) message
RJT> saying "no such device". I guess that SB16PCI I have in
RJT> the box doesn't support midi files or something? Or maybe
RJT> I didn't go quite far enough to configure it when I
RJT> installed it... 

Just the terminology 'MIDI' has many meanings. MIDI-music files
are one thing but MIDI can even control other external devices
(light-n-magic shows etc.). MIDI-music requires software to
play the MIDI file and soundfonts or GUS patch files for the
player to use for the instruments. TIMIDITY is exceptionally
good and was written for Linux originally then updated/improved
etc. There are sets of GUS patch files from 5 meg up to 30 meg
depending what you want from it. I think there is a Linux
player called CubicPlayer or something like that that many use.
I use the Windows and DOS versions of TIMIDITY here myself. :-) 

Windows machines typically use Roland Soundfonts of about 3 meg
in size. 

--8<--cut 

RJT> What I'd use to record the stuff in the first place is
RJT> gramofile, which has all sorts of filtering built into it
RJT> that you can try. Once I stop messing around with tapes
RJT> and start with vinyl, I'll have to see how well those
RJT> work. (Perhaps Russell will jump in here, as I think he
RJT> uses that program as well...) 

I use Windows apps myself. 

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
CA>>> something else in the meantime. :-) 

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

With cueing the track, starting/stopping the recording etc.
taking just 2-3 minutes each there isn't much opportunity to do
much of anything else but drink coffee. :-) 

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

RJT> This is true, and is also one of the reasons I'm looking
RJT> at backup software along with everything else... 

Well if you just _must_ have music on your computer you can use
some of my music files until you get yours transferred. ;-) 

--8<--cut 

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
RJT>> of the sort, probably. 

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

RJT> Got a bunch of cdr discs here to cover that possibility... 

Use them, really, it's disappointing to have to do this twice
(or more). 

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
CA>>> sound 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. 

CA>> The microphones used for old Benny Goodman (for instance)
CA>> weren't too good and audio technicians are not all created
CA>> equal either. 

RJT> I know *that* from my own observations, also having been
RJT> one. 

RJT> :-) 

I have a recording of a MIDI that _exactly_ matches the Benny
Goodman recording of Gene Krupa's drum solo in "Swing Swing"
(first drum solo ever recorded and sold commercially).
Difference is the original sounds scratchy and muffled and my
MP3 can rattle the windows in your house without distortion. ;-) 

CA>> I've read it requires a minimum of three microphones just
CA>> for the drummer and I've not seen three mikes in
CA>> documentaries where bands were being recorded in an audio
CA>> studio. :-) 

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

RJT> It's an art, and one that takes time to master. 

I've come to realize that from reading usenet. 

RJT> What bugs me, though, is buying a tape, or a cd, and
RJT> finding out that the sound on (perhaps only some of) the
RJT> tracks is scratchy, like they couldn't find a record that
RJT> was in decent condition to make the recording from... 

RJT> Maybe with stuff like I'm thinking of (dating back to the
RJT> 1940s) that's the case. 

Either that or they retained the scratches to make the
recording sound closer to the original. If you've always heard
the scratches and were a 'purist' you might want them there?
Woody Allen did a documentary of 'Jazz Greats' for NPR and
every piece of music was scratchy and tinny from the original
records with no 'enhancement' at all. I think he just preferred
it that way? 

--8<--cut 

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

RJT> Where??? 

I wasn't paying attention but I would guess either New York or
California? 

RJT> It's never paid all that well for me! :-) 

Well I've done the exact same work for 1x and at other times
for 2.5x wages. I kept trying to get to 3x but never quite
managed that. ;-) 

CA>> --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
RJT>> kind of thing is a priority with me, too. I "test" such
RJT>> stuff by having a non-technical person try it out. :-) 

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

RJT> Best way to do it... 

Any other way of claiming to have a 'user friendly' interface
is just fantasy and folklore. You have to see them use it or
you never know. 

--8<--cut 

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

RJT> That's an interesting way to look at it. 

I didn't always see it that way, only recently. 

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

RJT> I have *no* idea as to what was going on in the heads of
RJT> some of those people, and am not sure that I even want to
RJT> speculate on it. 

No one who does know is talking. Another factor is what
happened to Wozniak and later to Jobs happens often. The
'creators' get kicked out and replaced by others. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      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