[Hank]

About a month ago I posted some questions about setting up a system to
digitize analog audio from several 50-60 year old sources. One of the
suggestions for phonograph records was to use a Burwen TNE 7000 in the
analog line to reduce clicks and noise.

I was able to locate one of these at a place in Mass. that buys and
refurbishes these units. It arrived about a week ago. But I am not
getting results from trying to use---indeed, it only makes things
worse. I'm not sure I've got the drill down on how to use it.

My basic setup uses a Tandberg 3008A preamp. Phono cartridge (Stanton
681 EEE Mk II) to the preamp phono in. Preamp variable out to the
digitizing computer line in, and one tape line out to a monitor amp for
direct monitoring. Computer line out goes to a line level tape input on
the monitor amp, so I can easily monitor either directly or through
the digitizing computer. All of that works well.

I put the TNE in the system by moving the phone cartridge out to the
TNE input, and connected the TNE output to a line-level input on the
preamp. Tape in and out jacks on the TNE are unused.

My understanding of the TNE operation is:
1. Both Sensitivity and Threshold controls counterclockwise, Defeat
and Tape buttons out.

2. With a record playing, advance Sensitivity until the left LED
extinguishes. That part works OK. I don't hear any change in the sound
through the monitors when I do that. Set point is about midpoint in
the knob range.

3. Advance Threshold until the right LED flickers on clicks. That
isn't happening. I can hear the click sound change as I advance the
control, but the LED doesn't light at all. The click sound appears
sonically to change from high-frequency spikes to broadened low
frequency thunks, and if I advance the control a bit more, I now get
definite thunks for clicks that were almost inaudible. In short, it
sounds as thought I'm getting oscillations rather than blanking.

So, what am I doing wrong here. Or did this unit show up here with
problems. It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
just making a bad thing worse.

Hank

[William Sommerwerck]

I put the TNE in the system by moving the phone cartridge
out to the TNE input, and connected the TNE output to a
line-level input on the preamp. Tape in and out jacks on the
TNE are unused.

I don't understand how you can connect the output of the Tandberg's phono
preamp to the TNE 7000's input, then the output of the TNE 7000 to a
high-level input on the preamp -- and expect to hear anything. On most
preamps, you cannot simultaneously select one output and a different input.
If you're not using the tape monitor circuit, from where are you getting the
phono-preamp signal?

Unless you need the tape monitor for something else, you normally connect
signal-processing devices to the tape-monitor circuit. This isn't the only
way to hook up the TNE 7000, but it's simple and IT WORKS.


3. Advance Threshold until the right LED flickers on clicks. That
isn't happening. I can hear the click sound change as I advance the
control, but the LED doesn't light at all. The click sound appears
sonically to change from high-frequency spikes to broadened low
frequency thunks, and if I advance the control a bit more, I now get
definite thunks for clicks that were almost inaudible. In short, it
sounds as thought I'm getting oscillations rather than blanking.

Assuming the LPs have been carefully cleaned, preferably with a vacuum
machine...

The TNE 7000 is not intended to remove big scratches. It removes (or
reduces) medium-to-small pops and ticks.

If pops and clicks are converted to "thumps", either the unit is grossly
defective, or you've got things set up wrong.

I have a TNE 7000, and it works fine. Do this... Set up the TNE 7000
correctly -- that is, put it in the tape-monitor circuit -- and try it
again, and tell us what happens. (You can connect the monitor amp to the
Tape Out jack of the TNE 7000.)

[Frank]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:08:17 +0000 (UTC), in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Burwen TNE 7000A setup,
(Hank) wrote:

About a month ago I posted some questions about setting up a system to
digitize analog audio from several 50-60 year old sources. One of the
suggestions for phonograph records was to use a Burwen TNE 7000 in the
analog line to reduce clicks and noise.

I was able to locate one of these at a place in Mass. that buys and
refurbishes these units. It arrived about a week ago. But I am not
getting results from trying to use---indeed, it only makes things
worse. I'm not sure I've got the drill down on how to use it.

My basic setup uses a Tandberg 3008A preamp. Phono cartridge (Stanton
681 EEE Mk II) to the preamp phono in. Preamp variable out to the
digitizing computer line in, and one tape line out to a monitor amp for
direct monitoring. Computer line out goes to a line level tape input on
the monitor amp, so I can easily monitor either directly or through
the digitizing computer. All of that works well.

I put the TNE in the system by moving the phone cartridge out to the
TNE input, and connected the TNE output to a line-level input on the
preamp. Tape in and out jacks on the TNE are unused.

My understanding of the TNE operation is:
1. Both Sensitivity and Threshold controls counterclockwise, Defeat
and Tape buttons out.

2. With a record playing, advance Sensitivity until the left LED
extinguishes. That part works OK. I don't hear any change in the sound
through the monitors when I do that. Set point is about midpoint in
the knob range.

3. Advance Threshold until the right LED flickers on clicks. That
isn't happening. I can hear the click sound change as I advance the
control, but the LED doesn't light at all. The click sound appears
sonically to change from high-frequency spikes to broadened low
frequency thunks, and if I advance the control a bit more, I now get
definite thunks for clicks that were almost inaudible. In short, it
sounds as thought I'm getting oscillations rather than blanking.

So, what am I doing wrong here. Or did this unit show up here with
problems. It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
just making a bad thing worse.

Hank

Hank, did I misread what you wrote above, or do really have the output
of your phono cartridge connected to the line inputs on the TNE 7000?
If so, that's wrong, as the TNE 7000 does not contain a phono preamp
circuit.

I have a late-model KLH TNE 7000A, along with a KLH DNF 1201A Dynamic
Noise Filter, a dbx SNR-1 Single Ended Source Noise Reduction unit, an
SAE 5000A Impulse Noise Reduction unit, and a Phase Linear Model 1000
Series Two Noise Reduction/Dynamic Expander unit and the way to use
any of these devices is to insert them into your tape monitor or
external processor loop. I happen to be using an old Apt Holman preamp
in my current setup, but almost bought a 3008A back in the day.

All of these devices also have, in addition to their line in and line
out jacks, a pair of tape in and tape out jacks that are intended to
replace the tape monitor circuit that you've used on your preamp to
attach the external device/s. In your case, with just a single device
(your old Burwen TNE 7000), just stick it into a tape monitor loop.
You could, if you really wanted, put it inline with your preamp's main
output, but then every time you changed the preamp's volume control
setting, you would have to readjust the settings on the TNE 7000, so
you're really better off using a tape monitor loop.

I use the above devices, in various combinations, when transferring
old 33-1/3 and 45 rpm vinyl records, and sometimes open reel or analog
cassette tape, to computer. Which device or devices I use is a
decision based upon the particular problem/flaw that I'm trying to
address, usually based upon the condition of the original recording.

My usual workflow is to try to resolve the major problems in the
analog domain, digitize the material into the computer, and then do
any final clean-up in the digital domain using various plug-ins...
Waves (X-Click, X-Crackle, X-Hum, and X-Noise) Virtos Noise Wizard,
and several others including the noise reduction that's built-in to
Adobe Audition as well as the Sony Noise Reduction plug-in.

I also have a BBE 882 Sonic Maximizer and an Aphex 204 Aural Exciter,
both the subject of a recent thread in this newsgroup, that I
sometimes use to add air to recordings. I also have the BBE Sonic
Maximizer in software (plug-in) form, so I have more flexibility with
the BBE than I do with the Aphex which is hardware-only.

Hope this helps.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:08:17 -0700, Hank wrote
(in article ):

About a month ago I posted some questions about setting up a system to
digitize analog audio from several 50-60 year old sources. One of the
suggestions for phonograph records was to use a Burwen TNE 7000 in the
analog line to reduce clicks and noise.

I was able to locate one of these at a place in Mass. that buys and
refurbishes these units. It arrived about a week ago. But I am not
getting results from trying to use---indeed, it only makes things
worse. I'm not sure I've got the drill down on how to use it.

My basic setup uses a Tandberg 3008A preamp. Phono cartridge (Stanton
681 EEE Mk II) to the preamp phono in. Preamp variable out to the
digitizing computer line in, and one tape line out to a monitor amp for
direct monitoring. Computer line out goes to a line level tape input on
the monitor amp, so I can easily monitor either directly or through
the digitizing computer. All of that works well.

I put the TNE in the system by moving the phone cartridge out to the
TNE input, and connected the TNE output to a line-level input on the
preamp. Tape in and out jacks on the TNE are unused.

My understanding of the TNE operation is:
1. Both Sensitivity and Threshold controls counterclockwise, Defeat
and Tape buttons out.

2. With a record playing, advance Sensitivity until the left LED
extinguishes. That part works OK. I don't hear any change in the sound
through the monitors when I do that. Set point is about midpoint in
the knob range.

3. Advance Threshold until the right LED flickers on clicks. That
isn't happening. I can hear the click sound change as I advance the
control, but the LED doesn't light at all. The click sound appears
sonically to change from high-frequency spikes to broadened low
frequency thunks, and if I advance the control a bit more, I now get
definite thunks for clicks that were almost inaudible. In short, it
sounds as thought I'm getting oscillations rather than blanking.

So, what am I doing wrong here. Or did this unit show up here with
problems. It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
just making a bad thing worse.

Hank



If you have a computer, I suggest the following:

Download "Audacity" from the internet for your particular computer platform.
Transfer your records to digital using your usual method and save it as a
"WAV" file. Open the resultant file in Audacity and use that program's
"click filter" and other tools to clean the file up. This takes time, but it
is pretty easy to do and the results are worth it.

[William Sommerwerck]

It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
just making a bad thing worse.

Assuming, for the moment, that it IS hooked up properly,
this one sentence summarizes very well my impression
of this unit from back when they were new.

I think you're confusing the Burwen with the one whose brand name begins
with S. (Can't think of it.)

I've owned one for over 30 years, and normally leave it connected when
playing LPs. The only deleterious effect I've found is that it subtly
darkens the sound, a common problem with devices using op amps.

If it's in proper working order, it will remove almost all the
small-to-medium pops and clicks. It is particularly effective when using a
wideband pickup on a high-quality arm/table that does not "smear"
transients.

[Hank]

In article ,
Frank wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:08:17 +0000 (UTC), in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Burwen TNE 7000A setup,
(Hank) wrote:


Hank, did I misread what you wrote above, or do really have the output
of your phono cartridge connected to the line inputs on the TNE 7000?
If so, that's wrong, as the TNE 7000 does not contain a phono preamp
circuit.

Thanks for the comments. Yes, I had the phono cartridge feeding the
TNE, then in to the preamp.

I have a late-model KLH TNE 7000A, along with a KLH DNF 1201A Dynamic
Noise Filter, a dbx SNR-1 Single Ended Source Noise Reduction unit, an
SAE 5000A Impulse Noise Reduction unit, and a Phase Linear Model 1000
Series Two Noise Reduction/Dynamic Expander unit and the way to use
any of these devices is to insert them into your tape monitor or
external processor loop. I happen to be using an old Apt Holman preamp
in my current setup, but almost bought a 3008A back in the day.

All of these devices also have, in addition to their line in and line
out jacks, a pair of tape in and tape out jacks that are intended to
replace the tape monitor circuit that you've used on your preamp to
attach the external device/s. In your case, with just a single device
(your old Burwen TNE 7000), just stick it into a tape monitor loop.
You could, if you really wanted, put it inline with your preamp's main
output, but then every time you changed the preamp's volume control
setting, you would have to readjust the settings on the TNE 7000, so
you're really better off using a tape monitor loop.

I reconnected it across a tape monitor loop, and am now getting results
more-or-less along the lines of what I had expected.

Quite frankly, I wasn't too sure of the instructions I'd gotten. The
part of the operation manual that I found online only talks about
setting the knobs, not about where to connect the unit.

The 3008A preamp has the advantage of having two tape inputs/outputs
and a cross-dubbing feature. Can't remember for sure where I got it,
but it was maybe fifteen years ago, and may have been a pawn shop
special. It's been in storage for some time, so I had some work to do
with Caig Deoxit and Faderlube to get it up to snuff.

I use the above devices, in various combinations, when transferring
old 33-1/3 and 45 rpm vinyl records, and sometimes open reel or analog
cassette tape, to computer. Which device or devices I use is a
decision based upon the particular problem/flaw that I'm trying to
address, usually based upon the condition of the original recording.

I posted here about a month ago because the family has been asking me
to transcribe a whole bunch of stuff that has been in the family since
the 1950's. Using something like the TNE 7000 in the signal path
before trying to use digital techniques was one of the
recommendations.

And, after due consideration, I went anead and bought a Nitty Gritty
Record Master, so the phono records are being washed and vacuumed.
Can't say I can hear too much difference, but they are visually much
cleaner after a pass or two through the Nitty Gritty. And I also just
received an M-Audio Audiophile 192 card (192 Khz 24-bit), which isn't
installed yet, though I have the proper driver for it (OSS) compiled
and tested on one machine.

Hank

[Hank]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

If you have a computer, I suggest the following:

Download "Audacity" from the internet for your particular computer platform.
Transfer your records to digital using your usual method and save it as a
"WAV" file. Open the resultant file in Audacity and use that program's
"click filter" and other tools to clean the file up. This takes time, but it
is pretty easy to do and the results are worth it.

If life were just that simple.....

I have enough computers around here, running every operating system
EXCEPT Microsoft Windows. I've been posting about aspects of this
project of mine in various newsgroups.

The target computers for doing the work are Sun manufacture. The one
I'm using to get things up is an Ultra 20 M2 running Solaris 10 10/09.
The hardware is just a high-end version of an AMD64 PC with Nvidia
chip set.

I also have several Sun Sparcs (Ultra 1, 2, 10, 60) and there is some
reason to believe the U2 or U60 might be better hardware than a Wintel
PC. I've gone through the exercises needed to get rid of hum and
noise in all of my analog devices, but have been advised that PC power
supplies are too noisy. And, thus far, I'm hearing a high noise floor
in the PC. The Ultra 60's are PCI machines, so I should be able to
use an add-on 24-bit PCI card with the OSS driver. I need to run some
tests to see if a U60 power supply (which is huge, compared to PC
supplies) is quieter.

I've made some attempts to compile and run both Audacity and Gnome
Wave Cleaner (gwc) on Solaris x86. I think I'm close to getting gwc
functional---there is one bug in how it reads .wav files, and I've had
to install Debian 5.0.4 linux ("lenny") on another Sparc box to support
the porting effort. That install did not go at all smoothly. Yet to go
is an install of Debian on PC hardware, which (I'm hoping) will present
less problems than the Sparc install did.

The Audacity build tree is a plumber's nightmare. I've spent some
time with two versions, 1.2.6 and 1.3.11. Someone on another group
supplied me with a 1.2.6 Sparc build, but I'll have to recompile it
to use it on my hardware. Fortunately, most of the support libraries
needed are available pre-built from download sites, although I'm doing
my own compiles as well.

Probably should mention here that I'm a 75-year-old retired
hardware-software engineer who had enough "careers" over 45 years that
I can work hardware and software issues without getting too far off my
turf. I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing software
to be available in the open source world. Certainly somebody who is
trying to earn an income doing pro audio isn't going to be able to
devote the time and effort I can to getting a good stable alternative
to the Windows stuff---which has plenty of problems of its own.

Hank

[Hank]

In article ,
Dick Pierce wrote:
Hank wrote:
It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
just making a bad thing worse.

Assuming, for the moment, that it IS hooked up properly,
this one sentence summarizes very well my impression
of this unit from back when they were new.

I'm not sure I'm going to agree with that. I did not have the unit
hooked up properly. Now that I've reconnected it, it seems to do a
good job of at least reducing the artifacts coming out of the analog
chain for digitization.

Hank

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:28:09 -0700, Hank wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

If you have a computer, I suggest the following:

Download "Audacity" from the internet for your particular computer
platform.
Transfer your records to digital using your usual method and save it as a
"WAV" file. Open the resultant file in Audacity and use that program's
"click filter" and other tools to clean the file up. This takes time, but
it
is pretty easy to do and the results are worth it.

If life were just that simple.....

I have enough computers around here, running every operating system
EXCEPT Microsoft Windows. I've been posting about aspects of this
project of mine in various newsgroups.

The target computers for doing the work are Sun manufacture. The one
I'm using to get things up is an Ultra 20 M2 running Solaris 10 10/09.
The hardware is just a high-end version of an AMD64 PC with Nvidia
chip set.

I also have several Sun Sparcs (Ultra 1, 2, 10, 60) and there is some
reason to believe the U2 or U60 might be better hardware than a Wintel
PC. I've gone through the exercises needed to get rid of hum and
noise in all of my analog devices, but have been advised that PC power
supplies are too noisy. And, thus far, I'm hearing a high noise floor
in the PC. The Ultra 60's are PCI machines, so I should be able to
use an add-on 24-bit PCI card with the OSS driver. I need to run some
tests to see if a U60 power supply (which is huge, compared to PC
supplies) is quieter.

I've made some attempts to compile and run both Audacity and Gnome
Wave Cleaner (gwc) on Solaris x86. I think I'm close to getting gwc
functional---there is one bug in how it reads .wav files, and I've had
to install Debian 5.0.4 linux ("lenny") on another Sparc box to support
the porting effort. That install did not go at all smoothly. Yet to go
is an install of Debian on PC hardware, which (I'm hoping) will present
less problems than the Sparc install did.

The Audacity build tree is a plumber's nightmare. I've spent some
time with two versions, 1.2.6 and 1.3.11. Someone on another group
supplied me with a 1.2.6 Sparc build, but I'll have to recompile it
to use it on my hardware. Fortunately, most of the support libraries
needed are available pre-built from download sites, although I'm doing
my own compiles as well.

Probably should mention here that I'm a 75-year-old retired
hardware-software engineer who had enough "careers" over 45 years that
I can work hardware and software issues without getting too far off my
turf. I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing software
to be available in the open source world. Certainly somebody who is
trying to earn an income doing pro audio isn't going to be able to
devote the time and effort I can to getting a good stable alternative
to the Windows stuff---which has plenty of problems of its own.

Hank



Most people have more mainstream computers, Windows (yecchhh) Mac or Linux.
There is a ready-to-go Audacity version for all three of those. It's still
the cheapest and easiest solution for what you want to do. I have transferred
some old 78 RPM classical albums (like the first recording ever made of
Holst's "The Planets" (1932) with the composer conducting. With Audacity, I
was able to stitch all 8 12" 78RPM sides together seamlessly and get rid of
the surface noise, ticks and pops and was able to EQ the recording so that
even sounded like a more modern recording) to CD using audacity with great
results (as well a many LPs).

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Hank wrote:

I have enough computers around here, running every operating system
EXCEPT Microsoft Windows. I've been posting about aspects of this
project of mine in various newsgroups.

There are two hardware/OS platforms that together have 99.9999 percent of
the relevant audio tools, you have the appearance of insisting to use
anything but.

I have a completely suitable winxp box as experiment box which I bought for
DKK 250 including XP professional license, it would be usable for your
project and you would be productive with an over the counter version of
Audition 3 for a total budget that is about USD 500, I even think that
budget would allow putting an extra harddisk in that box. Your approach to
solving this strikes me as extraordinarily peculiar in case your objective
is to get some audio digitized in a reasonably productive manner.

Probably should mention here that I'm a 75-year-old retired
hardware-software engineer who had enough "careers" over 45 years that
I can work hardware and software issues without getting too far off my
turf.

OK, your doing it for fun, interesting quest then.

I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing
software to be available in the open source world.

They are too busy telling us audio guys how poor our working production
systems are to find the time to discover how to actually make something that
works out of the box or download file.

Certainly
somebody who is trying to earn an income doing pro audio isn't going
to be able to devote the time and effort I can to getting a good
stable alternative to the Windows stuff---which has plenty of
problems of its own.

THAT is a very well made point, thank you. If you need to get something done
reasonably fast then I stand by my USD 500 suggestion above as a better
approach, but I can certainly share the fun of getting things to work, and
wish you the best of luck with the quest.

Hank

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:34:08 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Burwen TNE 7000A setup,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
just making a bad thing worse.

Assuming, for the moment, that it IS hooked up properly,
this one sentence summarizes very well my impression
of this unit from back when they were new.

I think you're confusing the Burwen with the one whose brand name begins
with S. (Can't think of it.)

I've owned one for over 30 years, and normally leave it connected when
playing LPs. The only deleterious effect I've found is that it subtly
darkens the sound, a common problem with devices using op amps.

If it's in proper working order, it will remove almost all the
small-to-medium pops and clicks. It is particularly effective when using a
wideband pickup on a high-quality arm/table that does not "smear"
transients.

Hank, my experience with the KLH TNE 7000A (I've never used the
original Burwen Research TNE 7000), is closely aligned with William's
experience.

Also, the reason why I have both a TNE 7000A and an SAE 5000A is the
fact that the TNE 7000A is only good on "the small-to-medium pops and
clicks" that William mentioned. The 5000A, OTOH, works quite well on
those few discs that I encounter that contain (usually one) large and
deep scratch.

Whenever I have a disc that contains both types of problems, I'll
patch in the 5000A in front of the TNE 7000A, adjust the 5000A to
remove the serious deep scratch and then adjust the TNE 7000A to
remove whatever else remains. At that point, depending upon the
overall condition and sound of the disc, I'll either use or not use
one or more of the other signal processing devices that I have
available.

I will use no external signal processing at all if the condition of
the disc is truly superb, but that's the rare case. None of these
discs are mine, BTW, they all belong to clients. Also, most of the
recordings with which I work are spoken word, not music. And I don't
do 78's, just 33-1/3 and 45 rpm discs.

Once in the digital domain, I'll perform most of the remaining work in
Sound Forge. And if I should happen to notice an odd artifact here or
there, I'll manually redraw the waveform with the pencil tool to
disguise it.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].

[Frank]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 03:28:39 -0400, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Burwen TNE 7000A setup,
Frank wrote:

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:34:08 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Burwen TNE 7000A setup,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
just making a bad thing worse.

Assuming, for the moment, that it IS hooked up properly,
this one sentence summarizes very well my impression
of this unit from back when they were new.

I think you're confusing the Burwen with the one whose brand name begins
with S. (Can't think of it.)

I've owned one for over 30 years, and normally leave it connected when
playing LPs. The only deleterious effect I've found is that it subtly
darkens the sound, a common problem with devices using op amps.

If it's in proper working order, it will remove almost all the
small-to-medium pops and clicks. It is particularly effective when using a
wideband pickup on a high-quality arm/table that does not "smear"
transients.

Hank, my experience with the KLH TNE 7000A (I've never used the
original Burwen Research TNE 7000), is closely aligned with William's
experience.

Also, the reason why I have both a TNE 7000A and an SAE 5000A is the
fact that the TNE 7000A is only good on "the small-to-medium pops and
clicks" that William mentioned. The 5000A, OTOH, works quite well on
those few discs that I encounter that contain (usually one) large and
deep scratch.

Whenever I have a disc that contains both types of problems, I'll
patch in the 5000A in front of the TNE 7000A, adjust the 5000A to
remove the serious deep scratch and then adjust the TNE 7000A to
remove whatever else remains. At that point, depending upon the
overall condition and sound of the disc, I'll either use or not use
one or more of the other signal processing devices that I have
available.

I will use no external signal processing at all if the condition of
the disc is truly superb, but that's the rare case. None of these
discs are mine, BTW, they all belong to clients. Also, most of the
recordings with which I work are spoken word, not music. And I don't
do 78's, just 33-1/3 and 45 rpm discs.

Once in the digital domain, I'll perform most of the remaining work in
Sound Forge. And if I should happen to notice an odd artifact here or
there, I'll manually redraw the waveform with the pencil tool to
disguise it.


Sorry, my comment above was intended to be directed to Dick Pierce and
not to Hank. Must be time for me to get some sleep.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].

[Mike Rivers]

Hank wrote:

I reconnected it across a tape monitor loop, and am now getting results
more-or-less along the lines of what I had expected.

That's what I thought you meant when I read that you connected the phono
preamp output to the TNE input. It's not a miracle worker (note how many
single ended noise reduction units Frank has) but it's one of those that's
not all smoke and mirrors. I'm sure Cedar has better, but every little
bit helps
as long as you can adjust it so it doesn't hurt more than help.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

[William Sommerwerck]

Also, the reason why I have both a TNE 7000A and an
SAE 5000A is the fact that the TNE 7000A is only good
on "the small-to-medium pops and clicks" that William
mentioned. The 5000A, OTOH, works quite well on
those few discs that I encounter that contain (usually one)
large and deep scratch.

Yes, it's amazing in ability to remove out-and-out gouges. The smaller
stuff -- no way.

At the risk of starting another argument -- a really good pickup and
turntable help. Anyone who doesn't believe this is welcome to stop by and
hear a demo.

[William Sommerwerck]

No, it's the Burwen. I worked for a place that sold them,
and had the opportunity to listen to it at home for
several weeks. Yes, it reduces ticks, pops and noise.
It did no do so transparently or even remotely so, at
least no more transparently than a few feet of concrete.

Then there was "something wrong", though I don't know what it is. I reviewed
the Burwen for "Stereophile", and it did not much degrade the sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

Thanks for the comments. Yes, I had the phono cartridge
feeding the TNE, then in to the preamp.

It still couldn't have worked, because you said you selected a line-level
input. You would still have had a weak, unequalized signal.

When I read the original post, I thought -- "Is /that/ what he's saying? No
way. He must have mis-typed."

There are advantages to running an unequalized signal through the TNE 7000.
But it wasn't designed to handle low-level signals.

There are things I would like to say... But I will bite my tongue. Very
hard.

Question... Didn't the dealer provide a user manual? How much trouble would
it have been for him to photocopy one?

[Arny Krueger]

"Hank" wrote in message

In article
,
Audio Empire wrote:

If you have a computer, I suggest the following:

Download "Audacity" from the internet for your
particular computer platform. Transfer your records to
digital using your usual method and save it as a "WAV"
file. Open the resultant file in Audacity and use that
program's "click filter" and other tools to clean the
file up. This takes time, but it is pretty easy to do
and the results are worth it.

If life were just that simple.....

It is.

I have enough computers around here, running every
operating system EXCEPT Microsoft Windows. I've been
posting about aspects of this project of mine in various
newsgroups.

Your house has a toilet, right?

One keeps at least one Windows computer in the house, often for the same
reason! ;-)

Settle down!

[William Sommerwerck]

Mr. Pierce, I am not responsible for your owning a defective unit and/or
misusing it.

I have an extremely high-quality playback system. I would not use the TNE
7000 if it signifcantly degraded the sound.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:08:17 -0400, Hank wrote
(in article ):

So, what am I doing wrong here. Or did this unit show up here with
problems. It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
just making a bad thing worse.

Hank

Maybe not much. I have one here that I bough on a lark a few years back. If
anyone wants it, drop me a line with a price.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Hank]

In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote:
Hank wrote:

There are two hardware/OS platforms that together have 99.9999 percent of
the relevant audio tools, you have the appearance of insisting to use
anything but.

I have a completely suitable winxp box as experiment box which I bought for
DKK 250 including XP professional license, it would be usable for your
project and you would be productive with an over the counter version of
Audition 3 for a total budget that is about USD 500, I even think that
budget would allow putting an extra harddisk in that box. Your approach to
solving this strikes me as extraordinarily peculiar in case your objective
is to get some audio digitized in a reasonably productive manner.

"Two platforms?" I see only one in your comments.
Pee Cee hardware I've got---several. Disks I've got---several.
Windows I haven't got. Microsoft Tax for same ranges between
$200-$300 depending on version, level, OEM install vs. full, etc.

XP vs. Windows 7? Hmm---let's got look for drivers for the M-Audio
cards. Some yes, some no. Do I want to run Creative Soundlaster
cards? Hmmm---not really into gaming these days.

And is Pee Cee hardware a suitable low-noise environment vs. Sun
Sparc? I've already mentioned electrical noise in the Pee Cee.

Cost of Pro Tools, last I looked, $300. Filter add-ons, not included.
Looks to me more like $1000 for software licenses, and that with no
development system (more $$$) and no hooks for devising filters that
aren't included in the shrink-wrapped stuff.

And what have I got when I'm done? Maybe it will work and maybe it
won't, particularly when the driver question is considered.
Notwithstanding all the other drawbacks to relying on Microsoft to
deliver anything with adequate availability.

Cost (to me) of setting up a Sparc with the M-Audio card, drivers,
OS, etc.: zero. Solaris is a major player in the Enterprise O/S
world. Like the Timex watch, it takes a licking and keeps on ticking.
Sparc Debian (yeah, I can download suitable software, prebuilt, for
that) comes in second---by quite some distance. So say nothing of
having not one, but two development systems, software available in
modifiable source form all of which I don't have to go get because
I've already got it.

I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing
software to be available in the open source world.

They are too busy telling us audio guys how poor our working production
systems are to find the time to discover how to actually make something that
works out of the box or download file.

Let's just say that I am not "they."

Certainly
somebody who is trying to earn an income doing pro audio isn't going
to be able to devote the time and effort I can to getting a good
stable alternative to the Windows stuff---which has plenty of
problems of its own.

THAT is a very well made point, thank you. If you need to get something done
reasonably fast then I stand by my USD 500 suggestion above as a better
approach, but I can certainly share the fun of getting things to work, and
wish you the best of luck with the quest.

At this point, I've spent a month assessing what's available, set up
some hardware, looked at software issues, And think that for a modest
time investment, I can get some good results. And, with a bit of
diplomacy, maybe get those results back into software that others can
use.

Hank

[Hank]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

Your house has a toilet, right?

One keeps at least one Windows computer in the house, often for the same
reason! ;-)

Well, flushing the Windows system down the toilet would screw up the
septic system. We don't have city water or sewers out here in the
country.

Hank

[PStamler]

You can get away with a lot in the Cheap-Windows world. I'm using a
Dell computer (yeah, I know) that I bought used for US$85, including
Win XP Pro. Add a soundcard with decent shielding (CardDeluxe in my
case), bought off ebay, and Adobe Audition, and you have the
beginnings of a more-than-decent workstation. I added DC SIX (which
one of these days will get upgraded to DC EIGHT) and ClickFix, and
have done a *lot* of audio restoration with the setup. Oh, and of
course a whopper external harddrive (actually an internal harddrive in
an external case).

Peace,
Paul

[David Nebenzahl]

On 4/1/2010 11:28 PM Frank spake thus:

Once in the digital domain, I'll perform most of the remaining work in
Sound Forge. And if I should happen to notice an odd artifact here or
there, I'll manually redraw the waveform with the pencil tool to
disguise it.

Regarding this (and starting a small tangent here), I've tried Audacity
and found it wanting. I use Sound Forge as well, a stripped-down version
(XP) that came with my Sound Blaster, not the full version, and it's
so much simpler than Audacity. I don't know if it has all the filters
and other bells and whistles that Audacity has, but I don't use those
things anyway.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

[Frank]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 06:53:11 -0400, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Burwen TNE 7000A setup,
Mike Rivers wrote:

It's not a miracle worker (note how many
single ended noise reduction units Frank has) but it's one of those that's
not all smoke and mirrors.

Frank forgot to mention (because they sit in a different rack) that he
also has a (now-discontinued) Behringer SNR2000 Audio Interactive
Noise Reduction System (based upon the also now-discontinued Drawmer
DF330 Universal Noise Filter) and a Kramer SP-4200 Audio ProcAmp.

Behringer SNR2000 product information
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/SNR2000.aspx

Drawmer DF330 Sound On Sound product review
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Apr0...awmerdf330.asp

Kramer SP-4200 Spec Sheet (PDF)
http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/STA...ve/SP-4200.pdf

As is not completely atypical with Behringer products, the SNR2000
developed a problem in the right channel about a year after purchase,
but it had a five-year warranty and they cheerfully replaced it at no
cost to me.

The SP-4200 is (was) an interesting product in that if adjusted in a
certain way, it seems to accurately mimic the effect of a Dolby B
decoding circuit, although the unit does not bear a Dolby Labs logo.

I'm sure Cedar has better,

If I did this sort of work full time, I would spring for a Cedar, but
I don't and therefore can't justify it (from a financial point of
view).

but every little bit helps
as long as you can adjust it so it doesn't hurt more than help.

This is absolutely key to successful noise reduction - and it's true
whether the problem is a record scratch, tape hiss, electrical hum in
the original recording, whatever.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 05:00:37 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Hank" wrote in message

In article
,
Audio Empire wrote:

If you have a computer, I suggest the following:

Download "Audacity" from the internet for your
particular computer platform. Transfer your records to
digital using your usual method and save it as a "WAV"
file. Open the resultant file in Audacity and use that
program's "click filter" and other tools to clean the
file up. This takes time, but it is pretty easy to do
and the results are worth it.

If life were just that simple.....

It is.

I have enough computers around here, running every
operating system EXCEPT Microsoft Windows. I've been
posting about aspects of this project of mine in various
newsgroups.

Your house has a toilet, right?

One keeps at least one Windows computer in the house, often for the same
reason! ;-)

Settle down!




I find that there is nothing that one can do audio-wise with a Winbox that
can't also be done with a Mac (unfortunately, the opposite is not also true).
That's why I don't have a Windows computer. In a lot of cases, both recording
hardware and software ONLY works with a Mac (like Logic Studio and Apogee
equipment).

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:02:27 -0700, Hank wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

Your house has a toilet, right?

One keeps at least one Windows computer in the house, often for the same
reason! ;-)

Well, flushing the Windows system down the toilet would screw up the
septic system. We don't have city water or sewers out here in the
country.

Hank


I find that flushing a Windows system down the toilet is its best, final
reward.

[William Sommerwerck]

I find that flushing a Windows system down the toilet
is its best, final reward.

For what? For working reliably? As punishment for not being an artsy-fartsy
niche product sold by liars?

I've been running Windows for 20 years, ten of those under W2K. Isn't it
amazing how I ever got any work done with all those crashes and
configuration problems -- which NEVER occurred, * thank you.

The Mac is for people who are happy with the limited range of software and
hardware available for that machine. I used to recommend the Mac to friends,
because the OS is somewhat less daunting for those who are too lazy to be
involved with actually understanding how their computers work. But Apple's
appallingly dishonest ads forced me to end the recommendations. Both Apple
and Microsoft stink as companies, but Microsoft doesn't lie quite so much,
and the computers using their OS aren't as expensive.

* Honesty compels me to admit that about six years ago the operating system
"collapsed" for no obvious reason, and had to be reinstalled to be fully
operational. A friend with a Mac told me the same thing happened to his Mac.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Hank wrote:

"Two platforms?" I see only one in your comments.

The other is the MAC's. It surprises me to have to specify. My own strategy
has been - from my days as an amigan - to start with the problem, then find
the application and then get the OS the application runs on, for that very
reason I have had MS-DOS emulation on my Amigas from the onset, not all
niche software can be found on a niche platform.

Pee Cee hardware I've got---several. Disks I've got---several.
Windows I haven't got. Microsoft Tax for same ranges between
$200-$300 depending on version, level, OEM install vs. full, etc.

Again: when I purchased my current daw, a HP Compaq ml115 server sans OS, I
payed USD 100 on top of what it cost me second hand for two HP's, one a
Pavillion with a 2 GHz Athlon and a valid XP Home license, but no media and
the other a newer Pavillion with a 3-something GHz P4 and 2 gigabytes ram
and a XP Prof license.

XP vs. Windows 7? Hmm---let's got look for drivers for the M-Audio
cards. Some yes, some no. Do I want to run Creative Soundlaster
cards? Hmmm---not really into gaming these days.

Midiman 2496 does all you need, replace caps and opamps for cleaner sound at
the risk of getting some RFI issues.

And is Pee Cee hardware a suitable low-noise environment vs. Sun
Sparc? I've already mentioned electrical noise in the Pee Cee.

OK, pay some more and get something with external converter, say a USB or
firewire thingie, you get from 100 dB dynamic range to 110 dB dynamic range
then.

Cost of Pro Tools, last I looked, $300. Filter add-ons, not included.
Looks to me more like $1000 for software licenses, and that with no
development system (more $$$) and no hooks for devising filters that
aren't included in the shrink-wrapped stuff.

Again, not the only thing out there, but the one I am familiar with, Adobe
Audition 3 is some USD 350. 500 of your local dollars will have you up and
running and productive in a week.

And what have I got when I'm done? Maybe it will work and maybe it
won't, particularly when the driver question is considered.
Notwithstanding all the other drawbacks to relying on Microsoft to
deliver anything with adequate availability.

Be religious some other day.

Cost (to me) of setting up a Sparc with the M-Audio card, drivers,
OS, etc.: zero.

You say you have clients, such usually wait anxiously for results and you
have been tinkering for a month and you're still not ready to start learning
to operate your software, something that WILL take time.

Solaris is a major player in the Enterprise O/S
world.

YESSIR, but you are on a quest for a hobbyist daw.

Like the Timex watch, it takes a licking and keeps on ticking.
Sparc Debian (yeah, I can download suitable software, prebuilt, for
that) comes in second---by quite some distance. So say nothing of
having not one, but two development systems, software available in
modifiable source form all of which I don't have to go get because
I've already got it.

Sorry Sir, all fine and well but not relevant to the described task of
delivering transscribed audio to presumed paying clients, presumed since you
ask also in an audio production forum.

I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing
software to be available in the open source world.

They are too busy telling us audio guys how poor our working
production systems are to find the time to discover how to actually
make something that works out of the box or download file.

Let's just say that I am not "they."

I didn't say you are. Also I reiterate that I can appreciate the joy of
getting things to work and respect it.

At this point, I've spent a month assessing what's available, set up
some hardware, looked at software issues, And think that for a modest
time investment, I can get some good results. And, with a bit of
diplomacy, maybe get those results back into software that others can
use.

Make no mistake, it would be great if you could get a good swiss knife kinda
package to work for the *ix platform, allow me to suggest that you decide
whether you want to do that or to get some audio from round black things to
mp3 players. Very many years ago when I was getting "into computers" I read
a piece of advice: "You can program them or use them, you are not likely to
be able to find time to do both".

Hank

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:10:58 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):

I find that flushing a Windows system down the toilet
is its best, final reward.

For what? For working reliably? As punishment for not being an artsy-fartsy
niche product sold by liars?

I've been running Windows for 20 years, ten of those under W2K. Isn't it
amazing how I ever got any work done with all those crashes and
configuration problems -- which NEVER occurred, * thank you.

The Mac is for people who are happy with the limited range of software and
hardware available for that machine.

That view is out of date, for a start. There is NOTHING limited about a
modern Mac. It's just as fast as high-end PC and faster than most of the
cheap ones (faster RAM bus). With A modern Mac you can run Windows (if you
like) at full speed as well as Linux (all at the same time and concurrent
with OSX) and therefore have access to ALL the software and all the hardware
that Windows users use, plus (and this is important in the recording world)
all of the Mac-only stuff from companies like Apogee and DAW software like
Logic Studio which is NOT available for Windows. Also Running Macs frees you
from malware like viruses, trojan-horses and most internet adware.



I used to recommend the Mac to friends,
because the OS is somewhat less daunting for those who are too lazy to be
involved with actually understanding how their computers work.

You know, that's more than just insulting. First of all, Bill, I am a
computer engineer and I know Windows backwards and forwards. I also know the
Mac and when I compare the two, I have to agree with you, the Mac OS is LESS
daunting than Windows. And with good reason. The Mac GUI is BETTER DESIGNED
than Windows. This stuff about Windows being a "real OS" and better because
you need to be a computer science major to understand it, is just elitist
nonsense. Windows is more difficult and arcane because it's POORLY designed,
and always has been.


But Apple's appallingly dishonest ads forced me to end the recommendations.

I see their ads and as user of both platforms, I see nothing dishonest about
them. You can't say that Macs are simple because they are for people who are
too lazy to be involved in actually understanding how their computers work
and then, in the next breath, condemn the company that makes them for
capitalizing on that very fact.

Both Apple
and Microsoft stink as companies, but Microsoft doesn't lie quite so much,

Actually with 90%+ of the world market, Microsoft doesn't have to say
anything at all. They just need to exist. AS long as they do, virtually every
business and corporation in the world will continue to buy them. They are the
defacto standard in the corporate world and unless you do non-linear video
editing, sound production, and pre-press, you will find a Windows machine on
every desk. It is because it is.

and the computers using their OS aren't as expensive.

Nor anywhere near as good. Remember, I use both, daily.


* Honesty compels me to admit that about six years ago the operating system
"collapsed" for no obvious reason, and had to be reinstalled to be fully
operational. A friend with a Mac told me the same thing happened to his Mac.

Things can happen to any OS, but the Unix underpinnings to OSX make it far
more robust than any Windows release I've ever seen. I have been running OSX
since 2001 day-in-and-day-out and I have NEVER had the Macs I own crash, slow
down, need disk defragmentation or any of the ills that plague Windows.

It's just a better system, Period.

[William Sommerwerck]

Also Running Macs frees you from malware like viruses,
trojan-horses and most Internet adware.

But that isn't inherent in the Mac OS, though Apple would have you believe
otherwise.

As the Mac becomes increasingly popular, it is becoming a larger target for
malware.


The Mac GUI is BETTER DESIGNED than Windows.

This is the one (and only) good thing you can say about Apple products. The
company is aware that a human being will be using its products, and designs
accordingly. Steve Jobs isn't a genius -- he just has good sense.


This stuff about Windows being a "real OS" and better
because you need to be a computer science major to
understand it, is just elitist nonsense.

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. And you don't need to be a
computer science major to be able to run Windows.


But Apple's appallingly dishonest ads forced me to end
the recommendations.

I see their ads and as user of both platforms, I see nothing
dishonest about them.

Then you must have been hearing what you wanted to hear. Almost every claim
in the "I'm a Mac" ads is either a gross misrepresentation or an outright
lie. Instead of offering a simple description/explanation of /why/ the Mac
OS is superior, we're treated to cutesy sound bites that are bald-faced
lies. For example, characters in the ads state that they don't want a
computer that crashes all the time. Or we're told that Macs are immune to
malware.

I've been running W2K for almost 10 years, and have averaged about one crash
per year. In most cases, this was a particular application locking up so
tightly that a system restart was needed. (If my memory is correct, the last
of these occurred several years ago.)


and the computers using their OS aren't as expensive.

Nor anywhere near as good. Remember, I use both, daily.

I'm curious as to how the hardware of a Mac (which is what you mean by
"machine") is superior to that of a PC. Both companies use the same
processor (which, by the way, will eventually be seen as one of the major
turning points in the history of personal computers, as it represents a
direct threat to the continued existance of both Windows and Mac OS), and
have to use the same components.


Honesty compels me to admit that about six years ago the operating
system "collapsed" for no obvious reason, and had to be reinstalled to
be fully operational. A friend with a Mac told me the same thing happened
to his Mac.

Things can happen to any OS, but the Unix underpinnings to OSX make
it far more robust than any Windows release I've ever seen.

This problem had no apparent connection to the disk operating system.


I have been running OSX since 2001 day-in-and-day-out and I have
NEVER had the Macs I own crash, slow down, need disk defragmentation
or any of the ills that plague Windows.

Then why don't I own a Mac? Is it because I'm stupid? Or could it be that
the applications I run (or used to run) simply don't exist for the Mac? (I'm
a programmer-writer.)

I'm curious as to why the Mac never needs defragmentation. Does it
automatically defragment in the background?

[William Sommerwerck]

PS: I would be perfectly happy to go through the "I'm a Mac" ads and point
out the errors and misrepresentations.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Also Running Macs frees you from malware like viruses,
trojan-horses and most Internet adware.

But that isn't inherent in the Mac OS, though Apple would have you believe
otherwise.

As the Mac becomes increasingly popular, it is becoming a larger target for
malware.

Actually, a lot of it is. When there are security holes found, Apple will
fix them. Sometimes they'll do some dramatic redesigning that will break
applications in the process.

The reason that Microsoft has such severe malware issues is that security
problems are _never_ fixed, they just deal with the individual exploits.
Microsoft is terrified of breaking existing applications in any way, and
this gets them into the endless stream of patching.

The Mac GUI is BETTER DESIGNED than Windows.

This is the one (and only) good thing you can say about Apple products. The
company is aware that a human being will be using its products, and designs
accordingly. Steve Jobs isn't a genius -- he just has good sense.

Personally, I can't stand the Mac GUI. The good news, though, is that
after a decade and a half of saying they'd never have a command line because
they are obsolete, Apple put an excellent command line on OSX.

In fact, they put such a good command line on OSX that now Microsoft has
finally stepped up to the plate and provided a pretty nice command line
with Windows 7. This brings both Microsoft and Apple up to the standards
of DEC in say 1972 or so. Finally.

Then you must have been hearing what you wanted to hear. Almost every claim
in the "I'm a Mac" ads is either a gross misrepresentation or an outright
lie. Instead of offering a simple description/explanation of /why/ the Mac
OS is superior, we're treated to cutesy sound bites that are bald-faced
lies. For example, characters in the ads state that they don't want a
computer that crashes all the time. Or we're told that Macs are immune to
malware.

That's how marketing works. Don't worry about it. But try the Mac, it's
got some nice points, and the Apple hardware is pretty solid too.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
PS: I would be perfectly happy to go through the "I'm a Mac" ads and point
out the errors and misrepresentations.

This is what marketing is. Open up a copy of Mix and read any of the ads
for microphones with German names that are made in China. Look at the beer
advertisements on the subway. Ever known someone who drinks a whole lot of
beer? They don't look like the people in the beer ads.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

Almost every claim in the "I'm a Mac" ads is either a gross
misrepresentation or an outright lie. Instead of offering a simple
description/explanation of /why/ the Mac OS is superior, we're
treated to cutesy sound bites that are bald-faced lies. For example,
characters in the ads state that they don't want a computer that
crashes all the time. Or we're told that Macs are immune to
malware.

That's how marketing works. Don't worry about it. But try the Mac, it's
got some nice points, and the Apple hardware is pretty solid too.

I'm sure it is. And I'd be happy to try a Mac, if someone would buy me one.
(I'm not employed, and need to upgrade to W7, but don't want to do it on a
10-year-old machine.)

Prediction: Apple's adoption of Intel processors brings us a major step
closer to the elimination of local operating systems. It further encourages
the development of thin clients, in which the software resides on the Web,
and the OS is little more than a Web browser.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 17:08:53 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):

Also Running Macs frees you from malware like viruses,
trojan-horses and most Internet adware.

But that isn't inherent in the Mac OS, though Apple would have you believe
otherwise.

You're partly right here. Mostly it's because those hackers who write malware
concentrate on the majority system because it's more likely to spread from PC
to PC than from Mac to Mac due to there being so many MORE Windows PCs. But
OTOH, it is more difficult to write malware for the Mac due to the nature of
the Unix permissions structure. It is possible, but so far, pretty much
nothing has surfaced. Security breaches have been exploited but they simply
don't propagate because Unix requires the user to actively initiate the
malware and only a complete dummy would knowingly do that.

As the Mac becomes increasingly popular, it is becoming a larger target for
malware.

Only partially true. See above.


The Mac GUI is BETTER DESIGNED than Windows.

This is the one (and only) good thing you can say about Apple products. The
company is aware that a human being will be using its products, and designs
accordingly. Steve Jobs isn't a genius -- he just has good sense.


This stuff about Windows being a "real OS" and better
because you need to be a computer science major to
understand it, is just elitist nonsense.

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. And you don't need to be a
computer science major to be able to run Windows.

OK, I was using a bit of hyperbole. No, you don't need to be a computer
science major, but Windows is needlessly complex and arcane. I HAVE seen and
heard many a Windows "fan" express the sentiment that because Macs are easy
to use that they are somehow less of a computer platform than Windows, and
that Windows is a "real man's computer" and that somehow this need for
computer literacy is a "good thing." It isn't. All over the world millions of
people (and we all know some of them) own Winboxes about which they have
absolutely NO CLUE. You, yourself alluded to this bit of techno-elitism when
you said that you used to recommend Macs to people who were too lazy to learn
how their computers worked. Why should they have to? Computers should be as
appliance-like as possible. We are far from the day when they will be, but
Apple has taken another step in that direction with it's iPad. I have no use
for one, but Apple understands the market. and realizes that people want a
computing appliance that's as easy to use as their TV, one that integrates
seamlessly into their lives. While far from ideal, the iPad gives that
approach more than just lip service.


But Apple's appallingly dishonest ads forced me to end
the recommendations.

I see their ads and as user of both platforms, I see nothing
dishonest about them.

Then you must have been hearing what you wanted to hear. Almost every claim
in the "I'm a Mac" ads is either a gross misrepresentation or an outright
lie. Instead of offering a simple description/explanation of /why/ the Mac
OS is superior, we're treated to cutesy sound bites that are bald-faced
lies. For example, characters in the ads state that they don't want a
computer that crashes all the time. Or we're told that Macs are immune to
malware.

1) My almost 10 year experience with OSX is that it doesn't crash. Ever.
2) Again, in all my time with a Mac of some description (going back almost 25
years) I have never used an anti-virus program and I have never contracted
any form of malware. Seems to me that the ads were pretty-much spot-on.

I've been running W2K for almost 10 years, and have averaged about one crash
per year. In most cases, this was a particular application locking up so
tightly that a system restart was needed. (If my memory is correct, the last
of these occurred several years ago.)

I've been running OSX for about 10 years, no viruses, no crashes at all.

Yet I know many competent Windows users whose computers crash all the time. I
see them at work crashing right and left. Windows also has an interesting
characteristic that as the Registry gets more and more complex with use, the
computer slows down. Most people have to do a wipe-and-reinstall.

and the computers using their OS aren't as expensive.

Nor anywhere near as good. Remember, I use both, daily.

I'm curious as to how the hardware of a Mac (which is what you mean by
"machine") is superior to that of a PC. Both companies use the same
processor (which, by the way, will eventually be seen as one of the major
turning points in the history of personal computers, as it represents a
direct threat to the continued existance of both Windows and Mac OS), and
have to use the same components.

No, I'm talking about the OS, mostly. The build quality of Macs is better
than MOST Winboxes, but when you compare a like priced Winbox to a
like-priced Mac, they're pretty much the same hardware-wise. IOW, a $2500 PC
and a $2500 Mac Pro are pretty comparable wrt build quality. The difference
is that there isn't much market for a $2500 Windows box. Most of that action
is in the $500 range and below where Apple does not play at all.

Honesty compels me to admit that about six years ago the operating
system "collapsed" for no obvious reason, and had to be reinstalled to
be fully operational. A friend with a Mac told me the same thing happened
to his Mac.

Things can happen to any OS, but the Unix underpinnings to OSX make
it far more robust than any Windows release I've ever seen.

This problem had no apparent connection to the disk operating system.


I have been running OSX since 2001 day-in-and-day-out and I have
NEVER had the Macs I own crash, slow down, need disk defragmentation
or any of the ills that plague Windows.

Then why don't I own a Mac? Is it because I'm stupid? Or could it be that
the applications I run (or used to run) simply don't exist for the Mac? (I'm
a programmer-writer.)

Oh, don't misunderstand me, Bill, I'm neither belittling your choice of
Windows nor am I trying to convert you. I was merely correcting some of the
misconceptions that you were perpetrating about Macs, such as that they are
limited in their use, that they are for dilettantes, or that they are somehow
"less of a computer" than a Windows machine. You feel free to use what you
want and certainly don't let me influence your choice in any way. 8^)

I'm curious as to why the Mac never needs defragmentation. Does it
automatically defragment in the background?

It's the way the file system works. I guess you can call it automatic disk
defrag, but it really doesn't work that way. From what I understand (and I'm
no file system expert by any means), the system optimizes the allocation
algorithms in an attempt to defragment files while they are being accessed.
This, coupled with automatic journaling, means that the disk keeps a separate
record of HD allocation and uses that journal to move blocks of data around
on the disc to keep them together.

And it's an incorrect assumption that Macs NEVER need defragmentation. It is
more correct to say that they RARELY need defrag. I understand that as an HFS
volume gets full, fragmentation increases (which makes sense if you think
about it). I have a utility that graphically maps disk fragmentation before
it recommends a defrag on a Mac. I run it occasionally, just to be on the
safe side. The amount of fragmentation that I find on my discs is so
miniscule that I have never had to do more than just check it. I've never
actually had the program tell me that I should defragment the disk after it's
been checked.

Just as an aside, here, you and I know each other and used to work for the
same magazine (send me an e-mail and I'll tell you my real identity). Our
mutual (and unfortunately, late) friend Gordon Holt used DOS/Windows for many
years in spite of both me and his son Charles evangelizing the Mac to him.
Eventually, he switched and told me that he kicked himself almost every day
for waiting so long to do so.

[Hank]

In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote:
Hank wrote:

"Two platforms?" I see only one in your comments.

The other is the MAC's. It surprises me to have to specify. My own strategy
has been - from my days as an amigan - to start with the problem, then find
the application and then get the OS the application runs on, for that very
reason I have had MS-DOS emulation on my Amigas from the onset, not all
niche software can be found on a niche platform.

Yes, it helps to be specific. "Other operating systems" are AIX,
IRIX, HP-UX, BSD, Solaris, Linux in several flavors (Red Hat, Debian,
Suse, Slackware)---and that's just the beginning. We could also talk
about VMS, OSF, Minix (which Linus Torvalds set out to emulate with
Linux 20 years ago), OS/2, Xenix. That's before we say anything about MS-DOS
or the Amiga (or CP/M or RT-11 or IBM 360 DOS or TOS or RSTS/E or
RSX/11). The only one of those I haven't worked with at one point or
another is Amiga. And if I dredged my memory a bit more I might also
mention the Tandem Guardian system, IBM OS/MVT (MFT, MVS, TCAM, etc.)
Univac Exec VIII, the O/S on CDC 6600/6700.

Again, not the only thing out there, but the one I am familiar with, Adobe
Audition 3 is some USD 350. 500 of your local dollars will have you up and
running and productive in a week.

"Up, running, and productive in a week" is a non-objective. I'm not
looking to capitalize a shop, find clients and work, and amortize the
investment with accounts receivable.

Be religious some other day.

And be realistict today about what's practical for an old retired guy.
Your messages read "pay, pay, pay."

You say you have clients, such usually wait anxiously for results and you
have been tinkering for a month and you're still not ready to start learning
to operate your software, something that WILL take time.

Precisely what I did NOT say. Digitizing what are old family archives
and hand-me-downs that I have (and have the knowledge and equipment
needed to play them) is what I'm dealing with.

Sorry Sir, all fine and well but not relevant to the described task of
delivering transscribed audio to presumed paying clients, presumed since you
ask also in an audio production forum.

Your presumption. There are no paying clients involved.

I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing
software to be available in the open source world.

They are too busy telling us audio guys how poor our working
production systems are to find the time to discover how to actually
make something that works out of the box or download file.

At this point, I've spent a month assessing what's available, set up
some hardware, looked at software issues, And think that for a modest
time investment, I can get some good results. And, with a bit of
diplomacy, maybe get those results back into software that others can
use.

Make no mistake, it would be great if you could get a good swiss knife kinda
package to work for the *ix platform, allow me to suggest that you decide
whether you want to do that or to get some audio from round black things to
mp3 players. Very many years ago when I was getting "into computers" I read
a piece of advice: "You can program them or use them, you are not likely to
be able to find time to do both".

I'm not "getting into computers," nor am I "getting into serious
audio." Is fifty-sixty years of experience with analog and digital
electronics adequate to prepare one to take on an interesting task and
make it happen?

I came to this group to find out a bit more about what's happening in
pro audio today, and I've gotten some good comments about basic things
that I need to consider---and that I can easily implement.

I'll do the worrying about getting more of the open source software to
run on a solid operating system.

Hank

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 08:59:06 -0700, Audio Empire
wrote:

No, I'm talking about the OS, mostly. The build quality of Macs is better
than MOST Winboxes, but when you compare a like priced Winbox to a
like-priced Mac, they're pretty much the same hardware-wise. IOW, a $2500 PC
and a $2500 Mac Pro are pretty comparable wrt build quality. The difference
is that there isn't much market for a $2500 Windows box. Most of that action
is in the $500 range and below where Apple does not play at all.

Now that Macs ARE using essentially the same hardware as PCs, it
should be easy to compare the price of comparable computers with and
without the Mac label. Has anyone done so?

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'm sure it is. And I'd be happy to try a Mac, if someone would buy me one.
(I'm not employed, and need to upgrade to W7, but don't want to do it on a
10-year-old machine.)

The nice thing about Apple is there is good long-term support. The downside
of this is that old Apple hardware sells for decent money rather than dropping
in price soon after the next model comes out.

Prediction: Apple's adoption of Intel processors brings us a major step
closer to the elimination of local operating systems. It further encourages
the development of thin clients, in which the software resides on the Web,
and the OS is little more than a Web browser.

I think there are political problems with the adoption of this model,
but personally I support it. Then again, I am typing this into an ssh
session with a shell server in New York where I keep all my files and
have for fifteen years....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 08:59:06 -0700, Audio Empire
wrote:

No, I'm talking about the OS, mostly. The build quality of Macs is better
than MOST Winboxes, but when you compare a like priced Winbox to a
like-priced Mac, they're pretty much the same hardware-wise. IOW, a $2500 PC
and a $2500 Mac Pro are pretty comparable wrt build quality. The difference
is that there isn't much market for a $2500 Windows box. Most of that action
is in the $500 range and below where Apple does not play at all.

Now that Macs ARE using essentially the same hardware as PCs, it
should be easy to compare the price of comparable computers with and
without the Mac label. Has anyone done so?

It's sort of hard to. For the most part, the Mac hardware is more solidly
built than the typical PC desktop machines, but without the performance of
the high end PC server boxes. It's priced somewhere in-between, which seems
reasonable.

Laptops are a different story, though, and I can't speak to those.

Buying more solidly built hardware is a good thing if you intend on keeping
it a long time, but it's a bad thing if you have a short replacement cycle
mandated by technological change.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Hank wrote:

Yes, it helps to be specific.

Indeed, no offense intended, thank you for the clarifications.

"Up, running, and productive in a week" is a non-objective. I'm not
looking to capitalize a shop, find clients and work, and amortize the
investment with accounts receivable.

The word client was introduced in this context by you.

Be religious some other day.

And be realistict today about what's practical for an old retired guy.
Your messages read "pay, pay, pay."

True, but they do NOT read pay a helluva lot of doe on new stuff. A windows
xp office box that can't do vista is in the price range USD "please remove
it" to USD 100 including the OS license.

I came to this group to find out a bit more about what's happening in
pro audio today, and I've gotten some good comments about basic things
that I need to consider---and that I can easily implement.

Lemme see, Magix Audio Restoration suite is quite cheap, it cost me USD 10
on sale as "the old version" and my suggested price range for a windows xp
box, including OS, was backed up by someone else.

I'll do the worrying about getting more of the open source software to
run on a solid operating system.

Sir, you asked for this: if you can not get windows xp to run stably, then
it is an error that is not of the OS. One of the problems I have encountered
in platform migration, and I *did* start on CP/M has been to come to grips
with not doing like on the previous platform when not applicable. I have all
the respect in the world for you and your skills with various computers and
os's, and deep admiration for the Spirit of "getting it to work", don't
spoil it by saying that what you don't know about is not good. As always
being honest and precise up front is what gives you the best feedback and
information sharing.

Best of luck with your quest!

Hank

Kind regards

Peter Larsen