Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#441
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: If there could be a more superficial grounds to judge a product than its UI, what might it be? How superficial - worrying about something as trifling as the bit that the user has to interact with.... As a general rule, no UI in a competitive commercial product is THAT bad. For example in the old days there was a lot of ranting and raving about the UIs in MS Word and WordPerfect. On balance, they were both effective and eventually they evolved to being almost indistinguishable from each other, except to advanced users. At this point we know quite well what the basic canonical functions and features of an audio editor are. AFAIK none of the competitive products fail to provide them. They form the backbone of the process of getting the job done. Once you learn one of them, your learning curve for the next one is considerably foreshortened, unless you are really inflexible. Some people are really inflexible and go through life defeating themselves this way. Contemplating the project I did last week, I strongly suspect that if CE/Audition ceased to exist I could complete it with several of the competitive products in only a little more time the first time, and probably in about the same amount of time after a few go-arounds. Even true given the near-total lack of integration we now know exists in some competitive suites such as SF+Vegas. I'd just figure out some circumventions. |
#442
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"The Artist" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" emitted : What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing. I know of several examples. Name some. Given that they are in very common software like Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've seen it in hardware digital equalizers as well. I don't use Winamp. Then do us all the favor of not commenting on software that you don't use. All the plugs I've used offer near instantaneous response. The equalizer in Winamp isn't a plug-in. Please see former comments about not commenting about something you have no relevant experience with. In fact, it's a pre-requisite that they do so (have instantaneous response). Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. If I wanted a delay line... If you had actually worked with the Winamp equalizer, you'd know what I'm talking about. The core of most common digital filters is a tapped delay line. The rest of that kind of filter is a mixer. This implies that the filter has delay. The delay may or may not be frequency-dependent. Of course, analog filters can easily cause signal delay as well. Many digital filters have feedback, all IIR filters do. IIR filters are chosen because they usually take less resources to accomplish a given outcome. If you change filter parameters, it takes a while for the signal levels in the various feedback paths to stabilize because the paths have delays in them. Until the signal levels stabilize, the amplitude and phase characteristics of the filter are in a state of flux. In many cases this can be heard. It's especially audible in filters that affect low frequencies, while it's less likely to be heard in filters that affect only the highest frequencies. Some digital filters are FFT-based. They aren't explicitly based on tapped delay lines. Obviously, any change in the parameters of a FFT filter is not going to be effective until the next batch of samples is processed. If you want a narrow filter at low frequencies, say for rejecting hum, the sample size is going to be significant. You again have a delay before changes become audible. Of course people who know the difference between things like FFT, FIR and IIR filters know all about stuff like this. It's obvious that people who don't know about what I'm talking about don't really understand even the most basic topics in digital filter design. Furthermore, they must either have very limited listening experiences, or just have ears that are relatively insensitive. |
#443
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"The Artist" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" emitted : What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing. I know of several examples. Name some. Given that they are in very common software like Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've seen it in hardware digital equalizers as well. I don't use Winamp. Then do us all the favor of not commenting on software that you don't use. All the plugs I've used offer near instantaneous response. The equalizer in Winamp isn't a plug-in. Please see former comments about not commenting about something you have no relevant experience with. In fact, it's a pre-requisite that they do so (have instantaneous response). Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. If I wanted a delay line... If you had actually worked with the Winamp equalizer, you'd know what I'm talking about. The core of most common digital filters is a tapped delay line. The rest of that kind of filter is a mixer. This implies that the filter has delay. The delay may or may not be frequency-dependent. Of course, analog filters can easily cause signal delay as well. Many digital filters have feedback, all IIR filters do. IIR filters are chosen because they usually take less resources to accomplish a given outcome. If you change filter parameters, it takes a while for the signal levels in the various feedback paths to stabilize because the paths have delays in them. Until the signal levels stabilize, the amplitude and phase characteristics of the filter are in a state of flux. In many cases this can be heard. It's especially audible in filters that affect low frequencies, while it's less likely to be heard in filters that affect only the highest frequencies. Some digital filters are FFT-based. They aren't explicitly based on tapped delay lines. Obviously, any change in the parameters of a FFT filter is not going to be effective until the next batch of samples is processed. If you want a narrow filter at low frequencies, say for rejecting hum, the sample size is going to be significant. You again have a delay before changes become audible. Of course people who know the difference between things like FFT, FIR and IIR filters know all about stuff like this. It's obvious that people who don't know about what I'm talking about don't really understand even the most basic topics in digital filter design. Furthermore, they must either have very limited listening experiences, or just have ears that are relatively insensitive. |
#444
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"The Artist" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" emitted : What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing. I know of several examples. Name some. Given that they are in very common software like Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've seen it in hardware digital equalizers as well. I don't use Winamp. Then do us all the favor of not commenting on software that you don't use. All the plugs I've used offer near instantaneous response. The equalizer in Winamp isn't a plug-in. Please see former comments about not commenting about something you have no relevant experience with. In fact, it's a pre-requisite that they do so (have instantaneous response). Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. If I wanted a delay line... If you had actually worked with the Winamp equalizer, you'd know what I'm talking about. The core of most common digital filters is a tapped delay line. The rest of that kind of filter is a mixer. This implies that the filter has delay. The delay may or may not be frequency-dependent. Of course, analog filters can easily cause signal delay as well. Many digital filters have feedback, all IIR filters do. IIR filters are chosen because they usually take less resources to accomplish a given outcome. If you change filter parameters, it takes a while for the signal levels in the various feedback paths to stabilize because the paths have delays in them. Until the signal levels stabilize, the amplitude and phase characteristics of the filter are in a state of flux. In many cases this can be heard. It's especially audible in filters that affect low frequencies, while it's less likely to be heard in filters that affect only the highest frequencies. Some digital filters are FFT-based. They aren't explicitly based on tapped delay lines. Obviously, any change in the parameters of a FFT filter is not going to be effective until the next batch of samples is processed. If you want a narrow filter at low frequencies, say for rejecting hum, the sample size is going to be significant. You again have a delay before changes become audible. Of course people who know the difference between things like FFT, FIR and IIR filters know all about stuff like this. It's obvious that people who don't know about what I'm talking about don't really understand even the most basic topics in digital filter design. Furthermore, they must either have very limited listening experiences, or just have ears that are relatively insensitive. |
#445
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"The Artist" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" emitted : What's the point in a real-time EQ which "takes a few seconds to take hold"? I have never seen or heard of such a thing. I know of several examples. Name some. Given that they are in very common software like Winamp, I'm surprised you've never encountered this situation. I've seen it in hardware digital equalizers as well. I don't use Winamp. Then do us all the favor of not commenting on software that you don't use. All the plugs I've used offer near instantaneous response. The equalizer in Winamp isn't a plug-in. Please see former comments about not commenting about something you have no relevant experience with. In fact, it's a pre-requisite that they do so (have instantaneous response). Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. If I wanted a delay line... If you had actually worked with the Winamp equalizer, you'd know what I'm talking about. The core of most common digital filters is a tapped delay line. The rest of that kind of filter is a mixer. This implies that the filter has delay. The delay may or may not be frequency-dependent. Of course, analog filters can easily cause signal delay as well. Many digital filters have feedback, all IIR filters do. IIR filters are chosen because they usually take less resources to accomplish a given outcome. If you change filter parameters, it takes a while for the signal levels in the various feedback paths to stabilize because the paths have delays in them. Until the signal levels stabilize, the amplitude and phase characteristics of the filter are in a state of flux. In many cases this can be heard. It's especially audible in filters that affect low frequencies, while it's less likely to be heard in filters that affect only the highest frequencies. Some digital filters are FFT-based. They aren't explicitly based on tapped delay lines. Obviously, any change in the parameters of a FFT filter is not going to be effective until the next batch of samples is processed. If you want a narrow filter at low frequencies, say for rejecting hum, the sample size is going to be significant. You again have a delay before changes become audible. Of course people who know the difference between things like FFT, FIR and IIR filters know all about stuff like this. It's obvious that people who don't know about what I'm talking about don't really understand even the most basic topics in digital filter design. Furthermore, they must either have very limited listening experiences, or just have ears that are relatively insensitive. |
#446
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"David White" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "David White" wrote in message Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along. Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings. They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave seems to be about twice as sensitive. If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct. I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you increase a band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB, regardless of the range allowed. Agreed. But there's a perceptual issue due to the fact that the graphic controls have a different dB range. If you read the numbers, they are what they are. BTW, there's no guarantee that the numbers are truly representative, but a little FR testing would tell the tale. The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because they affect a wider range of frequencies. Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive. I think we're on the same page, here. |
#447
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"David White" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "David White" wrote in message Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along. Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings. They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave seems to be about twice as sensitive. If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct. I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you increase a band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB, regardless of the range allowed. Agreed. But there's a perceptual issue due to the fact that the graphic controls have a different dB range. If you read the numbers, they are what they are. BTW, there's no guarantee that the numbers are truly representative, but a little FR testing would tell the tale. The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because they affect a wider range of frequencies. Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive. I think we're on the same page, here. |
#448
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"David White" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "David White" wrote in message Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along. Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings. They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave seems to be about twice as sensitive. If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct. I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you increase a band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB, regardless of the range allowed. Agreed. But there's a perceptual issue due to the fact that the graphic controls have a different dB range. If you read the numbers, they are what they are. BTW, there's no guarantee that the numbers are truly representative, but a little FR testing would tell the tale. The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because they affect a wider range of frequencies. Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive. I think we're on the same page, here. |
#449
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"David White" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "David White" wrote in message Yes, I've been using Winamp for that purpose to speed things along. Goldwave doesn't equalize in real time. However, I haven't figured out how to convert Winamp equalizer settings to Goldwave settings. They each seem to have a different idea of what a dB is. Goldwave seems to be about twice as sensitive. If you're talking about the Goldwave graphic equalizer, it does have slightly more dB range (24 dB) as the Winamp equalizer (20 dB). A given graphic adjustment has about 1/5 more effect, if the scales are correct. I thought the dB values were absolute in both cases, so if you increase a band by 1 dB, the affected fequencies increase by 1 dB, regardless of the range allowed. Agreed. But there's a perceptual issue due to the fact that the graphic controls have a different dB range. If you read the numbers, they are what they are. BTW, there's no guarantee that the numbers are truly representative, but a little FR testing would tell the tale. The Winamp bands (11) are narrower than the Gold wave bands (7). Broader bands have more obvious effects all other things being equal, because they affect a wider range of frequencies. Yes, maybe that's the reason Goldwave seems more sensitive. I think we're on the same page, here. |
#450
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. You mean like talking about current versions of SF? |
#451
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. You mean like talking about current versions of SF? |
#452
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. You mean like talking about current versions of SF? |
#453
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. You mean like talking about current versions of SF? |
#454
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:08:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. You mean like talking about current versions of SF? I based my comments on statements that were made in this thread, and cited online documents. OTOH, its hard to talk about the feel of the controls of an audio product without actually experiencing them. Given that the topic was Winamp which anybody with a Windows PC can download for free and run as they will... I see the new Weil political correctness coming- you can't comment on other people's comments and cited online documents unless you have personal experience with the topic. No, that's what *you* said. Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will be my last response to you until you again start making sense. |
#455
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:08:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. You mean like talking about current versions of SF? I based my comments on statements that were made in this thread, and cited online documents. OTOH, its hard to talk about the feel of the controls of an audio product without actually experiencing them. Given that the topic was Winamp which anybody with a Windows PC can download for free and run as they will... I see the new Weil political correctness coming- you can't comment on other people's comments and cited online documents unless you have personal experience with the topic. No, that's what *you* said. Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will be my last response to you until you again start making sense. |
#456
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:08:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. You mean like talking about current versions of SF? I based my comments on statements that were made in this thread, and cited online documents. OTOH, its hard to talk about the feel of the controls of an audio product without actually experiencing them. Given that the topic was Winamp which anybody with a Windows PC can download for free and run as they will... I see the new Weil political correctness coming- you can't comment on other people's comments and cited online documents unless you have personal experience with the topic. No, that's what *you* said. Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will be my last response to you until you again start making sense. |
#457
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:08:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:48:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Please see former comments about not commenting about something you already admitted that you have no relevant experience with. You mean like talking about current versions of SF? I based my comments on statements that were made in this thread, and cited online documents. OTOH, its hard to talk about the feel of the controls of an audio product without actually experiencing them. Given that the topic was Winamp which anybody with a Windows PC can download for free and run as they will... I see the new Weil political correctness coming- you can't comment on other people's comments and cited online documents unless you have personal experience with the topic. No, that's what *you* said. Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will be my last response to you until you again start making sense. |
#458
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:24:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: No, that's what *you* said. Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will be my last response to you until you again start making sense. Yep, this proves it. Thank you for confirming that what I said was right. Now if you would only take your own advice to all of my postings... |
#459
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:24:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: No, that's what *you* said. Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will be my last response to you until you again start making sense. Yep, this proves it. Thank you for confirming that what I said was right. Now if you would only take your own advice to all of my postings... |
#460
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:24:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: No, that's what *you* said. Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will be my last response to you until you again start making sense. Yep, this proves it. Thank you for confirming that what I said was right. Now if you would only take your own advice to all of my postings... |
#461
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:24:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: No, that's what *you* said. Not at all. Since you're obviously desperate for attention Weil, this will be my last response to you until you again start making sense. Yep, this proves it. Thank you for confirming that what I said was right. Now if you would only take your own advice to all of my postings... |
#462
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
A lot of people like Sound Forge, but I think Gold Wave is excellent. I'm
also using Adobe Audition, the program that replaced Cool Edit. It permits Multi-tracking, which is not a feature on Goldwave. -- Jerry Berrier Shrewsbury, MA http://www.townisp.com/~jerry.berrier "SPS22" wrote in message m... After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these programs? Any other program that is recommended around here? Thanks. -Surinder |
#463
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
A lot of people like Sound Forge, but I think Gold Wave is excellent. I'm
also using Adobe Audition, the program that replaced Cool Edit. It permits Multi-tracking, which is not a feature on Goldwave. -- Jerry Berrier Shrewsbury, MA http://www.townisp.com/~jerry.berrier "SPS22" wrote in message m... After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these programs? Any other program that is recommended around here? Thanks. -Surinder |
#464
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
A lot of people like Sound Forge, but I think Gold Wave is excellent. I'm
also using Adobe Audition, the program that replaced Cool Edit. It permits Multi-tracking, which is not a feature on Goldwave. -- Jerry Berrier Shrewsbury, MA http://www.townisp.com/~jerry.berrier "SPS22" wrote in message m... After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these programs? Any other program that is recommended around here? Thanks. -Surinder |
#465
|
|||
|
|||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC
A lot of people like Sound Forge, but I think Gold Wave is excellent. I'm
also using Adobe Audition, the program that replaced Cool Edit. It permits Multi-tracking, which is not a feature on Goldwave. -- Jerry Berrier Shrewsbury, MA http://www.townisp.com/~jerry.berrier "SPS22" wrote in message m... After the take over of CoolEdit, what is a well-recommended software tool for editing sound on a PC? I have been using Audacity, and Goldwave. Goldwave has many more features than Audacity, although I find it easier to use than Goldwave. What do people think of these programs? Any other program that is recommended around here? Thanks. -Surinder |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Sound analyse software | Pro Audio | |||
[OT] Sound measure software with equivalent sound level meter? | Pro Audio | |||
Sound vs. Audio | Pro Audio | |||
What Software for Editing Sound on PC | General | |||
science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio |