Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 7/14/2016 6:34 AM, Trevor wrote:
Exactly what I decided over 20 years ago, no need for scrub any more when I can hit a key to zoom into the waveform, drop the cursor exactly where I want, hit play to see if it's spot on, and nudge it into place if it isn't. But look at how many steps that is: 1. Remember which key to press in order to zoom in 2. Put the cursor somewhere you think is the right place 3. Play and listen. Maybe you can figure out where you are, maybe you can't 4. Fumble around until you get to the right place. With tape (or a well implemented emulation), you do it all in one step. 1. Get in the ballpark, slow down to a crawl, stop at the right place, and you're there. Using rougher analog tools in digital simply because you have never made the transition properly is just doing things the hard way IMO. But each to their own. You've hit on the difference here. With the digital tools, you can locate your edit point within one sample, but in practice, you almost never actually have to do that. But, like with analog playback or the equivalent, you can't hear where you are until you move away from the point you've selected. And then you have to get back there. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 7/14/2016 6:54 AM, Trevor wrote:
20 years and you haven't RTFM yet? The FM calls it "shuttle" and not "scrub." It's correct. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 14/07/2016 11:06 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
You've hit on the difference here. With the digital tools, you can locate your edit point within one sample, but in practice, you almost never actually have to do that. But, like with analog playback or the equivalent, you can't hear where you are until you move away from the point you've selected. And then you have to get back there. I can usually look at a waveform and get to within a bar of wjere I need to be in the time it would take to reach over to the FF button ! geoff |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
In article , Trevor wrote:
Exactly what I decided over 20 years ago, no need for scrub any more when I can hit a key to zoom into the waveform, drop the cursor exactly where I want, hit play to see if it's spot on, and nudge it into place if it isn't. Using rougher analog tools in digital simply because you have never made the transition properly is just doing things the hard way IMO. But each to their own. If you're trying to pull out individual syllables within a word and paste over them, you're not going to manage it by eye. You just can't see the individual phonemes in the waveform, but you can sure hear them going forward and back. For just fixing a note in a trumpet solo, there's no real need, but plenty of folks do more touchy editing than that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 14/07/2016 9:06 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/14/2016 6:34 AM, Trevor wrote: Exactly what I decided over 20 years ago, no need for scrub any more when I can hit a key to zoom into the waveform, drop the cursor exactly where I want, hit play to see if it's spot on, and nudge it into place if it isn't. But look at how many steps that is: 1. Remember which key to press in order to zoom in 2. Put the cursor somewhere you think is the right place 3. Play and listen. Maybe you can figure out where you are, maybe you can't 4. Fumble around until you get to the right place. And it's so easy it takes me a ***LOT*** less time than it did with a scrub wheel, wax pencil, splicing block, razor blade and splicing tape! Methinks you just like complaining rather than learning a few simple keystrokes! The secret to using most software is memorising a few short-cut keys. It's really not that hard for most people. With tape (or a well implemented emulation), you do it all in one step. 1. Get in the ballpark, slow down to a crawl, stop at the right place, and you're there. Using rougher analog tools in digital simply because you have never made the transition properly is just doing things the hard way IMO. But each to their own. You've hit on the difference here. With the digital tools, you can locate your edit point within one sample, but in practice, you almost never actually have to do that. But, like with analog playback or the equivalent, you can't hear where you are until you move away from the point you've selected. And then you have to get back there. Once I've placed the cursor where I think by actually looking while listening, I only have to hit the spacebar to play from that point. Hitting the spacebar again instantly returns to the exact same *sample* point, something you can't do with a scrub wheel! A little nudge if necessary, and I'm done. Easy to just drop a marker too if I want to come back later instead, or chop out/insert large chunks etc. :-) Trevor. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 14/07/2016 10:13 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote: Exactly what I decided over 20 years ago, no need for scrub any more when I can hit a key to zoom into the waveform, drop the cursor exactly where I want, hit play to see if it's spot on, and nudge it into place if it isn't. Using rougher analog tools in digital simply because you have never made the transition properly is just doing things the hard way IMO. But each to their own. If you're trying to pull out individual syllables within a word and paste over them, you're not going to manage it by eye. You just can't see the individual phonemes in the waveform, but you can sure hear them going forward and back. You are joking right? It is FAR EASIER to see *exactly* where I want to cut as it scrolls past while listening, than I could ever possibly achieve with tape and scrub wheel! For just fixing a note in a trumpet solo, there's no real need, but plenty of folks do more touchy editing than that. Yep, I do all the time. I even get some of that tedious **** because others cannot do it efficiently enough to be cost effective. Probably trying to do it with a scrub wheel! :-) Trevor. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 7/14/2016 7:30 AM, geoff wrote:
I can usually look at a waveform and get to within a bar of wjere I need to be in the time it would take to reach over to the FF button ! It depends on how much you're looking at, and if you're looking at bars. If you have a 5 minute song, how can you tell where to find the word you want to repair? You have to listen at least somewhere around it, then zoom in and fumble around. At least that's the way it is for me. If you work on metronome-locked music and display time in bars and beats, then, sure, you can get really close as long as you're familiar with the song. If you wrote it, performed it, and recorded it, then you probably are. But try that on a cranky old crooked fiddle tune that's never played the same way twice. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 15/07/2016 3:37 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/14/2016 7:30 AM, geoff wrote: I can usually look at a waveform and get to within a bar of wjere I need to be in the time it would take to reach over to the FF button ! It depends on how much you're looking at, and if you're looking at bars. If you have a 5 minute song, how can you tell where to find the word you want to repair? You have to listen at least somewhere around it, then zoom in and fumble around. At least that's the way it is for me. Depending on the music and how familiar I have become, I can usually see the intro, verses, choruses, bridges, etc as distinct parts, and jump pretty much close to where I want ot go, then use my ears, and maybe scrub/jog/whatever. Doesn't work on themka's favourite envelopes though ;-) And then also you have the time counter if ytou've already identified the location timewise. geoff |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 15/07/2016 12:13 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
But each to their own. If you're trying to pull out individual syllables within a word and paste over them, you're not going to manage it by eye. You just can't see the individual phonemes in the waveform, but you can sure hear them going forward and back. Nobody was suggesting that. I was suggesting finding the part to start listening to, to withing a few seconds or even tens of. And o nce it's found, drop a marker and you cab be there any time, any session, to the exact spot in a second or so after loading up. geoff |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
geoff wrote:
On 15/07/2016 12:13 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote: But each to their own. If you're trying to pull out individual syllables within a word and paste over them, you're not going to manage it by eye. You just can't see the individual phonemes in the waveform, but you can sure hear them going forward and back. Nobody was suggesting that. I was suggesting finding the part to start listening to, to withing a few seconds or even tens of. I believe Trevor was. And o nce it's found, drop a marker and you cab be there any time, any session, to the exact spot in a second or so after loading up. Yes, it's MUCH nicer than china marker and slips of paper. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 7/14/2016 5:35 PM, geoff wrote:
On 15/07/2016 12:13 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote: You just can't see the individual phonemes in the waveform, but you can sure hear them going forward and back. Nobody was suggesting that. I was suggesting finding the part to start listening to, to withing a few seconds or even tens of. Oh, then never mind. I thought we were discussing the value of scrubbing for real editing. But then, "edit" seems to have taken on a new meaning among the younger generation. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 15/07/2016 10:35 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/14/2016 5:35 PM, geoff wrote: On 15/07/2016 12:13 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote: You just can't see the individual phonemes in the waveform, but you can sure hear them going forward and back. Nobody was suggesting that. I was suggesting finding the part to start listening to, to withing a few seconds or even tens of. Oh, then never mind. I thought we were discussing the value of scrubbing for real editing. But then, "edit" seems to have taken on a new meaning among the younger generation. First time I've been referred to as 'younger' for a few decades I thought the conversation has expanded out to more than just scrubbing over a small section., on my part at least . geoff |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 15/07/2016 8:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote: On 15/07/2016 12:13 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote: But each to their own. If you're trying to pull out individual syllables within a word and paste over them, you're not going to manage it by eye. You just can't see the individual phonemes in the waveform, but you can sure hear them going forward and back. Nobody was suggesting that. I was suggesting finding the part to start listening to, to withing a few seconds or even tens of. I believe Trevor was. Yep, I just don't get how you think hearing alone is better than hearing AND seeing? The latter sure works better for me anyway. Trevor. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 15/07/2016 8:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: geoff wrote: On 15/07/2016 12:13 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote: But each to their own. If you're trying to pull out individual syllables within a word and paste over them, you're not going to manage it by eye. You just can't see the individual phonemes in the waveform, but you can sure hear them going forward and back. Nobody was suggesting that. I was suggesting finding the part to start listening to, to withing a few seconds or even tens of. I believe Trevor was. Yep, I just don't get how you think hearing alone is better than hearing AND seeing? The latter sure works better for me anyway. I never said it did. I just said that the seeing doesn't really add anything much for fine work, and scrubbing does. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 15/07/2016 10:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I never said it did. I just said that the seeing doesn't really add anything much for fine work, and scrubbing does. Does wonders for sharp transients. geoff |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 8:18:16 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 15/07/2016 10:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: I never said it did. I just said that the seeing doesn't really add anything much for fine work, and scrubbing does. Does wonders for sharp transients. Scrub: (someone or something) hard so as to clean them, typically with a brush and water. Oh, must be for cleaning vinyl records!! Jack geoff |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Pro Tools - You Have To Be Joking...
On 15/07/2016 8:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yep, I just don't get how you think hearing alone is better than hearing AND seeing? The latter sure works better for me anyway. I never said it did. I just said that the seeing doesn't really add anything much for fine work, and scrubbing does. And once again I beg to differ on that, but as I already said, each to their own. Trevor. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|