[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Trevor]

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.

[Trevor]

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.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[geoff]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[Trevor]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[geoff]

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

[JackA]

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

[Trevor]

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.