LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  November 2009

ARSCLIST November 2009

Subject:

Re: Sound Forge issues

From:

Peter Alyea <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:40:54 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (259 lines)

Hi Tom,

The converse argument for future proofing is that video and pro audio is
all standardized on 48kHz. Quite a lot of people believe that audio with
video is more likely the standard for the future than audio alone. If
you wanted to repurpose audio to sync with video, choosing a 44.1kHz
base standard would not be the best choice. Considering that SACD and
DVD-A are generally considered dead formats, whereas, Blu-ray is still
hanging on, one could argue that hi-res and media based audio is more
likely to succeed on a video format. Or look at how many podcasts have
moved from audio only to audio with video and almost all portable mp3
type players have the ability to show video. Of coarse this is all
conjecture, but those are the types of arguments made. Also, many find
the current resampling methods available to be so transparent between
96kHz and 44.1kHz that it isn't a problem for down-sampled listening and
if you want to listen to the highest fidelity version available, you
would playback the hi-res source and down-sampling wouldn't even come
into play.

Peter

>>> Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> 11/19/09 8:06 AM >>>
PS -- I'm a big advocate of standardizing on 88.2/24 as the archival
transfer format due to the very 
simple computer math of down-sampling the long-established and heavily
entrenched CD standard for 
playback and general-use copies. The Grammy Foundation demands 96/24 as
a minimum, so most grant 
recipients must adhere to this since most grant givers seem to adopt
Grammy Foundation standards. I 
don't think it's a huge issue, but making something future proof, it
seems to me, includes making 
conversion to common-use formats as simple as possible. I'm not saying
computing is likely to take a 
step back to where it's "hard math" to down-sample from 96 to 44.1, but
it's not outside of all 
possibilities, so why create a small risk for no reason. Is there a
science-based argument where 96 
vs 88.1 makes any difference in the audible frequencies?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sound Forge issues


> Hi Guys:
>
> I've been using SoundForge since V4 (pre-Sony). Now using V9 in the
studio. In my Windows XP Pro 
> systems, 2gig seems to be the limit, not time of audio. As a rule,
when I'm transferring in 96/24 
> or 88.1/24, which is most of the time, I have to keep file-running
time to 58 minutes for 2 
> channels, just under 2 hours for mono.
>
> This formula seems to work:
>
> ----------------------------------------
> size = sample rate * number of channels * (bits per sample /8) * time
in seconds.
>
> So a 44.1 hHz, stereo 16 bit wav file lasting 60 seconds should be :
>
> Size = (44.1 * 2 * (16/8) * 60) / 1024 [the division by 1024 is to get
megabytes]
> Size = 10,3359 MB
> ------------------------------------------
>
> But I am not a mathematics person by any stretch!
>
> Using this formula, 58 minutes of 96/24 2-channel creates 1.9575 gig
of data. Soundforge file 
> headers and metadata stuff don't take up more than a few bits, so this
is a safe outer limit, in 
> my experience.
>
> Using 88.2/24, you can go just over 1 hour within the file size.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Peter Alyea" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sound Forge issues
>
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I tried to save data in Sound Forge v10 to the WAV format that would
>> result in a file that was larger than 2GB and the warning dialog box
>> popped up telling me that I was trying to save an illegal file size.
>> Unless you have uncovered an unusual bug in Sound Forge, I would
guess
>> that the files that you have been able to save are legal WAV files.
Is
>> it possible you are reading the "size on disk" value for these files?
>> The "size on disk" value can be la>> Anyway, the symptoms you described during playback of these files all
>> sound like clocking problems. You might want to run some tests to
make
>> sure your clock is accurate and stable.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>>>> Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> 11/17/09 2:06 PM >>>
>> Hi, Peter,
>>
>> The client specified 96/24 WAV.  Not much flex here.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Peter Alyea" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sound Forge issues
>>
>>
>>> Hi Steve,
>>>
>>> Are you saving the files in WAV format? I don't think Sound Forge
will
>>> allow you to save a file beyond the legal limit for the file type.
>> Also,
>>> what makes you state that the files are saving reluctantly? Is there
a
>>> warning dialog box that pops up?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>>>> Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> 11/16/09 5:41 PM >>>
>>> Hello, Peter et al, (Al, are you out there?)
>>>
>>> I'm formatted in NTFS.  It seems to be saving files, albeit
>> reluctantly,
>>>
>>> above 2G but not by much- the longest is 2123xxxkb, It played back
ok-
>>> this
>>> times.
>>>
>>> To be on the safe side, I think I'll divvy them up into .1 and .2
>>> halves.  -
>>> unless you think I can safely avoid the nuisanace.  Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Peter Alyea" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 10:40 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sound Forge issues
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you are having problems, you might want to check that your hard
>>> drive
>>>> is formatted as NTFS and not FAT32. Also, more recent versions of
>>> Sound
>>>> Forge will record to a buffer beyond the 2GB limit, but will not
>> allow
>>>> you to save the data out to a 2GB limited file format. WAV64 and
RAW
>>> do
>>>> not have the file size limit. RF64 would work as well, but I don't
>>> know
>>>> if it is implemented yet.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> *******************************
>>>> Peter Alyea
>>>> Digital Conversion Specialist, Preservation Reformatting Division
>>>> Library of Congress
>>>> (202) 707-5343
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Raphaël Parejo-Coudert
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> 11/16/09 9:58 AM >>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> Many sound editors limit the files to two hours in length. I'm
using
>>>> Peak pro 6.1.1 on Mac OS X, I get the same results!
>>>>
>>>> Best regards.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> R. PAREJO-COUDERT
>>>>
>>>> Ethnomusicologue / Ethnomusicologist / Etnomusicólogo
>>>>
>>>> Anthropologie visuelle et sonore
>>>> Visual and Sound Anthropology
>>>> Antropología visual y sonora
>>>>
>>>> Archives sonores - Archivos sonoros - Sound Archives
>>>>
>>>> °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le (El) Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:38:21 +0200, Shai Drori, wrote me / m'a
>>>> écrit / me escribió:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It has to do with an old windows file limit of 2Gb. New systems can
>>>>>record longer files but it's a try and see what happens deal. You
>>>>>shouldn't have a problem with 1 hor tapes.
>>>>>Shai
>>>>>
>>>>>Steven Smolian wrote:
>>>>>> I recall seeing on line the comment that Sound Forge files are
>>>> limited
>>>>>to two hours in length.  I can't find anything about this is the SF
8
>>>>>book, but I seldom think of the same words for a problem as does
the
>>>>>index maker. I'm using SF 10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am working with a group of tapes of about one hour in length
>> being
>>>>>saved as 96/24 files, c. 2.5 times the size of 44.1/16 files.
>>>>>> Am I correct in assuming the 2 hour limit relates to files at the
>>>>>44.1/16 type and those requiring greater real estate have to fit
this
>>>> limit?
>>>>>> I've noticed that one I saved played back first at regular speed
>> but
>>>>>in all subsequent playbacks at half speed.  The one I recorded next
>>>> quit
>>>>>recording about half-way through and, though peaking at -4,
crackled
>>> in
>>>>>playback as if levels were past zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The storage medium showed two-thirds of the disc remained unused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should I divide these 1 hour, 96/24 files to accommodate the
>> nominal
>>>>>limit of Sound Forge?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Smolian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager