 |
 |
Some of the lesser Sony products based on soundforge don't do zero-point editing. At 04:21 PM 8/15/2008, you wrote: >Why is it that no one is this discussion has >mentioned Sony Sound Forge Audio Studio 9.0 >which does 24 bit/ 96 k processing and costs about 50 USD? > >Steve Abrams > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Brylawski" <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 2:32 PM >Subject: [ARSCLIST] The Hope of Audacity >Was--Re: [ARSCLIST] Seeking recommendations for >oral history digitization equipment (fwd) > > >Sorry for the mistyping on Soundforge, Tom . I didn't mean to imply >that I thought that Audacity was in a league with Soundforge and any >other professional applications. I'm not qualified to say and trust >your judgment that it's not. I was just wondering whether someone on a >tight budget who is transferring spoken word from cassettes might be >OK with Audacity. I've used it for the primitive work I'm capable of >doing and it worked. Your reference to it was so dismissive that it >led me to question whether Audacity might corrupt files in some way. I >do admit, however, that I'm sensitive to over-tooling, or whatever the >expression is. That is, buying a Ferrari to drive to the grocery >store. > >Sam > >On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>Hi Sam: >> >>No reason at all they shouldn't use Soundforge! That's why I recommend it. >>It's easy to learn, easy to use and perfect for bringing in 2 channels and >>now more channels at a time. Plus the latest version comes with very nice >>processing and restoration tools that, again, are not hard to learn or use. >>And as I alluded to, the latest version (9) finally allows for more than 2 >>channels at a time -- I currently have it set up for 4 channels at a time. >> >>An academic or institutional customer should be able to find the >>academic-discount price for any software, which is cheap compared to the >>cost of redoing a project due to bad work. >> >>My experience with Audacity was that it's akin to the graphic user >>interfaces floating around for Linux -- it's klunky and primative and you're >>fooling yourself if you think it's in the league of a real-deal, >>paid-professional program. It's freeware, this is something that people with >>no budget use because they have to, which is fine but non-ideal for doing >>efficient and high-quality transfer work. If I were a guy wanting to get my >>semi-worn-out LP collection into my iPod, I'd have no issues with plugging a >>cheap preamp into my soundcard and using Adacity. If I were a professional >>trying to preserve an archive of unique sound recordings, I'd scale up >>substantially and do the job right so I didn't have to do it again and I >>could leave a legacy of high-quality digital audio for the future. >> >>I'm sure any of the pro-grade programs are in the same league as Soundforge, >>btw, I just recommend because I use it and know it. I will say that I find >>Protools overly complex for almost anything I'd do, and a >>tracking/sequencing program like Acid or Cubase may or may not be >>appropriate for this sort of work. Its seems like DC6/DC7 would work just as >>well, too, and perhaps at a lower cost. >> >>Finally, let me emphasize that software choice should be secondary to as >>good an analog playback as possible and as good a digital interface as >>possible. The hardware quality or lack thereof can ruin a transfer effort >>right from the start. With any competent software used by a person who knows >>how it works, you have to work at it some to ruin the audio quality. It's >>more a matter of how you want to spend your time -- fussing with primative >>and klunky interfaces or getting the job done efficiently. >> >>-- Tom Fine >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Brylawski" <[log in to unmask]> >>To: <[log in to unmask]> >>Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:19 PM >>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Seeking recommendations for oral history >>digitization equipment (fwd) >> >> >>Tom, >> >>You've made an unequivocal non-recommendation of Audacity. For someone >>on a budget who is only re-formatting/migrating, presumably w/o >>"processing," exactly why shouldn't they use Soundforge? Deatils would >>be very useful. >> >>Sam >> >>On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> >>wrote: >>> >>>The most cost-effective way to do a large-ish transfer project is do it >>>once >>>and do it right. So, you don't want to cut too many corners. Joel has laid >>>out a bunch of good points before. Even for cassette-quality oral history >>>type stuff, it's best to do a good -resolution transfer once on a >>>well-maintained deck into a decent digital signal chain. Bottom-barrell >>>stuff will give bottom-barrell results but there is a whole range of >>>reasonably-priced and good quality gear out there. >>> >>>As for software, I hate Audacity. I think it's worth exactly what it >>>costs. >>>It's klunky garbage, at least the last version I used, which was 2 years >>>ago. Much better is Sony Soundforge which can be had very reasonably if >>>one >>>is an education-related institution (see Educator Superstore website for >>>instance). The newest version of Soundforge comes with restoration/cleanup >>>tools that, when used conservatively and tastefully, can be very helpful >>>with this kind of audio. >>> >>>Your best practice is to plan on at least three collections of files: 1) >>>raw >>>transfer PCM audio, hopefully higher resolution (I like 88.2/24 or 96/24 >>>but >>>Richard Hess makes a convincing argument that 44.1/24 is perfectly OK for >>>spoken-word material). 2) processed PCM, this would be NR'd, normalized, >>>EQ'd etc and perhaps saved at CD resolution with a "safety" version burned >>>to archival CD media. 3) online/small-format version, MP3 or whatever >>>crunched format you used, saved from the CD-quality processed PCM version. >>>This would be for online/streaming or podcast use. These can be batch-made >>>by Soundforge out of the processed PCM files. My caveat would be, beware >>>crunching too lossy. Spoken word starts sounding really crappy when it's >>>surrounded by digi-swishies and other artifacts. I never go lower than >>>96kbps for MP3, which some might consider overkill but I sure don't. I >>>actually prefer 128kbps whenever possible because it preserves the upper >>>mouth/throat air resonances of most voices and also a decent MP3 cruncher >>>won't make swishies out of even heavy tape hiss. >>> >>>Don't neglect the cassette end of this. Having a Tascam 122MkII is one >>>thing >>>but, how old is it and how well-maintained is it? I highly recommend >>>sending >>>it to NJ Factory Service for a refurb and have him make sure the head is >>>OK >>>too. As of a few months ago, Tascam still had heads, belts and other parts >>>for these machines. >>> >>>Now that you see that even this kind of "pedestrian" audio is no simple >>>feat >>>to transfer and preserve correctly, have you considered out-sourcing the >>>transfer work? You could then concentrate your expertise on archiving, >>>editing, and making available your assets. There are grants out there to >>>pay >>>for outsourcing audio work to audio professionals. >>> >>>-- Tom Fine >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- From: "JA Eaton" <[log in to unmask]> >>>To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:11 PM >>>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Seeking recommendations for oral history >>>digitization equipment (fwd) >>> >>> >>>Hi John, >>> >>>Some thoughts on your situation... >>> >>>1) As you are digitising for the first time, it's worth thinking about >>>preserving your files for future use, especially if you expand this >>>resource in the future. Therefore it's probably worth digitising your >>>material in the highest quality available in a format best suitable for >>>sustainability in the best possible way. >>> >>>Which leads to... >>> >>>2) Record your audio in the best available quality and convert down to >>>CD/web quality afterwards. i.e. 88.2Khz/24bit. You can back up the >>>'master' >>>files onto a hard drive or DVD's/CD's. Even though you may not need >>>these high quality files now, it'd save any future re-digitising issues >>>and >>>provide you with a backup if anything goes wrong. You may wish to consider >>>using open source file formats for future proofing such as Vorbis ogg or >>>FLAC, whereas WAV or AIFF are fine for CD distribution. >>> >>>which leads to... >>> >>>3) >>> >>>>One of the USB interfaces I was looking >>>>at (the Tascam US-144) comes with a free version of Cubase, but I don't >>>>know that it would be any better for our purposes than Audacity >>> >>>A dedicated A>D converter over USB 2.0 or Firewire is going to give you >>>much better conversion quality than plugging into your internal soundcard. >>>These vary in quality and price and will generally be defined by your >>>budget. Quality of the pre-amps you use is also worth noting. >>> >>>4. Pro Tools is a highly advanced multitracking and editing suite which >>>although capable is probably far too advanced for your needs. If you were >>>planning on digitising multiple media at once (multitracking) then >>>something of this ilk may be worth thinking about. (note that Pro Tools is >>>only compatible with it's own hardware except for Pro Tools M-Powered, a >>>lighter version). Audacity on the other is a freeware simple interface for >>>recording, simple editing, basic processing techniques and file >>>conversion. >>>One consideration is that the simpler (and cheaper) the program then the >>>less 'restoration' processing features it is likely to offer (should you >>>need them), such as de-noisers etc. >>> >>>5. >>> >>>>Anyway, your thoughts on a good USB interface, a good and inexpensive >>>>pair of monitors, headphones >>> >>>a good pair of monitors may be worthless if your listening environment is >>>not designed for audio analysis(e.g. your desk is in a big open plan >>>office >>>with lots of background noise), however there are some decent reference >>>monitors on the market under the £400 mark. (KRK, Genelec being at the >>>top >>>end of the scale). >>> >>>Again look for professional headphones with a 'flat' response (i.e. not >>>marketed to D.J's, live broadcast etc) but this can often be tricky >>>judging >>>between brands. Try AKG, Sennheiser. >>> >>>USB interfaces. at the top end of the price scale (for your project >>>anyhow)MOTU make decent converters with quality preamps, alternatively >>>M-Audio, Edirol and Mackie do cheaper products. Look for ones which offer >>>higher sample rates/larger bit depth for any future needs. >>> >>>hope this is of some help! >>> >>>Joel Eaton >>> >>>---------------------- >>>Joel Eaton TSO - Sound Resources >>>TASI - A JISC Advisory Service >>> >>>[log in to unmask] >>> >>>Free Helpdesk for UK Further and Higher Education: <[log in to unmask]> >>>Online advice documents: <http://www.tasi.ac.uk/> >>>Hands-on training: <http://www.tasi.ac.uk/training/>