Re: [linux-audio-dev] "pro" soundfile editors for linux

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] "pro" soundfile editors for linux
From: Paul Winkler (slinkp23_AT_yahoo.com)
Date: ti helmi  08 2000 - 02:24:49 EST


Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
> As someone else pointed out, all pro editing software uses edit
> lists. Moreover, some things cannot be undone. Let me give you an
> example of something thats on my mind right now.
>
> With an ADAT recorder, you can specify the crossfade time that is used
> when you punch-in and punch-out (start and stop
> recording/overdubbing). This varies from about 1 to 50msecs as I
> recall. The end result, on the ADAT anyway, is a splice in the data as
> any existing recording is faded out and the new stuff fades in. There
> is no record of either of the original data streams - just the
> resulting mix. I can see no way that you could come back later and
> alter the crossfade in such a system - you don't have the original
> data to work with.
>
> If you did this with ecasound, it seems to me that you have the same
> problem, unless you stash a copy of the 2 original data streams away
> somewhere.
>
> To be honest, I can't see a solution to this problem that does *not*
> involve making a copy of both the original data stream on the track
> and the new stuff for every punch-in, punch-out point. This is true
> whether you use an edit list or not.

Really? Maybe I misunderstand you ... how about this:

"Punch" simply is a convenient interface to a special combination of
overdubbing and mixing. That is, punching in records to a new track
and places crossfades between the old track and the new track at the
punch points. In the UI, the new track would by default be hidden
from view and muted, except at the punch region, where it could be
displayed in the track view of the old region. (This doesn't work
like analog-style punching in -- maybe it should be called something
more descriptive like "cross-punch", or is that MORE confusing?)
 
This way, during recording it seems like a punch-in to the
performer; it sounds like a punch-in during playback; it even looks
like a punch-in onscreen, but with distinct advantages:

1) No need to copy any existing data since nothing gets erased

2) The crossfade envelopes can be edited to your heart's content
later

3) The punch-in / out points can be moved in time if you decide
later that you punched out too soon or late! (of course, you are
bound by the limitations of what the performer did during the punch,
but that's not something you should try to fix with software!)

4) "Undo" is easy since all you have to do is take the crossfades
out of your edit list -- the original track data never went away.

Of course, to do this, you have to have your track data-files not
hardwired to particular mixer / editor channels, which is a downfall
of some home-brew multitrack apps (like Multitrack for instance).
Even if your recorder and editor apps are not integrated, as long as
they can read/write the same files and edit lists you're OK.

................ paul winkler ..................
slinkP arts: music, sound, illustration, design, etc.
A member of ARMS -----> http://www.reacharms.com
or http://www.mp3.com/arms or http://www.amp3.net/arms
personal page ----> http://www.ulster.net/~abigoo


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:23:27 EST