On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 21:41, John Richard Smith wrote: > Brian Parish wrote: > > > > >Dons audio engineer hat.... > > > > > >The idea to use rezound is probably a good one just because it allows > >you to see what's going on. Of course if there are 3000 tracks to > >process, the CLI approach has a lot to recommend it! > > > >HTH > >Brian > > > > > Thanks, to all, for the support from you have given me, you have > opened > up a treasure of possibilities for me in regard to getting to grips > with > sound manipulation. > > May I first confirm that there are a number of options as regards to > which normalize command I should choose when trying to reset sound > levels, here are what I have guessed from the help files and man > pages, > no practicable examples are give , so it's a question of trial and > error. Still this is generally how I have currently come to > understand it, > > normalize -n --no-adjust *.wav > n= a number, but what ? not clear from helpfile exactly what number. > I don't quite understand exactly what this is doing but seems to > indicate it is assessing the current state of .wav files and what it > thinks it needs to be done without actually implemmenting it, correct ? > > Below seems to be the general range of the normalize -g command, > correct ? > normalize -g 1.1 *.wav > normalize -g 1.2 *.wav > normalize -g 1.3 *.wav > normalize -g 1.4 *.wav > normalize -g 1.5 *.wav > normalize -g 1.6 *.wav > normalize -g 1.7 *.wav > normalize -g 1.8 *.wav > normalize -g 1.9 *.wav > normalize -g 2.0 *.wav = twice volume level > > Then there is a normalize -a command (amplitude ?) > with a range as follows, > normalize -a 1.0 *.wav scale 0.0 to 1.0 > normalize -a 0.9 *.wav > normalize -a 0.8 *.wav > normalize -a 0.7 *.wav > normalize -a 0.6 *.wav > normalize -a 0.5 *.wav > normalize -a 0.4 *.wav > normalize -a 0.3 *.wav > > normalize --amplitude=AMP *.wav > This didn't do anything for me so I must have it wrong. > > There also seems to be a normalize -m *.wav command, > haven't yet sussed this one. > > I have a current project inwhich an old audio tape circa 1975 of an > audio > recording of Faure requiem recorded in 1963 of the Paris Conservatoire > orchestra, conducted by Andre Cluytens, and old favourite of mine, and > of which I would dearly like to make a first class audio CD of, > purely for > my own enjoyment. > > The tape itself seems to play well enough, I don't think there is > excessive > wear in it's quality, but bear in mind it has been played, and > magnetic tape > is not reknown for it longevity. Anyway to my ear it sounds still good. > Now using gramofile I have managed to cache up 9 .wav files, the first > attempt of which was so quiet that even with my computer's sound level > turned to maximum volume it wouldn't be regarded as very good sound > level.Nevertheless , by turning up the source soundlevel beyond normal > green sythesizer levels (the visual stuff) into the orange and red > I can get > a higher sound level cached up on the HD. It is still not much regarded > by my computer as being load, and the sound level is such that the > quality > of play is I believe not as good, bear in mind that may just be > because the > higher source levels brings out the imperfection, but I suspect it is > actually > distorting the wave pattern. Gramofile dosn't seem to have any > graphical > sound display aspect to it's capabilities.So maybe gramofile is not > the best > tool in this respect. > > I have rezound and audacity on my system, but both seem only to want > to work upon audio files already cached to HD, which is all very > useful but > not the problem I face, I really want to be able to feed the sound > stream > from source, into a graphical programme that enables me to see what > kind > of general sound level and quality of wave form I'm getting from the > source, and to make adjustments to that situation from the beginning > rather than turn it into a hit and miss affair. > It is possible that either or both of these programmes do this but > if so > I haven't found out how, to date. > > Anyhow once cached to HD, rezound plays the audio .wav files, but the > quality of the sound is much worse than when the same files are played > in an ordinary .wav sound player programme like xcdroast has built > into > it ( KSCD and the like don't play cached HD .wav files only CD's) but > possibly this is as it should be. I don't know, this is all very > new to > me and I'm feeling my way . > > So at the moment, I can cache the tape to HD and play them as .wav > files , but the sound levels are poor and I need to learn how best to > use the apps to repair and restore . > Hints and suggestions welcomed. > > John
John, To get quality, you need to achieve a reasonable level when first recording the input from the tape. Recording at low level then boosting the signal later is like starting out with an 8 bit recording then converting it to 16 - it will end up looking like CD quality, but still sounding like an old cassette. What you need to concentrate on then is setting the initial level so that it's well below distortion on the peaks, but not too far. rezound or audacity include meters for displaying the record levels, so using one of these to do the initial recording should allow you to manipulate the input level until the meters are bouncing up to close to the red zone on the loudest peaks. That way you are using close to the full 96dB available for 16 bit recording - far greater than the dynamic range on your original recording - and you should hear no degradation of signal compared with the original. cheers Brian
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
