Re: [Finale] (no subject)
Problem 1. At risk of insulting you by stating the obvious - make sure you don't have the caps lock on. Cheers, Lawrence Lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] (no subject)
1. In the Speedy menu, remove the check mark by Insert notes or rests. 2. In Speedy Options (under Speedy menu), remove the check mark by Fill with Rests at End of Measure Michael. On 13 Feb 2009, at 01:31, Katherine Hoover wrote: Dear Finalelist, I still need answers to the following. 1. In Finale 2000 and before, I could hit say a quarter note with the 4 key (on a Mac) and it would turn into an 8th. My Finale 2004 will not do this. I have to erase and do over. Is there a way to reset this? 2. The program automatically fills in a measure, that I have not necessarily finished, with rests. I am told there is a way to reset this. Will I find it under options? Thanks for the help - Katherine Hoover ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] installations
Greetings, I am planning on changing computers soon and I want to re-install my Finale (Mac) on the new system. I doubt that I have any installs left on Finale and when I try to register, I will be advised that I can't register. How do I remove an old registration so that I can install and register Finale on a different computer? Thanks ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] installations
Lawrence David Eden wrote: Greetings, I am planning on changing computers soon and I want to re-install my Finale (Mac) on the new system. I doubt that I have any installs left on Finale and when I try to register, I will be advised that I can't register. How do I remove an old registration so that I can install and register Finale on a different computer? Help Menu / Deauthorize Finale on the old computer before trying to get Finale running on your new computer and that should restore one install to your account at MakeMusic. Then when you install Finale on the new computer you should be able to authorize it with no problem. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] installations
Lawrence David Eden wrote: Greetings, I am planning on changing computers soon and I want to re-install my Finale (Mac) on the new system. I doubt that I have any installs left on Finale and when I try to register, I will be advised that I can't register. How do I remove an old registration so that I can install and register Finale on a different computer? As I recall, the most recent version(s?) has a capability for uninstalling and de-authorizing from the computer itself, but this, of course, is predicated on the machine being connected to the internet. If you have an older version, or the computer you are uninstalling the software from is no longer connected, you can phone customer service, and arrange for a replacement authorization. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Editing
I just made a recording of a choir rehearsal last night with my H2 digital. I recorded in the MP3 mode. It is possible to edit said files (other than just splitting a file on the H2) once they are uploaded to my Mac? It's a G5, running 10.4.1 BTW, the H2 seems to be doing a pretty fair job in the few recording uses I have needed. Thanks, Dean Canto ergo sum Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 2/13/2009 11:57 AM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: I just made a recording of a choir rehearsal last night with my H2 digital. I recorded in the MP3 mode. It is possible to edit said files (other than just splitting a file on the H2) once they are uploaded to my Mac? I believe that most audio editing programs are able to open MP3s. Take a look, for example, at the open source Audacity: http://audacity.sourceforge.net However, keep in mind that MP3s are like JPG images -- they use lossy compression, meaning every time you edit and save, you introduce some artifacts (which may or may not be audible/visible). This is why it's always better to record and edit in a non-lossy format like WAV or AIFF, and then convert to MP3 if needed when you're sending the finished product to someone else. What you might want to do is open this MP3 in Audacity and save it as a WAV. Then you can edit, save, edit, save, etc. as much as you like with the WAV without further degradation of the original MP3. And then again, only convert your finished WAV to MP3 when you're done, if needed. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] problems solved
Got it! Both problems solved by turning off the fill in the measure option. Thank you all! Katherine Hoover ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
Good info ... thanks. Dean On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: On 2/13/2009 11:57 AM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: I just made a recording of a choir rehearsal last night with my H2 digital. I recorded in the MP3 mode. It is possible to edit said files (other than just splitting a file on the H2) once they are uploaded to my Mac? I believe that most audio editing programs are able to open MP3s. Take a look, for example, at the open source Audacity: http:// audacity.sourceforge.net However, keep in mind that MP3s are like JPG images -- they use lossy compression, meaning every time you edit and save, you introduce some artifacts (which may or may not be audible/visible). This is why it's always better to record and edit in a non-lossy format like WAV or AIFF, and then convert to MP3 if needed when you're sending the finished product to someone else. What you might want to do is open this MP3 in Audacity and save it as a WAV. Then you can edit, save, edit, save, etc. as much as you like with the WAV without further degradation of the original MP3. And then again, only convert your finished WAV to MP3 when you're done, if needed. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] problems solved
Got it! Both problems solved by turning off the fill in the measure option. Thank you all! Katherine Hoover ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009, at 12:15 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: What you might want to do is open this MP3 in Audacity and save it as a WAV. Then you can edit, save, edit, save, etc. as much as you like with the WAV without further degradation of the original MP3. And then again, only convert your finished WAV to MP3 when you're done, if needed. With respect, Aaron, this won't help. Converting the MP3 to WAV and back again will introduce far more artifacts than any edits you might make in Audacity, and won't actually result in any benefit. Once a file is in a lossy format (like MP3), up-converting it to a non-lossy format won't restore any missing audio data and will actually result in a file that sounds *worse* than the original MP3. Once you are in MP3 format, that sonic detail you'd have in a lossless format like WAV is gone -- or, if the file was recorded as an MP3, was never there in the first place -- and is impossible to recover. Best to make edits in the original MP3 format to avoid the further sonic degradation of up- sampling and then down-sampling again. Cheers, - Darcy - djar...@mac.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009 at 12:15, Aaron Sherber wrote: However, keep in mind that MP3s are like JPG images -- they use lossy compression, meaning every time you edit and save, you introduce some artifacts (which may or may not be audible/visible). This is why it's always better to record and edit in a non-lossy format like WAV or AIFF, and then convert to MP3 if needed when you're sending the finished product to someone else. Audacity does not edit in the original format -- it imports *all* formats into its own format and you edit in that. Thus, you never lose anything beyond the quality already lost by creation of the MP3 itself. That is, the sound quality won't be worsened by editing in Audacity. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009 at 13:19, Darcy James Argue wrote: With respect, Aaron, this won't help. Converting the MP3 to WAV and back again will introduce far more artifacts than any edits you might make in Audacity, and won't actually result in any benefit. Once a file is in a lossy format (like MP3), up-converting it to a non-lossy format won't restore any missing audio data and will actually result in a file that sounds *worse* than the original MP3. Once you are in MP3 format, that sonic detail you'd have in a lossless format like WAV is gone -- or, if the file was recorded as an MP3, was never there in the first place -- and is impossible to recover. Best to make edits in the original MP3 format to avoid the further sonic degradation of up- sampling and then down-sampling again. I'm surprised at this assertion, Darcy. When you convert an MP3 to WAV, you're taking the wave form that you get when you expand it from the MP3 and fixing it in a final wave form. There should be absolutely no artifacts from converting form MP3 to WAV. Indeed, the waveform of the WAV file should be exactly what you get from playback of the MP3. Secondly, Audacity never edits the MP3 or WAV directly. Instead, you import the source MP3 or WAV into Audacity's own format (which uses a lot of tiny little files, and stores edits as additional files that record the delta from the original source). To then save an MP3 or WAV file from the Audacity editing session, you have to export it to the external format. Audacity introduces no conversion artifacts during this process. And it shouldn't, because the wave form that is output from an MP3 file is not variable -- it's a fixed wave form that can be described without any loss of information by any lossless audio format. On another note, I saw something that seemed pretty incredible to me today. On the subway platform at Columbus Circle, there was a really fine jazz quartet (bass, drums, guitar, trumpet) performing. All the players were really excellent and I was lucky that the trains were delayed and got a chance to listen to them at length (I contributed a $5 bill, since I felt $1 was too little for a 4-piece group). Anway, the incredible part (to me) was that the trumpet player would simultaneously play both trumpet and flugel horn, the trumpet on the left side of his mouth, the flugel on the right. He'd mostly play unisons, but occasionally he'd play in octaves and in harmony with himself. It was awesome. He actually had another trumpet, and the trumpet he played with the flugel horn did not look like a normal Bb trumpet (while the other one did) -- it looked like it had shorter tubing (the tubing was bent more like a cornet, thought it was clearly not a cornet at all -- the mouthpiece and bore were clearly a trumpet). But it did seem to me that when he was playing in unison that he was using the same fingering for both, so it surely wasn't in a different key. Anyway, I was blown away by the fact that someone could pull of this stunt, but he didn't just managing it, like the dog walking on its hind legs -- he was actually quite good and played in tune with himself. There was even flutter tonguing! Is this something that trumpet players do a lot as a virtuosic stunt? Or was this really unusual? I love New York. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Off topic - NEH grant test site
Dear list members, Please visit and contact me offlist about a test website I have prepared for an NEH editions grant proposal. FINALE is a big part of it, ofcourse;-) Here's the URL: http://www.shsu.edu/~org_neh/ Only two pieces are loaded for the demo: 1. http://www.shsu.edu/~org_neh/Piazza_Stradivari.html 2. http://www.shsu.edu/~org_neh/Convegno.html Thanks Henry Howey Professor of Music Sam Houston State University Box 2208 Huntsville, TX 77341 (936) 294-1364 http://www.shsu.edu/music/faculty/howey.php Owner of FINALE Discussion List ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009, at 4:02 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: Hmm. I was unaware that there were mainstream apps that could edit MP3s natively. There certainly are. You can open an MP3 in QuickTime Player and edit it directly there without converting to some other format. And Fission (the app I use to split long single audio files recorded at my gigs into individual tracks and normalize them) also works on whatever audio format you begin with, without converting anything. I assumed that the process was like working with JPGs -- if you have a JPG as a source, you open it and save it as a TIF or something else non-lossy so it won't get any worse while you work on it. If you edit the JPG and save back as a JPG, it gets worse each time, because you're re-applying the lossy compression to something that was lossy to begin with. Am I incorrect? You are right that that up-sampling *shouldn't* introduce any new artifacts. But if you take an MP3, up-sample it and save as WAV, and then (without editing anything) down-sample it and save it as an MP3, the resultant MP3 will sound worse than the original MP3. I don't use Audacity so I'm not familiar with what goes on under the hood. But if Audacity works in its own native format, that strikes me as even more of a reason not to save the file out as a WAV file before editing, since (if I understand the situation correctly) any work you do in Audacity will always be done in its own native format. Cheers, - Darcy - djar...@earthlink.net Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
As I recall, even iTunes, for either platform, will permit editing and it's free noel jones ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 2/13/2009 4:19 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 13 Feb 2009, at 4:02 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: Hmm. I was unaware that there were mainstream apps that could edit MP3s natively. There certainly are. You can open an MP3 in QuickTime Player and edit it directly there without converting to some other format. And Fission (the app I use to split long single audio files recorded at my gigs into individual tracks and normalize them) also works on whatever audio format you begin with, without converting anything. That goes against my understanding; I'll have to look into it some more. You are right that that up-sampling *shouldn't* introduce any new artifacts. But if you take an MP3, up-sample it and save as WAV, and then (without editing anything) down-sample it and save it as an MP3, the resultant MP3 will sound worse than the original MP3. Yes, but that's not because of the *upsampling* -- it's because of the subsequent re-downsampling. as even more of a reason not to save the file out as a WAV file before editing, since (if I understand the situation correctly) any work you do in Audacity will always be done in its own native format. Yes, but Audacity's native format is still lossless, like WAV, so there's no penalty there. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Editing
Darcy, you are mistaken. You cannot edit an mp3 in native mode as it is an encoded format. It may look to you as if you are directly editing the mp3 when you open it, but any audio editor must of course convert the file to an audio waveform before it can be edited (whether WAV, AIFF, or a native internal format). I suppose you could edit the raw mp3 data, but that would be quite useless -- it's just bits and bytes, not audio. You are correct that every stage of conversion to and from mp3 (or any lossy format) can potentially degrade quality compared to the original; the degree of degradation will depend on the amount of compression. This will be equally true in QuickTime Player as any other editor. Lee Actor (former digital signal processing expert in another life) Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic Assistant Conductor, Nova Vista Symphony http://www.leeactor.com On 13 Feb 2009, at 4:02 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: Hmm. I was unaware that there were mainstream apps that could edit MP3s natively. There certainly are. You can open an MP3 in QuickTime Player and edit it directly there without converting to some other format. And Fission (the app I use to split long single audio files recorded at my gigs into individual tracks and normalize them) also works on whatever audio format you begin with, without converting anything. I assumed that the process was like working with JPGs -- if you have a JPG as a source, you open it and save it as a TIF or something else non-lossy so it won't get any worse while you work on it. If you edit the JPG and save back as a JPG, it gets worse each time, because you're re-applying the lossy compression to something that was lossy to begin with. Am I incorrect? You are right that that up-sampling *shouldn't* introduce any new artifacts. But if you take an MP3, up-sample it and save as WAV, and then (without editing anything) down-sample it and save it as an MP3, the resultant MP3 will sound worse than the original MP3. I don't use Audacity so I'm not familiar with what goes on under the hood. But if Audacity works in its own native format, that strikes me as even more of a reason not to save the file out as a WAV file before editing, since (if I understand the situation correctly) any work you do in Audacity will always be done in its own native format. Cheers, - Darcy - djar...@earthlink.net Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
Hi Lee, Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for setting me straight. Cheers, - Darcy - djar...@earthlink.net Brooklyn, NY On 13 Feb 2009, at 4:55 PM, Lee Actor wrote: Darcy, you are mistaken. You cannot edit an mp3 in native mode as it is an encoded format. It may look to you as if you are directly editing the mp3 when you open it, but any audio editor must of course convert the file to an audio waveform before it can be edited (whether WAV, AIFF, or a native internal format). I suppose you could edit the raw mp3 data, but that would be quite useless -- it's just bits and bytes, not audio. You are correct that every stage of conversion to and from mp3 (or any lossy format) can potentially degrade quality compared to the original; the degree of degradation will depend on the amount of compression. This will be equally true in QuickTime Player as any other editor. Lee Actor (former digital signal processing expert in another life) Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic Assistant Conductor, Nova Vista Symphony http://www.leeactor.com On 13 Feb 2009, at 4:02 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: Hmm. I was unaware that there were mainstream apps that could edit MP3s natively. There certainly are. You can open an MP3 in QuickTime Player and edit it directly there without converting to some other format. And Fission (the app I use to split long single audio files recorded at my gigs into individual tracks and normalize them) also works on whatever audio format you begin with, without converting anything. I assumed that the process was like working with JPGs -- if you have a JPG as a source, you open it and save it as a TIF or something else non-lossy so it won't get any worse while you work on it. If you edit the JPG and save back as a JPG, it gets worse each time, because you're re-applying the lossy compression to something that was lossy to begin with. Am I incorrect? You are right that that up-sampling *shouldn't* introduce any new artifacts. But if you take an MP3, up-sample it and save as WAV, and then (without editing anything) down-sample it and save it as an MP3, the resultant MP3 will sound worse than the original MP3. I don't use Audacity so I'm not familiar with what goes on under the hood. But if Audacity works in its own native format, that strikes me as even more of a reason not to save the file out as a WAV file before editing, since (if I understand the situation correctly) any work you do in Audacity will always be done in its own native format. Cheers, - Darcy - djar...@earthlink.net Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 2/13/2009 5:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Instead, my first suggestion would be to use an editing application that operates on the original MP3 file and does not require you to re- encode -- which, as far as I know, is what is happening with the app I use (Fission). I don't believe that is true, although I don't have direct experience with Fission. But David's and Lee's comments seem to back me up. Looking around a bit more on the web, I do think we need to distinguish different kinds of editing. It appears that certain kinds of edits can be made to MP3s without needing to recode, namely splitting up an MP3 into pieces and applying gain. (See http://sherber.com/url/3c , for example.) Other kinds of edits I think require re-encoding. Failing that: assuming David is correct that Audacity has its own native format, then Step 1 above seems unnecessary. Just open the MP3 in Audacity, make the edit, then save back to MP3. Yes -- unless you plan to do more editing. Keeping in mind that every save to MP3 format degrades quality, what you want to avoid is open the MP3, make an edit, save back to MP3. Open the new MP3 a week later, make some more edits, save back to MP3. Repeat again the next day. You've now re-saved as MP3 3 times, introducing more artifacts along the way. If you open the MP3 and save your intermediate work each time as a WAV, you incur no further loss penalty until you're done and you convert your WAV to MP3 to share with others. (It's the same with images. If someone sends you a JPG that you plan to edit repeatedly, you should first open it and save it as a TIF, and then make all your edits to the TIF. When you're done editing, you can export the TIF as a JPG for portability, keeping your source TIF for any further changes. If you edit and save as JPG, you incur loss and introduce artifacts each time.) Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009, at 6:05 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: Yes -- unless you plan to do more editing. Keeping in mind that every save to MP3 format degrades quality, what you want to avoid is open the MP3, make an edit, save back to MP3. Open the new MP3 a week later, make some more edits, save back to MP3. Repeat again the next day. You've now re-saved as MP3 3 times, introducing more artifacts along the way. If you open the MP3 and save your intermediate work each time as a WAV, you incur no further loss penalty until you're done and you convert your WAV to MP3 to share with others. Good point. I hadn't considered that factor. Cheers, - Darcy - djar...@earthlink.net Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
Hi Aaron, Looking around a bit more on the web, I do think we need to distinguish different kinds of editing. It appears that certain kinds of edits can be made to MP3s without needing to recode, namely splitting up an MP3 into pieces and applying gain. (See http://sherber.com/url/3c , for example.) Other kinds of edits I think require re-encoding. These are, in fact, the only kinds of edits Fission allows (cut paste, normalization and fades), which is, I suppose, why they are able to make the following claim (and why I thought they were editing the MP3 files directly): Fission also works with compressed MP3 and AAC formats to edit without the quality loss caused by other editors http://www.rogueamoeba.com/fission/ Cheers, - Darcy - djar...@earthlink.net Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 2/13/2009 6:15 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: These are, in fact, the only kinds of edits Fission allows (cut paste, normalization and fades), Ah, interesting. Lee, can you comment on this? Is it true that these kinds of edits can be made to an MP3 without needing to recode afterwards? (It makes a certain amount of sense. For example, with the right software you can rotate a JPG 90 deg. and save losslessly.) Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
iTunes lets you make volume adjustments and change the start and stop time. File - Info - Options. But these don't get written into the file itself, I don't think. - Darcy - djar...@earthlink.net Brooklyn, NY On 13 Feb 2009, at 6:19 PM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: I haven't seen any capabilities in iTunes for editing. Perhaps I just don't know where to find them. Dean On Feb 13, 2009, at 1:48 PM, noel jones wrote: As I recall, even iTunes, for either platform, will permit editing and it's free noel jones ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Editing
I'm not familiar with the internals of the mp3 format, so I can't say for sure. But considering that none of the edits mentioned operate in the frequency domain (such as filters and most other types of audio processing), I can see how it might be possible without conversion/reconversion. But don't quote me on that. -Lee On 2/13/2009 6:15 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: These are, in fact, the only kinds of edits Fission allows (cut paste, normalization and fades), Ah, interesting. Lee, can you comment on this? Is it true that these kinds of edits can be made to an MP3 without needing to recode afterwards? (It makes a certain amount of sense. For example, with the right software you can rotate a JPG 90 deg. and save losslessly.) Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
iTunes allows you to convert among a few formats, but that's it AFAIK. --AF On Feb 13, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Dean M. Estabrook d.e...@comcast.net wrote: I haven't seen any capabilities in iTunes for editing. Perhaps I just don't know where to find them. Dean On Feb 13, 2009, at 1:48 PM, noel jones wrote: As I recall, even iTunes, for either platform, will permit editing and it's free noel jones ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] another simple (I hope!) question
I generally print on legal paper, in order to eventually have pieces done on 9 x 12 paper at the printer. This means I have to work with systems rather freely at times. At the moment I'm doing a piece for two pianos, and need to get 3 systems on a page (3 groups of 4 staves.) I cannot seem to move the second system at all, and those some others will move and some will not. I took the time to try various things under the page layout tool, but I was not able to solve the problem. Again for some reason this was not a problem in my old Finale program. Also the movement I just finished I was able somehow to work with. But it is patently clear that I don't really KNOW what works and what doesn't, and I'm wasting a lot of time messing around. Any help would be MUCH appreciated. Thanks, Katherine Hoover ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009 at 16:02, Aaron Sherber wrote: if you have a JPG as a source, you open it and save it as a TIF or something else non-lossy so it won't get any worse while you work on it. If you edit the JPG and save back as a JPG, it gets worse each time, because you're re-applying the lossy compression to something that was lossy to begin with. Am I incorrect? I'm not sure what you're using for graphics editing, but if it applies the chosen compression ration with each save, it's very badly designed. The usual method is to have, say, a 15% compression ratio. When you open a file, your graphics editing progam knows what the compression ratio that it was saved at is, and if it was saved at 10%, it will compress to 15%. But if it's already 15%, it won't compress it any more than it already was. I do lots of graphics editing and while I keep TIFs as my source files, I do lots of editing in JPGs once the graphic has reaced a certain point in the editing process. And that includes multiple edits and multiple saves, and the quality does not decrease with each save. As you suggest, MP3s are not directly editable by any application I know of -- instead, you edit a copy of the waveform described in the MP3 file. Thus, there's no loss of quality. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
Dean, my 2c, esp. since you are on Mac: Amadeus Pro is excellent. It costs some money, but unlike Audacity (in my experience) it's extremely stable and does a great job. I recommend it. Matthew 2009/2/14 David W. Fenton lists.fin...@dfenton.com On 13 Feb 2009 at 16:02, Aaron Sherber wrote: if you have a JPG as a source, you open it and save it as a TIF or something else non-lossy so it won't get any worse while you work on it. If you edit the JPG and save back as a JPG, it gets worse each time, because you're re-applying the lossy compression to something that was lossy to begin with. Am I incorrect? I'm not sure what you're using for graphics editing, but if it applies the chosen compression ration with each save, it's very badly designed. The usual method is to have, say, a 15% compression ratio. When you open a file, your graphics editing progam knows what the compression ratio that it was saved at is, and if it was saved at 10%, it will compress to 15%. But if it's already 15%, it won't compress it any more than it already was. I do lots of graphics editing and while I keep TIFs as my source files, I do lots of editing in JPGs once the graphic has reaced a certain point in the editing process. And that includes multiple edits and multiple saves, and the quality does not decrease with each save. As you suggest, MP3s are not directly editable by any application I know of -- instead, you edit a copy of the waveform described in the MP3 file. Thus, there's no loss of quality. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009 at 17:25, Darcy James Argue wrote: Here's what I understood you to be suggesting: 1) Open the MP3 in Audacity and up-sample it to WAV. Save the WAV version. If by upsample to WAV you mean the same process that happens when the MP3 is played, then, sure. 2) Make the edits in Audacity on the WAV version, then and re-encode for MP3. Instead, my first suggestion would be to use an editing application that operates on the original MP3 file and does not require you to re- encode -- which, as far as I know, is what is happening with the app I use (Fission). That would allow you to avoid having to re-encode the MP3, which causes more degradation than editing the MP3 directly. I think that others are right to say that you can't work on the original MP3, only on a copy of the waveform described by the MP3. This is actually what happens with JPGs, too -- when you load a JPG, it is uncompressed into memory as a bitmap, because that's what can be displayed onscreen. Any time you view a JPG, it is uncompressed into a bitmap. When you're editing the JPG, you're editing the expanded bitmap, and when you save it, it is compressed for writing to the JPG file. I see this as pretty much analogous to how MP3s work, though I don't have any apps that will edit an MP3 directly (like all graphics programs edit JPGs directly). Failing that: assuming David is correct that Audacity has its own native format, then Step 1 above seems unnecessary. Just open the MP3 in Audacity, make the edit, then save back to MP3. It's not a matter of opening it in Audacity -- the only files Audacity can *open* are its own. Any other format you import into Audacity, which means the waveform described by the file you're importing is saved in Audacity's format (that describes the uncompressed waveform). -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009 at 18:05, Aaron Sherber wrote: Keeping in mind that every save to MP3 format degrades quality, what you want to avoid is open the MP3, make an edit, save back to MP3. Open the new MP3 a week later, make some more edits, save back to MP3. Repeat again the next day. You've now re-saved as MP3 3 times, introducing more artifacts along the way. If you open the MP3 and save your intermediate work each time as a WAV, you incur no further loss penalty until you're done and you convert your WAV to MP3 to share with others. I don't think this is correct, Aaron. When you edit the MP3, you aren't editing the original data, but a waveform that is result of expanding the data from the MP3 file. If you save that waveform to exactly the same bitrate as the original source MP3, you won't lose anything that was not already missing in the original MP3. Now, you may get artifacts if you use a different codec, but that's entirely a different issue. And, of course, if you encode to a lower bitrate, you'll lose quality. But that's not because of the conversion process but because you've picked a lower bitrate! Now, in the other direction, you could save a new MP3 from the waveform loaded into memory and choose a higher bitrate than the original source MP3 file, but you won't get any better quality than the original MP3 -- you can't create information that's not there. (It's the same with images. If someone sends you a JPG that you plan to edit repeatedly, you should first open it and save it as a TIF, and then make all your edits to the TIF. When you're done editing, you can export the TIF as a JPG for portability, keeping your source TIF for any further changes. If you edit and save as JPG, you incur loss and introduce artifacts each time.) As I said in another post, I think this is incorrect, also. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
I'm going to preface all of this by saying that I'm always happy to be proved wrong in things like this. On 2/13/2009 7:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The usual method is to have, say, a 15% compression ratio. When you open a file, your graphics editing progam knows what the compression ratio that it was saved at is, I don't believe that's true. Neither Paint Shop Pro nor GIMP appear to display this information; I suppose they may know it internally, but this is the first I've heard this assertion. Actually, look at http://photo.net/learn/jpeg/#ijg . It discusses a utility which allows the *estimation* of the quality settings for any given JPG. It also says It would be most useful for Jpeg writing software to list the prior quality level so you could rewrite (if necessary) at the same level. I do lots of graphics editing and while I keep TIFs as my source files, I do lots of editing in JPGs once the graphic has reaced a certain point in the editing process. And that includes multiple edits and multiple saves, and the quality does not decrease with each save. Well, see http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/section-10.html , which would seem to disagree with you. They do say that relatively little further degradation occurs, but that's not the same as no change in quality. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 2/13/2009 7:37 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: I don't think this is correct, Aaron. When you edit the MP3, you aren't editing the original data, but a waveform that is result of expanding the data from the MP3 file. If you save that waveform to exactly the same bitrate as the original source MP3, you won't lose anything that was not already missing in the original MP3. I really don't think the latter part of this is true. I think the waveform will include some data which is interpolated from the lossy MP3. When you then save again to MP3, those interpolations are themselves subject to lossy compression -- they're not just recognized as interpolations and tossed out somehow. As always, this is only the opinion of a reasonably experience layman. If anyone has links to contradictory information, please share. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009 at 19:37, Aaron Sherber wrote: I'm going to preface all of this by saying that I'm always happy to be proved wrong in things like this. On 2/13/2009 7:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The usual method is to have, say, a 15% compression ratio. When you open a file, your graphics editing progam knows what the compression ratio that it was saved at is, I don't believe that's true. Neither Paint Shop Pro nor GIMP appear to display this information; They don't display the information, but PSP, at least (which is what I use for all my graphics editing -- I can't stand the GIMP), does not continue to compress the file beyond its current compression ration. That is, continued saves do not lessen the quality of the JPG. I suppose they may know it internally, but this is the first I've heard this assertion. Try it in PSP. I just took a file and saved it 6 times with compression set at 15%. When I compare the version saved 6 times to the original it is absolutely indistinguishable. This shows that the compression ratio is not additive (well, technically, multiplicative). Actually, look at http://photo.net/learn/jpeg/#ijg . It discusses a utility which allows the *estimation* of the quality settings for any given JPG. It also says It would be most useful for Jpeg writing software to list the prior quality level so you could rewrite (if necessary) at the same level. Perhaps you're right. But when you open a JPG for editing, you've unpacked it to a bitmap. If the original file was compressed 15%, the bitmap you're viewing is *not* compressed -- it's a full bitmap, with all colors and pixels intact to paint the image onscreen. The compression takes the information in the bitmap and saves it with 15% compression -- there is no loss of information in this process, because (as with a WAV file that is created from an MP3) you're working with a non-compressed file. It's only the save process that discards data, and if you're saving back to the same compression ratio as the source file, you won't see any difference at all. I do lots of graphics editing and while I keep TIFs as my source files, I do lots of editing in JPGs once the graphic has reaced a certain point in the editing process. And that includes multiple edits and multiple saves, and the quality does not decrease with each save. Well, see http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/section-10.html , which would seem to disagree with you. They do say that relatively little further degradation occurs, but that's not the same as no change in quality. It says that if you're saving at the same ratio, any loss is very tiny. My experience says that for all practical purposes, there is no loss. I do note that the JPGs that I saved don't have the same file size: 46,702 1.jpg 46,808 2.jpg 46,812 3.jpg 46,806 4.jpg 46,809 5.jpg 46,806 6.jpg It's interesting to me that each subsequent save does not make the file smaller. Indeed, the first save made it larger! But the differences are so tiny that I can't see how any loss could actually be visible in the image. Of course, I didn't actually do any edits, just saved the file. I think your concerns are overblown. Certainly the article is mixing different issues, given that one example it gives is JPG-GIF-JPG. Of *course* that's going to degrade the image, because of remapping the larger color space onto the smaller color space. But that's a completely different issue from maintaining the same file format and the same compression ratio. All that said, I mostly don't do multiple generations of edits in JPG. I tend to take a source TIF, crop and rotate, resize, sharpen, edit (if needed, e.g., gamma correct) and then save as JPG. If I need to make a thumbnail, I won't start over from the source TIF, but use the saved JPG, because I'm discarding a lot of data just in sizing it down to a thumbnail. So, I guess in practice I don't violate your rule, as once I've saved as JPG, I don't do much editing (except perhaps to alter color, or contrast or gamma or properties like that), other than relatively minor adjustments to the image. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
Useful for making ringtones, I suppose! I have had a lot of good luck on the Mac with Sound Studioespecially with its liberal demo mode. noel jones On Feb 13, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: iTunes lets you make volume adjustments and change the start and stop time. File - Info - Options. But these don't get written into the file itself, I don't think. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 2/13/2009 8:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: They don't display the information, but PSP, at least (which is what I use for all my graphics editing -- I can't stand the GIMP), does not continue to compress the file beyond its current compression ration. Except that I don't think PSP has any way of actually determining a file's current compression ratio. Try it in PSP. I just took a file and saved it 6 times with compression set at 15%. When I compare the version saved 6 times to the original it is absolutely indistinguishable. Were you closing and opening the file, or just hitting Save 6 times? The latter won't do anything, because each time you hit Save, PSP just compresses and writes out the bitmap it has in memory. And in the former case, the sources I have read do say that saving in the same app with the same compression ratio produces virtually no artifacts. And that artifacts would really only appear in areas you've edited, so that repeated opening and saving wouldn't be expected to show any degradation. But this whole conversation has been about editing files. It's only the save process that discards data, and if you're saving back to the same compression ratio as the source file, you won't see any difference at all. If you're saving back with the same application, at the same compression ratio, with no edits, then I suppose you're right. It says that if you're saving at the same ratio, any loss is very tiny. My experience says that for all practical purposes, there is no loss. I'm not disagreeing with you here. But practical purposes vary from user to user. The fact is that there *is* further loss, and the loss may be noticeable depending on the size of the source file, the compression ratio applied, and the users' eye. I do note that the JPGs that I saved don't have the same file size: Well, that in itself indicates that the files are not *strictly* identical. Of course, I didn't actually do any edits, just saved the file. Right. And as the articles point out, edited areas of the photo will show greater loss. I think your concerns are overblown. Quite possibly. I'm just pointing out guidelines for best and safest practice: Always save your master in a non-lossy format. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] another simple (I hope!) question
Open the file in Scroll View and make sure that there is minimal space above the first staff. Select and drag all staves upwards in Staff Tool if you need to. With Page Layout, edit the system margins to remove extra space between staves. -Original Message- From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of Katherine Hoover Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 4:22 PM To: finalelist Subject: [Finale] another simple (I hope!) question I generally print on legal paper, in order to eventually have pieces done on 9 x 12 paper at the printer. This means I have to work with systems rather freely at times. At the moment I'm doing a piece for two pianos, and need to get 3 systems on a page (3 groups of 4 staves.) I cannot seem to move the second system at all, and those some others will move and some will not. I took the time to try various things under the page layout tool, but I was not able to solve the problem. Again for some reason this was not a problem in my old Finale program. Also the movement I just finished I was able somehow to work with. But it is patently clear that I don't really KNOW what works and what doesn't, and I'm wasting a lot of time messing around. Any help would be MUCH appreciated. Thanks, Katherine Hoover ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009 at 20:36, Aaron Sherber wrote: On 2/13/2009 8:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: They don't display the information, but PSP, at least (which is what I use for all my graphics editing -- I can't stand the GIMP), does not continue to compress the file beyond its current compression ration. Except that I don't think PSP has any way of actually determining a file's current compression ratio. It doesn't actually need to. Once the file is open, it's an uncompressed bitmap, with 100% of the information that the original file contains. As long as the save uses the same compression ratio, the result should be, for all intents and purposes, identical. Try it in PSP. I just took a file and saved it 6 times with compression set at 15%. When I compare the version saved 6 times to the original it is absolutely indistinguishable. Were you closing and opening the file, or just hitting Save 6 times? I opened a JPG. I saved it under a new name. I closed it and opened the new file. I then saved it under a new name, closed it and opened it again. And so forth. [] I do note that the JPGs that I saved don't have the same file size: Well, that in itself indicates that the files are not *strictly* identical. But the difference is a few bytes, a tiny percentage of the whole datastream, which means there can't possibly be any *visible* difference. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Editing
(It's the same with images. If someone sends you a JPG that you plan to edit repeatedly, you should first open it and save it as a TIF, and then make all your edits to the TIF. When you're done editing, you can export the TIF as a JPG for portability, keeping your source TIF for any further changes. If you edit and save as JPG, you incur loss and introduce artifacts each time.) As I said in another post, I think this is incorrect, also. David Fenton I have heard the first theory and decided to test it. I opened a high resolution photo in Photoshop and saved it with the maximum compression as a jpg. Then reopened it and saved again with maximum compression. After repeating this seven times I can see no further degradation after the first compression. The file size remains exactly the same also. David Fenton appears to be right. (I have no idea if this applies to mp3s, though.) RY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] another simple (I hope!) question
Katherine, It would be helpful to know what version of Finale, and what platform (Windows or MAC) you are using. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 2/13/2009 9:12 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: It doesn't actually need to. Once the file is open, it's an uncompressed bitmap, with 100% of the information that the original file contains. As long as the save uses the same compression ratio, the result should be, for all intents and purposes, identical. Yes -- for all intents and purposes. But the difference is a few bytes, a tiny percentage of the whole datastream, which means there can't possibly be any *visible* difference. First, let me say that in general, I agree with you here. However, this thread has been all about lossy compression in the context of file *editing*. If you edit a JPG in any non-trivial way (and I don't know offhand exactly what that definition is) and save it again as a JPG, the changed parts of the photo will be subject to recompression, possibly resulting in visible artifacts. Also -- and I admit this isn't particularly relevant here -- comparing file sizes isn't really an adequate way of comparing the files. You're saying that because one file is only a few bytes bigger or smaller, there can't be much difference between the two. But of course, even if the two JPGs were exactly the same size, the actual data could be wildly different. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 2/13/2009 8:29 PM, Richard Yates wrote: I have heard the first theory and decided to test it. I opened a high resolution photo in Photoshop and saved it with the maximum compression as a jpg. Then reopened it and saved again with maximum compression. After repeating this seven times I can see no further degradation after the first compression. The file size remains exactly the same also. Yes. If a JPG is opened and saved, with no editing, by the same application, at the same compression ratio, you will likely see no visible degradation. But the thrust of this discussion has assumed that there is editing going on. If you make edits to the JPG and save it again, the parts which were edited will be recompressed and degraded in a way which may or may not be visible. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009 at 23:27, Aaron Sherber wrote: Also -- and I admit this isn't particularly relevant here -- comparing file sizes isn't really an adequate way of comparing the files. You're saying that because one file is only a few bytes bigger or smaller, there can't be much difference between the two. But of course, even if the two JPGs were exactly the same size, the actual data could be wildly different. But I actually *looked* at the files. I maximized the window I was viewing them in, opened all 6, and flipped through them. This meant that they were appearing all in exactly the same location onscreen, pixel for pixel, so that any differences in even a few pixels would have jumped out. There was no visible difference between the files. None whatsoever. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Editing
On 13 Feb 2009 at 23:27, Aaron Sherber wrote: Also -- and I admit this isn't particularly relevant here -- comparing file sizes isn't really an adequate way of comparing the files. You're saying that because one file is only a few bytes bigger or smaller, there can't be much difference between the two. But of course, even if the two JPGs were exactly the same size, the actual data could be wildly different. But I actually *looked* at the files. I maximized the window I was viewing them in, opened all 6, and flipped through them. This meant that they were appearing all in exactly the same location onscreen, pixel for pixel, so that any differences in even a few pixels would have jumped out. There was no visible difference between the files. None whatsoever. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com I did it again with edits (fairly small, e.g. non-clipping, adjustments to brightness, contrast, hue, and saturation) that I reversed on the next pass and did get successive degradation. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
