Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 3:55 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: The tools I downloaded all required me to play the file in some other program in order to get the waveform (instead of reading it directly from the file). This means that those programs were capturing the output from my soundcard, which means that this output would include the distortion introduced by the sound shape of my soundcard. I very much doubt that. Spectrum Analysis is done in the digital, not in the analogue. The software could capture the input from the soundcard, but I doubt it could capture the output, since that is going out, not in. It is possible, if unlikely, that the output is handed back to the input of the sound card, but why on earth that would be the case is a mystery to me. I saw it in the one application, where with no sound playing, there was some very low level activity in the extreme ranges of low and high. My suspicion is that the software was *adding* the input signal from the audio card. You probably could have easily switched this off. I can think of no other sensible explanation. Hang on: Do you mean you were playing back silence and got activity? That's normal, one always avoids to put complete silence ie between movements, or before the start of the piece. Instead one records silence in the recording room/studio. Such silence is not silent. But it still has nothing to do with your sound card. And, yes, to get a spectrum analyis you need to play your file (though not necessarily in real time). A Waveform is static, but a spectrum analysis can only exist in relation to continuum. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 28.09.2005 23:39 Uhr Lee Actor wrote: You are right that the software of necessity must analyze the digital stream before the D/A conversion, Johannes. However, real-time playback is not necessary to do a spectrum analysis. I realize that. However, I got the impressions that David assumed that one could make a spectrum analysis of any given point in time of an audio file. That is not the case, since frequency is dependent on time, or rather on change, not status. Whatever. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Moving System to New Page
on 9/28/05 12:50 PM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: Yep, there's an incredibly easy way to do this. In the Page Layout tool, just right-click (or control-click on a Mac) the system's upper-left handle and choose Insert Page Break. THANK you (and everyone else who answered!) - I knew there had to be an easier way! :) - Jacki ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] OT: More Flaws in Firefox Than IE
FYI: More Flaws in Firefox Than IE, Symantec Says News Story by Todd R. Weiss SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 (COMPUTERWORLD) - In its semiannual report about Internet security threats, released last week, IT security vendor Symantec Corp. said the open-source Firefox Web browser had more confirmed vulnerabilities than Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer did in the first six months of the year. But Symantec and security analysts said the vulnerability data doesn't necessarily mean that Firefox is less secure than its proponents have claimed or that Internet Explorer is a safer browser than many users believe it to be. Cupertino, Calif.-based Symantec reported that during the first half of 2005, 25 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for Firefox and other browsers based on the Mozilla open-source technology, including 18 flaws classified as highly severe. During the same period, Microsoft confirmed 13 holes in Internet Explorer, eight of which were deemed to be highly severe, according to Symantec. And just last week, the Mozilla Foundation released a new version of Firefox that includes fixes for two critical security bugs that were discovered this month. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 29 Sep 2005 at 12:39, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 28.09.2005 23:39 Uhr Lee Actor wrote: You are right that the software of necessity must analyze the digital stream before the D/A conversion, Johannes. However, real-time playback is not necessary to do a spectrum analysis. I realize that. However, I got the impressions that David assumed that one could make a spectrum analysis of any given point in time of an audio file. That is not the case, since frequency is dependent on time, or rather on change, not status. No, I had made no such assumption. I am interested only in the profile of an entire piece, as shown in the wonderful graphs that Hiro has been making. I'd like to be able to do the same thing, but none of the tools I downloaded (freeware, shareware, demos of $$$- ware) either worked or could analyze a file except by capturing playback from my soundcard (unless the UIs were just not set up in a way that allowed me to figure out how to use them to do what I wanted). I think you certainly recognize that if the spectrograph analyzer is looking at the playback of the file rather than the file itself that the result will include distortion introduced by my soundcard. Which is what I said all along, and, I thought, pretty clearly. Just goes to show that when one is speaking of a subject in which one lacks experience and expertise that it's easy to be misunderstood. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: More Flaws in Firefox Than IE REBUTTAL (VERY LONG)
On 29 Sep 2005 at 12:58, Phil Daley wrote: FYI: More Flaws in Firefox Than IE, Symantec Says News Story by Todd R. Weiss This is old news. And it's malarkey. The following is a lengthy post I made in another forum in response to reading Symantec's security report (which was really a glorified press release designed to generate fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) and, thus, $ALES of Symantec's products). The key point to remember here is that Symantec is not by any stretch of the imagination an unbiased participant in the discussion. It is in their corporate interests to make reliable and secure applications like FireFox look unreliable and insecure, as they are in the business of selling a feeling of security (though they don't really deliver on it, in reality). All of the articles that came out about this were based on a long security report that Symantec dresses up in pseudo-scientific garb, reporting lots of numbers and percentages, but never providing the actually underlying data. When Symantec says that FireFox has had 25 vulnerabilities and IE 13, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THIS EVALUATION IS CREDIBLE OR NOT, because nowhere in the report is there a list of the vulnerabilities. Given that other organizations (such as Secunia, which sells security services, so it's not completely unbiased, either; but you can see the specifics of their security reports on Secunia.com) have different numbers, with FireFox coming out ahead in the end, Symantec ought to be providing specifics. But they don't. Since there is no way to evaluate the data on which Symantec's conclusions are based, on has to discard their controversial conclusions entirely. Secondly, Symantec misses two main points: 1. FireFox 1.x is about a year old, and IE 6.x is 3 or 4 years old. Because of the product life cycle, one expects more problems to be discovered in the early period after an application's release. Yet, if you look at Secunia's data on IE6.x, there's been a fairly steady stream of vulnerabilities discovered over the past 3 years. 2. Symantec doesn't take account of how the vulnerabilities are corrected, or *if* they are corrected. Secunia provides data on this that shows that FireFox is much safer in that vulnerabilities are addressed more quickly, and that fewer serious vulnerabilities remain unpatched in FireFox than in IE6.x. Further, the impact of the vulnerabilities found in FireFox is less than the impact of those in IE6.x. Here's the text of the post that examines Symantec's report (if you want to skip the details and get to my conclusion, do a FIND for MY CONCLUSIONS: Subject: Press Release Journalism and Symantec's Recent Claims About FireFox vs. IE Having read these articles reporting on claims made by Symantec about FireFox vs. IE as well as Mac vulnerabilities, I decided to see if I could go to the source. Below I quote at length from the report, because it's the text on which all the news reports appear to be based (you have to register to read the report, unfortunately). From https://ses.symantec.com/Content/displaypdf.cfm?SSL=YESPDFID=2124Pr omoCode=WP000ITR8: Web browser vulnerabilities The Web browser is a critical and ubiquitous application that has, in the past few years, become a frequent target for vulnerability researchers. In the past, the focus of security has been on the perimeter: servers, firewalls, and other systems with external exposure. However, a notable shift has occurred, as client-side systemsprimarily end-user desktop hostsare becoming increasingly prominent. The Symantec Internet Security Threat Report has monitored this trend over the past several reporting periods. This metric will offer a comparison of vulnerability data for numerous browsers, namely: Microsoft Internet Explorer, the Mozilla browsers (including Firefox), Opera, Safari, and KDE Konqueror. However, when assessing the comparative data, the following important caveats should be kept in mind: Only verifiable vulnerabilities that were confirmed by the vendor were taken into consideration. Web browser vulnerability counts may not match one-to-one with security bulletins or patches issued by vendors. This is because of the complexity in identifying individual vulnerabilities in browser exploits. [In the Appendix, this caveat is worded rather differently: Individual browser vulnerabilities are notoriously difficult to pinpoint and identify precisely. A reported attack may be a combination of several conditions, each of which could be considered a vulnerability in its own right. This may distort the total vulnerability count. That's *very* different, is it not? Why was this much more qualified language not used in the body of the report, except in an effort to make their claims seem much stronger than they really are?] Not
Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 20:29 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: I think you certainly recognize that if the spectrograph analyzer is looking at the playback of the file rather than the file itself that the result will include distortion introduced by my soundcard. David, I am still absolutely convinced that your sound card cannot have any effect on the spectrum analysis, whether the file is played back or not. This would require the software to first convert from digital to analogue, then loop it through the soundcard, and then reconvert analogue to digital. That makes absolutely no sense at all.Your soundcard almost certainly is completely out of the whole picture (except for the playback itself, you wouldn't hear anything without a soundcard). Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Edit left side of word extension?
So I've got a word extension that looks a little wierd. The lyric it's attached to is pretty close to the measure's right barline, and the barline is stretching across staves so that the extension line just barely intersects the group barline. I'd like to be able to move the left side of the word extensionto the right, because a) the editor of this project has asked me to and b) the collision looks absurd, even if I hadn't been instructed to fix it. I tried exporting a tiny blank EPS to re-import and cover up a bit of the word extension on either side of the barline. Unfortunately, the word extension seems to be one of those foreground elements that shows through anything you put on it (yes, I tried an empty opaque expression too). Does anybody know how Finale can sensibly resolve this collision? I put a screengrab here if you need a visual: http://augmentedfourth.cjb.net/word_ext.tif -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 29 Sep 2005 at 21:21, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 20:29 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: I think you certainly recognize that if the spectrograph analyzer is looking at the playback of the file rather than the file itself that the result will include distortion introduced by my soundcard. I am still absolutely convinced that your sound card cannot have any effect on the spectrum analysis, whether the file is played back or not. . . . Well, this is my last statement on this subject, but in an application that does spectrographic analysis and requires that you choose an input sound device (as more than one of the programs I tested did require) it is pretty clear that the analysis app is capturing the audio output, just like Audacity and other audio capture programs. These apps lacked a FILE OPEN capability that would have allowed me to choose a file for analysis without capturing the soundcard output. . . . This would require the software to first convert from digital to analogue, then loop it through the soundcard, and then reconvert analogue to digital. That makes absolutely no sense at all.Your soundcard almost certainly is completely out of the whole picture (except for the playback itself, you wouldn't hear anything without a soundcard). Well, Johannes, you're just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. These applications had no capability of opening a file. All they could do was listen to a stream of audio from the soundcard. Now, more than one of the apps *did* have the ability to open WAV files, but I wanted to analyze MP3 files, so those were of no use to me. Those, presumably, would not have involved my soundcard. But in the case of the ones I've been talking about, the soundcard *was* involved, whether you are able to conceive of that being the case or not. YOU ARE JUST WRONG HERE. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Edit left side of word extension?
I would get rid of the extension and use a custom line. BF Brad Beyenhof wrote: So I've got a word extension that looks a little wierd. The lyric it's attached to is pretty close to the measure's right barline, and the barline is stretching across staves so that the extension line just barely intersects the group barline. I'd like to be able to move the left side of the word extensionto the right, because a) the editor of this project has asked me to and b) the collision looks absurd, even if I hadn't been instructed to fix it. I tried exporting a tiny blank EPS to re-import and cover up a bit of the word extension on either side of the barline. Unfortunately, the word extension seems to be one of those foreground elements that shows through anything you put on it (yes, I tried an empty opaque expression too). Does anybody know how Finale can sensibly resolve this collision? I put a screengrab here if you need a visual: http://augmentedfourth.cjb.net/word_ext.tif -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ 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] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 22:27 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: Well, Johannes, you're just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Thanks for keeping your voice down. (You manage to become really offensive in the course of any discussion. Why is that? Is this some kind of ego trip you have been on for the last few years? I for one am really getting sick of that!) These applications had no capability of opening a file. All they could do was listen to a stream of audio from the soundcard. So they listen for the soundcard input? How did you feed the MP3 into that? It was not clear to me that these applications could not open files. But it is still not clear to me how you actually manage to play any files through them. Now, more than one of the apps *did* have the ability to open WAV files, but I wanted to analyze MP3 files, so those were of no use to me. Those, presumably, would not have involved my soundcard. Actually, that's very easy. Just convert the MP3 to Wav. Since Wav is an uncompressed format you will not loose any more than was already lost in the MP3 file. You can still make your comparison. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 29 Sep 2005 at 23:11, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22:27 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: Well, Johannes, you're just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Thanks for keeping your voice down. (You manage to become really offensive in the course of any discussion. Why is that? Is this some kind of ego trip you have been on for the last few years? I for one am really getting sick of that!) Well, for one, you've repeatedly ignored the things I've said in this thread, and repeatedly told me that I what is clearly happening in front of me on my PC is simply not happening. I find that pretty damned annoying. These applications had no capability of opening a file. All they could do was listen to a stream of audio from the soundcard. So they listen for the soundcard input? How did you feed the MP3 into that? I had to initiate playback in an MP3 player, and tell it what device to listen to. It was not clear to me that these applications could not open files. But it is still not clear to me how you actually manage to play any files through them. I said this in my first posts explaining that none of the software I'd tried worked for me. You just missed it, obviously. And your repeated insistence that I was wrong is what made me respond as above. Now you see perfectly well that I was right about the soundcard being involved, but you weren't working without that information, which I'd already provided (when I said an outside player had to be used to initiate the playback). Your certainty that you were correct, the fact that you've told me at least 3 times that my soundcard is not involved is what drove my annoyance. Now, more than one of the apps *did* have the ability to open WAV files, but I wanted to analyze MP3 files, so those were of no use to me. Those, presumably, would not have involved my soundcard. Actually, that's very easy. Just convert the MP3 to Wav. Since Wav is an uncompressed format you will not loose any more than was already lost in the MP3 file. You can still make your comparison. Well, since none of the software met my needs, I uninstalled it. I'm not interested in software that requires me to work around its limitations by doing conversions like that, when there's software that can read both directly. I've got better things to spend my time on, many of them quite time-consuming by themselves, without doing MP3-WAV conversions to use in applications that it seems to me ought to read the MP3s natively. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Edit left side of word extension?
On 9/29/05, Burt Fenner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad Beyenhof wrote: I'd like to be able to move the left side of the word extensionto the right, because a) the editor of this project has asked me to and b) the collision looks absurd, even if I hadn't been instructed to fix it. I would get rid of the extension and use a custom line. I have Smart Word Extensions turned on, though (for other extensions in this file). With Smart Word Extensions turned on, I can't figure out how to get rid of just one extension in order to replace it with a custom line. Is this possible? -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Edit left side of word extension?
Sure, select it and press delete (choose lyrics - edit word extensions first of course) - Original Message - From: Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [Finale] Edit left side of word extension? On 9/29/05, Burt Fenner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad Beyenhof wrote: I'd like to be able to move the left side of the word extensionto the right, because a) the editor of this project has asked me to and b) the collision looks absurd, even if I hadn't been instructed to fix it. I would get rid of the extension and use a custom line. I have Smart Word Extensions turned on, though (for other extensions in this file). With Smart Word Extensions turned on, I can't figure out how to get rid of just one extension in order to replace it with a custom line. Is this possible? -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ 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] Edit left side of word extension?
On 9/29/05, Barbara Touburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, select it and press delete (choose lyrics - edit word extensions first of course) Thanks! Sometimes I'm looking so hard for a workaround that I don't even see the things that are staring me in the face... thanks for pointing out my blind spot. -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 29.09.2005 23:41 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: So they listen for the soundcard input? How did you feed the MP3 into that? I had to initiate playback in an MP3 player, and tell it what device to listen to. Yes, but you still haven't answered my question: how did the output get to the input? Inside or outside the computer? Ie, did you connect the output to the input? It was not clear to me that these applications could not open files. But it is still not clear to me how you actually manage to play any files through them. I said this in my first posts explaining that none of the software I'd tried worked for me. You just missed it, obviously. Well, from your post, which I just re-read just to be sure, I understood that the analysis software came as a plugin, and you used that inside other software which played back your MP3 file. That's actually the most common way for such analysis software to work these days, so it is not all that ridiculous for me to assume this was the case. In such a scenario your soundcard would indeed not have played any role in the process. Whatever the case, I really, really think that my posts were perhaps annoying to you, but in no way offensive or abusive. I was merely trying to help you. Your post, on the other hand, was, imho, completely unacceptable on a forum like this, and I really ask you to come to your senses and learn some manners. It really p§$%$sses me off how you treat others, including me, who only tried to help you. You do this at almost regular intervals. Any normal discussion you enter will almost certainly end with you offending others. It is completely unneccessary and not asked for. Sorry to others for letting off some steam. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Edit left side of word extension?
On Sep 29, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On 9/29/05, Barbara Touburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, select it and press delete (choose lyrics - edit word extensions first of course) Thanks! Sometimes I'm looking so hard for a workaround that I don't even see the things that are staring me in the face... thanks for pointing out my blind spot. Hi Brad, You are not alone. That stuff happens to many of us, and age and experience are no guarantee that your brain is always looking in the right place, even when it knows the answer you're seeking. I'm laughing with you. Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 30 Sep 2005 at 1:07, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 29.09.2005 23:41 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: So they listen for the soundcard input? How did you feed the MP3 into that? I had to initiate playback in an MP3 player, and tell it what device to listen to. Yes, but you still haven't answered my question: how did the output get to the input? Inside or outside the computer? Ie, did you connect the output to the input? The soundcard is INSIDE the computer. It's a device that is part of the audio interface of the computer. The spectrographic analysis application was listening to the output from this device, just as Audacity listens to the audio output from it. Since I have only one audio device in my PC, there was only one choice for the output. As to input into the soundcard, the MP3 or WAV player sends it to the audio card. The analysis programs listens to the output of that and analyzes it. That process of passing through my soundcard obviously shapes the wave according to the amount of innacuracy and distortion inherent in my sound card. It was not clear to me that these applications could not open files. But it is still not clear to me how you actually manage to play any files through them. I said this in my first posts explaining that none of the software I'd tried worked for me. You just missed it, obviously. Well, from your post, which I just re-read just to be sure, I understood that the analysis software came as a plugin, and you used that inside other software which played back your MP3 file. . . The first one I downloaded was an AU plugin, but I said in my post about it that I don't have any software that can be the host application for AU plugins, so that it was useless to me. . . . That's actually the most common way for such analysis software to work these days, so it is not all that ridiculous for me to assume this was the case. . .. Well, except for the fact that I explicitly said that I wasn't using an AU plugin because I was incapable of doing so, then your assumptions would be correct. . . . In such a scenario your soundcard would indeed not have played any role in the process. And I'd already said that I wasn't able to use an AU plugin. Whatever the case, I really, really think that my posts were perhaps annoying to you, but in no way offensive or abusive. I was merely trying to help you. But you ignored most of the crucial facts that were stated in my posts. Your post, on the other hand, was, imho, completely unacceptable on a forum like this, and I really ask you to come to your senses and learn some manners. . . . Well, perhaps I was misreading the tone of your posts, but each time you repeated the lecture about how my soundcard was not involved (despite having had the opportunity to read the facts that I'd already posted that should have given you enough information to know that my soundcard was, indeed, involved), I interpreted it with a tone that was decidedly unflattering to you. Think about how it feels to have 3 or 4 posts in a row telling you that you're wrong about what you're saying, and you'll know exactly how I felt in response to your posts. Oh, you've had those 3 or 4 posts from me telling you that you're wrong? Well, guess what -- you're experiencing pretty much exactly what it was like to receive the posts from you lecturing me on the fact that my soundcard was not involved. The only difference was that I used ALL CAPS and you didn't. . . . It really p§$%$sses me off how you treat others, including me, who only tried to help you. You do this at almost regular intervals. Any normal discussion you enter will almost certainly end with you offending others. It is completely unneccessary and not asked for. You're welcome to filter all my posts to your email client's trashcan. I see nothing wrong with my tone. I've seen far, far worse in any number of forums. And perhaps, as in the present instance, you are bringing assumptions to the discourse that are unwarranted or, as in the present instance, factually incorrect. Perhaps you misread my posts because, as in the current instance, you're not paying sufficient attention to the facts involved. Either way, your reaction to *my* posts is entirely within your control. It's not my job to tip-toe around my imaginary idea of how sensitive people reading my posts might be. And I only respond strongly when there's something to justify a response. And I post plenty in which there isn't even anything overly strong involved, just plain old answering questions. My guess is that you don't notice those because they don't stand out in your mind. But, again, it's all in your hands -- it's your reaction, and if you don't want to experience it, don't read my posts. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
RE: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Johannes Gebauer Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:08 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison On 29.09.2005 23:41 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: So they listen for the soundcard input? How did you feed the MP3 into that? I had to initiate playback in an MP3 player, and tell it what device to listen to. Yes, but you still haven't answered my question: how did the output get to the input? Inside or outside the computer? Ie, did you connect the output to the input? It was not clear to me that these applications could not open files. But it is still not clear to me how you actually manage to play any files through them. I said this in my first posts explaining that none of the software I'd tried worked for me. You just missed it, obviously. Well, from your post, which I just re-read just to be sure, I understood that the analysis software came as a plugin, and you used that inside other software which played back your MP3 file. That's actually the most common way for such analysis software to work these days, so it is not all that ridiculous for me to assume this was the case. In such a scenario your soundcard would indeed not have played any role in the process. Whatever the case, I really, really think that my posts were perhaps annoying to you, but in no way offensive or abusive. I was merely trying to help you. Your post, on the other hand, was, imho, completely unacceptable on a forum like this, and I really ask you to come to your senses and learn some manners. It really p§$%$sses me off how you treat others, including me, who only tried to help you. You do this at almost regular intervals. Any normal discussion you enter will almost certainly end with you offending others. It is completely unneccessary and not asked for. Sorry to others for letting off some steam. Johannes As I posted to Kurt on this list a few days ago, Johannes, it is an utter waste of your time to attempt to help David Fenton in any way whatsoever. Do yourself a favor and ignore all his posts; each day will be a little bit brighter if you do. You are certainly not alone in the sentiments expressed above, judging from the email I've received off-list in response to my previous post on this subject. On the technical point under discussion, you are of course 100% absolutely correct. The software must listen to the digital data stream going into the sound card; the only output from the sound card is the post D/A analog waveform sent to the speakers, which of course is not available to any software (other than your generous allowance for the possibility of an external loopback to a digital input, which you were roundly ridiculed for suggesting). This is pretty basic stuff. Life is too short to waste on the arrogantly ignorant. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 29 Sep 2005 at 17:20, Lee Actor wrote: On the technical point under discussion, you are of course 100% absolutely correct. The software must listen to the digital data stream going into the sound card; the only output from the sound card is the post D/A analog waveform sent to the speakers, which of course is not available to any software (other than your generous allowance for the possibility of an external loopback to a digital input, which you were roundly ridiculed for suggesting). This is pretty basic stuff. You and Johannes both seem to know nothing at all about PC audio. Life is too short to waste on the arrogantly ignorant. Physician! Heal thyself! -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
At 1:07 AM +0200 9/30/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Your post, on the other hand, was, imho, completely unacceptable on a forum like this, and I really ask you to come to your senses and learn some manners. It really p§$%$sses me off how you treat others, including me, who only tried to help you. This is what kill filters are for. I've been using one on Fenton for years. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
At 08:43 PM 9/29/2005, David W. Fenton wrote: On 29 Sep 2005 at 17:20, Lee Actor wrote: On the technical point under discussion, you are of course 100% absolutely correct. The software must listen to the digital data stream going into the sound card; the only output from the sound card is the post D/A analog waveform sent to the speakers, which of course is not available to any software (other than your generous allowance for the possibility of an external loopback to a digital input, which you were roundly ridiculed for suggesting). This is pretty basic stuff. You and Johannes both seem to know nothing at all about PC audio. David, I've hesitated to jump in here, because audio isn't particularly my area, but what Johnnes and Lee are saying seems quite correct to me. Think about it for a second. The software is either capturing the audio on the way to the soundcard or on the way out of the soundcard. The only thing that happens *after* the soundcard is that an analog waveform is sent to the output jack. It doesn't make sense for an app to capture that analog output; it must be capturing the digital stream on its way from the playing software *to* the soundcard. Hence it's captured before the sound card has a chance to affect it at all. Doesn't that seem correct? And if not, then how exactly does software listen to the stream traveling in a wire from the soundcard to the output jack? Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Secondary Beam Breaks
On Sep 27, 2005, at 7:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Well, that prompts a thought. Why not make the first note a tuplet, but a 16th note in the time of three 32nds? Then with the MIDI tool, reduce the duration by 1/3. Would that actually work? Have you tried this yet? Sounds to me like it would work, so long as you're still changing the time signature to make the measure that extra 32nd note long. It never occurred to me to use nonsensical tuplet definitions for this. It actually didn't occur to me either, at least not directly. I was thinking in terms of the invisible, inaudible note, and the tuplet was just an afterthought to make the extra flag go away. I'll be curious to know if this tuplet trick works. If it does, I think it's better than any of the other methods either of us came up with alone. Not only that, but I think with this method you no longer need the MIDI tool at all. If you're doing the note this way, then I see no reason not to go back to the idea that someone else in this thread mentioned and create an invisible articulation with playback definition to reduce the duration by 1/3. Then you could assign it to a metatool for quick entry. (For that matter, you could make the articulation visible, if you want to show some sort of comma for the phrase break.) Not only is this more efficient, I think; it's also less kludgy and more conceptually related to the real-world purpose. All of your Speedy entry is the notes as they'll appear, exactly as if you weren't adapting the playback at all. Then it's a three-step process: (1) Change the time signature of the measure to accommodate the additional time space; (2) Tuplet the phrase-ending note to make it expand to fill the extra time; (3) Apply the articulation to the phrase-ending note to tell it not to sound all the way through it's now expanded time allotment. That's pretty logical. mdl P.S. I assume you already figured this out, but when changing the time signature if you do it as compound -- eg, 9/32 + 3/4, as opposed to just 33/32 -- I believe that saves you trouble with the beaming, as well as better documenting your intent for when you come back to look at the file a year later. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
On 1:30 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: Yes, but you still haven't answered my question: how did the output get to the input? Inside or outside the computer? Ie, did you connect the output to the input? The soundcard is INSIDE the computer. It's a device that is part of the audio interface of the computer. The spectrographic analysis application was listening to the output from this device, just as Audacity listens to the audio output from it. Well, it's a waste of time, but one last try: No software can listen to the output of your soundcard. The output of your soundcard is analogue. No software of any sort could do anything with this. That's what I have been saying all along. It's you who is wrong. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
