gooroo

--------------------------------- I find it very difficult to imagine how one who is doing anything at least half-way serious can find any utility with a "special" version of WavePad in which the batch file processor, bookmarks, and regions have deliberately been removed so that it can be offered at no cost and continue to "work" forever (i.e., after an initial trial period)!! Perhaps your "workflow" can tolerate this forever lack of essential features. After you answer this question, you may confirm my oft-repeated claim that "The best things in (software) life are not free". In other words, don't waste your time just for the sake of claiming that you somehow scored a coup and got it free. Pay up, save a lot of aggravation, and get something which has utility beyond an initial short trial period (two weeks) during which all features designed into the licensed version are fully operational. gooroo (your Phrendly Philosopher)

It probably "can't". gooroo

What a great idea! A quick at the recommended link for sending large files by email to strangers across the world would certainly suggest that this "senduit" link has been established by either governmental authorities or by the music publishing industry, looking for copyright violations! So if you do not mind those unencrypted files that are sending to who-knows(?) over the internet (which is hardly the most secure venue for file transmittal unless precautions are taken), then by all means fall speed ahead, if you have nothing to hide from anyone. In short, the internet is an open book unless you "lock" the book against those who would peek. Repeat: What a great idea! (the route may be bumpy) gooroo

Probably :-) Has it occurred to you that you might not be able both to obtain (by a legal download) a free piece of software which is also advertised (from the very same company) at a reasonable license price, with both pieces of software having the identical set of operating features? If not, then you might stop to think back, through all of your past experiences, when such a situation has presented itself to you :-) Now that you have thought about it (for a fraction of a second, I presume), you may have some different thoughts on the matter. There is no substitute for logic and common sense--as brutal as this thinking process may sometimes may be!!! gooroo (The Phrendly Philosopher)

Apparently you haven't yet heard. Despite that ancient American saying, the best things in life are not free :-) gooroo

The best place to start learning what this sound-level monitoring business is about is at the website: www.darkwood.demon.co.uk/PC/meter.html Here you can download a couple of different _free_ (no strings whatsoever) excellent little sound-level meters that can be used along with any recording program to precisely set your sound level at _any_ time in the process. Download this little gem, read the instructions, and have a _look_ at what it is doing. Who knows, the puzzle might even clear up, particularly when the price is right :-) This guy knows very well what he is doing. Now there are two..... gooroo

These two things are not the same. "Where can you turn up the bass in Wavepad Masters?" means: "In which WavePad menu is given an entry for increasing the amount of bass?" On the other hand, "What are the settings for the eq?" means: "How does one adjust the available controls (having found them in the appropriate menu) to achieve the desired increase in the amount of bass?" So which is it (not "in other words") that you want? There is certainly an undeniable advantage in knowing how to speak the language sufficiently well to obtain and utilize information about technically oriented software. But then, I guess that I am just old-fashioned :-) gooroo

You say that you have 23 MP3 files, which were all created the same way. However, you did not say what type of application was used to create these files. The problem here seems to be that you used the "wrong" type of conversion software to create these files: you used "level 2" mp3 versus the standard "level 3" mp3. It is assumed by the mp3gain application that level 3 mp3 has been used to do the mp3 conversion. Where did your files originate? That is, how were they created and what was their format before they became mp3 files? I have not run into your particular problem, since all of the mp3 sound-file format conversion which I do (and I have a few programs which do such conversions, such as WavePad, Switch, Lame, and others which I shall not mention here, etc., etc), result in an mp3 LEVEL THREE file, which works nicely with the mp3gain normalizing application. I think that your answer to my question should illuminate the trouble area. In short, just tell me where you got these files which you are trying to normalize.... gooroo

-------------- If you need any help or clarification with mp3gain and the distinction between the normalization accomplished with this superb little program and that which is offered by WavePad, ask here and (perhaps) I can be of some assistance. I believe that I understand the basic concepts, although admittedly not having every last detail under control :-). In my experience, it is only getting a good grasp upon the basic concepts which can produce a truly satisfactory result. I wonder how many folks around these technically-oriented forums even recognize what constitutes a "satisfactory" result? In order to avoid confronting this question, they remain silent. Frozen into silence, that is....... gooroo

Here is something that you can understand! It is a small freeware program which is very easy and straightforward to use and will (with just a small amount of usage) lead to a superb understanding of what normalization is all about. Strong emphasis upon a grasp of the essentials. This program, which is right to the point, approaches the subject of normallization from a very different viewpoint than that "traditional" approach used by WavePad. Not that WavePad is "bad"--just that its "normal" approach to this subject is faked out by an end-run (so to speak) around normality. This program, however, is limited to mp3 files only, which is of course the reason for the name "mp3gain". It is easily used in conjunction with WavePad by doing what is necessary (on the editing/conversion side of the process) to create an mp3 file. Once you have such a file, then "normalize" it using mp3Gain, effortlessly and painlessly, while indeed understanding what you are doing! You will then be one-up on 99.99 of folks who have been unsuccessfully attempting to normalize their mp3 files since the beginning of time :-) So run, do not walk, to the website "http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net" and download the file from the download link named "mp3gain-win-1_2_5.exe". If you still wish to normalize your mp3 files using WavePad's traditional approach to normalization, then someone else will have to help you with this. It's that simple--if anything about normalization can be claimed to be simple :-). I might add that I have posted this information here (albeit in a more extended form, along with information about another type of mp3 application) with absolutely no response. Users in this forum seem to be terrified by anything at all that even remotely smacks of something "technical," even though it will (with just a slight amount of effort) solve a giant and persistent problem for them! If you are one of these timid souls (even though this a simple program and concept to grasp), then so be it. The choice is yours. gooroo

WavePad bookmarks are used for editing and/or locating purposes while using WavePad. As far as I know, WavePad bookmarks are not recognized by the Windows Media Player application, which merrily ignores them, as though they do not exist. Tough luck. Hence what you need to do is create separate mp3 files for the various sections (which are called "regions" by WavePad). Each section will then be recognizable by Windows Media Player, and it is a simple matter to pass over unwanted files that correspond with sections of the original large file in which the student is not interested. Directions for creating regions and saving them as independent files are provided in the WavePad help file which is included with the program. The keyword to look for in searching through the help for is "region". gooroo

gooroo

-------------------- Hopefully, Michael, you will eventually get this obsteperous "CJM" straightened out :-) Incidentally, I wonder what the initials CJM stand for, as I note the interesting similarity to the intials "MJ". Pure coincidence? Just wondering...... gooroo

Audio editing software separates (if this is needed) sounds by their frequency content, not specifically by instrument. If two instruments produce sounds which lie in different parts of the frequency spectrum, then these instruments can be "separated" by frequency-selective filtering. For example, a piccolo can easily be separated from a tuba, since a piccolo produces very high-pitched signs while a tuba produces very low-pitched sounds. On the other hand, if the sounds that two instruments produce lie within the same range of frequencies (i.e., on "top of each other," as it were), it is impossible to separate them by a frequency-filtering process. In this case, there is no way for the software to recognize which is which. If there is a frequency overlap in the two instruments, but some frequencies remain unique to one instrument while other frequencies remain unique to the other instrument, then it is possible to provide a "partial separation" by eliminating the frequency range which is common to both instruments. The result is unlikely to be very good, however, since frequencies will be removed for both instruments, leading to a degraded tone quality for both instruments. The degradation depends upon the amount of frequency overlap. Every case is different; try experimenting and see if you can come up with an acceptable compromise. To do so, you will have to learn about filtering, in the "effects" menu. gooroo

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you care to speculate upon the percentage of legitimate technical questions posted in this forum which is answered (correctly, promptly, and with clarity) by the readers of these questions? How does your current guess compare with your assumption at the time that you downloaded the "free" software? Actually, you got more than you paid for, albeit less than the full-featured set of the licensed version of the software. It is naive to believe that answers to technical questions about sound editing software are going to come from those, like yourself, who are seeking answers to such questions! The large majority of those who use this forum are seeking answers to their questions, rather than seeking to answer questions posed by others. This is inevitably the case, given the technical nature of sound editing software. A software purchase (which may include the support that is necessary to educate novice users) is a zero-sum game. Apparently you did not understand this when you downloaded the "free" version of WavePad. Unfortunately, this is (sigh) the way that things work. gooroo

-------------- Dear Junkie, In WavePad's File menu is an encrypted entry: "Register Master's Edition". I suspect that this entry is somehow associated with the amelioration of your overwhelming anxiety. Mod: Edited, Warned

MichaelJee: date='Dec 3 2008, 09:24 PM' post='25143' Hi, In case you didn’t realize, NCH don’t make codecs, it utilizes them. For .mp3 we are of course using the LAME codec. gooroo: Unfortunately, however, NCH is using the older version of LAME, which is 3.82. This version has now been upgraded to version 3.98.2, alternately referred to as 3.98r ("r" for revised). This newest revised version of 3.98 contains the superior form of VBR (Variable Bit Rate) used in the earlier version 3.82 and still used today by NCH. Just recently I told a poster who asked about the use of the newer version of LAME that "Old is Gold." This newest version of LAME is in a form in which the user sets the upper and lower instantaneous bitrates. I normally use a Variable Bit Rate from 224 kbps to 320 kbps, which averages out somewhere near 220 kbps and gives a reproduction quality which is virtually indistinguishable from the original sound. Unfortunately still, NCH (unless I am mistaken; please feel free to contradict me) does not provide instructions which permit the user of its software (such as Switch and WavePad) to install the latest downloaded version of the LAME encoder in the proper folder so that these NCH programs can utilize it. If you have any information which contradicts what I am saying, I would be more than glad for you to post it here, since I understand that the latest improved version of LAME is very good indeed and corrects some past problems with version 3.97, which has now been retired from the LAME website. MJ: You shouldn’t theoretically loose quality going from .mp3 > .wav, though you will slightly from going back to .mp3. There is no way around this. gooroo: You are correct in that the loss in quality occurs when .wav is encoded as .mp3, and not in the decoding of .mp3. If one starts with a .wav file, converts it to .mp3, then discovers that he wants to edit it, he will lose some quality if he decodes the file, edits it, and then once again converts it to .mp3. It is the encoding to .mp3 in this cycle which the poster would like to avoid. However, there are specialized small and completely free forever, without any chameleon change at some later time, applications available on the internet which permit a certain specialized type of editing of .mp3 files, in which decoding is not required. Hence this limited editing can be performed upon an mp3 file, without the inevitable loss of quality that results when the file is decoded before it is edited. If NCH has no objection, I will be happy to post the URL for downloading one exceptionally good free application of this sort, which can be used in conjunction with NCH conversion software. MJ:Simply keep a copy of the original source material. If you will work on the file for while, keep it in the .wav format until you need to output it. If you look about, you can find more details on the inner working of the algorithm that LAME use. I agree with you, with it not hard to find 1TB drives for AU$150.00, the size of audio files really isn’t a concern. If you need to retain that quality, keep it as a .wav. if you need to stick it on a smaller portable music device, then compress back down again. gooroo: And I submit that this may be easier said than done! I am guessing that the poster who is lamenting the loss of quality in the decode mp3-edit-recode mp3 does NOT have the .wav original and wants to edit the mp3 version, which is almost surely the only version in his (or her) possession. If so, then perhaps the use of the small, specialized .mp3 editor which I have described will permit this individual to avoid this quality-loss cycle, when he has no control over the fact that the original .wav file was encoded to mp3 "behind his back," so to speak. MJ:Losses like you describe are why professional studios use ultra high sample rates and frequency ceilings to minimize the loss of quality you speak of. When complete, they downgrade 44.1hKz sample / 20kHz ceiling. Hope this helps ---------- gooroo:Somehow, I seriously doubt that it will. But then again, I could be wrong. I have been before. Perhaps the poster will step forward and admit that he does not possess the .wav version of the file--assuming of course that this is the case. If it is the case, then I suspect that the use of the type of mp3 editing program that I have described above will help :-). Do you suppose that NCH is willing for this kind of help (i.e., its internet location) to be posted right here in this forum? gooroo

I don't believe that Switch (free or otherwise, PC or Mac) supports Ogg Vorbis, either VBR or constant bit rate. Others may prove me wrong :-) gooroo

Perhaps the message to which the poster refers should be rewritten to clarify the difference between these two versions, or to steer the user toward the explanation provided elsewhere. gooroo (sloshing throo the Goo)

Go back to sleep gooroo

If the hum is not a problem with converting the cassette tapes he is now doing, why cannot he use the "humless" technique that he is now using to rework those cassette tapes so that there is no hum problem? It is far better to get it right in the first place (i.e., to avoid introducing hum where no hum belongs) than it is to use a faulty setup, introduce hum into the file, and then try to get it out! The major problem with attempting to wipe out hum from a sound file is that the hum spectrum will almost certainly be vying with the wanted frequencies within the same spectral region. Therefore, filtering out hum frequencies will invariably remove some of the wanted frequency content. And guess what? If you don't put those unwanted hum frequencies into the file, then you will not be faced with removing some of the wanted frequencies when you remove some of the unwanted frequency content. :-) This being said, there is no absolutely sure-fire method for eliminating hum once you have been infected with the HumBug. In order to attack this Bug with any reasonable degree of success, it is necessary first to determine the frequency content of the hum. This determination requires something which is called a "spectral analysis." It is discussed in the WavePad Help file, under the title "Discrete Fast Fourier Transform" or "Temporal Fast Fourier Transform." The difference between these two methods is that the former is a spectral snapshot at one particular point in time, whereas the latter is a spectral analysis covering a certain time span. You may find the tools for performing these analyses in the (where else?) Tools menu. After you find out what your ailment is (the analog of a medical diagnosis), you can then set about designing a frequency filter in an attempt to remove the offending frequencies. This is also discussed in the Help File. Read the discussions in the Help file (both as they relate to Fast Fourier Transform analysis and to filtering out unwanted frequencies) to find out how to proceed to solve your problem. Alternatively, go back to square one, dig up those original cassettes and rework those conversions. This will avoid having to dig into the Fast Fourier Transform procedures. In other words, you may wish to rethink your approach to this hum-elimination problem which, when it "works," will most likely only remove some of the hum, however "hum" may be defined. One has to be careful in defining this fuzzy word in any particular case. Welcome to Fast Fourier Transforms!! :-) Happy adventuring. gooroo

(1) NO :-( (2) You're welcome. I'm so glad to oblige. :-) gooroo

One little word of caution: never offer thanks in advance. Do you suppose that your friend is "tufunuf" to show up here in person and explain his/her hum problem? If not, it is virtually guaranteed that the problem will continue to hum along--forever and ever and ever and........ gooroo (and I do mean Goo)

Dear Liz, I would suggest that you go for a walkabout in the bush: (1) Within two weeks of downloading the free version of Switch, try a particular conversion and see if it works. If it doesn't, then you are out of luck, since for the first two weeks, all of the features designed into the Plus version are available for trial in the free version. Now for step #2 of your walkabout. (2) If the conversion is properly executed, then wait for one more week (for good measure) and try the same conversion once again. If it _now_ fails, you know that your cut-down free version does not possess this feature possessed by the Plus version. (3) If you want to determine whether another conversion is available within the limited confines of the free version, then download another copy of the free version and try this same thing all over again. If your legs are not worn out by this time, you will have another data point on the difference between the free an plus versions. (4) Keep on trying this for as many different conversions as you wish. This will allow you to build up your own special "differential" list between the two versions of Switch. (5) This is the way that it is done in the bush. It is known as persistence in the face of adversity. gooroo (P.S. As a superior alternative, I would suggest that you simply purchase this software and get on with it :-))