Moderator: Captain Ned
ludi wrote:I had no idea that Audacity included a repairing function. That can be useful.
Captain Ned wrote:Looks like it was over 0dBFS on the digital side, which implies sloppy engineering either in recording or mastering.
DragonDaddyBear wrote:Is all of this being done in Audacity, including the screenshots?
morphine wrote:Does it have an actual UI these days, though?
(no way you could fix something like Death Magnetic this way).
meerkt wrote:Once upon a time I ripped a scratched CD that I didn't have another copy of.
There were tons of short clicks, usually just a sample or two.
Most of the clicks were visible in spectral view, so I didn't have to listen much to find them.
I wanted minimal collateral modification, so I fixed it with Cool Edit by manually dragging the samples to smooth the curve, and verified/tweaked until the click disappeared in spectral view.
Chrispy_ wrote:I love Adacity (and should use it more than I do), but you'd think in this era we'd have moved on from silly mistakes like audio clipping, right?
Mastering should be done by algorithm rather than by people, meaning zero human error and perfect peak amplitude from the original source rather than wasted fidelity or clipping.
Noinoi wrote:This apparently even works sort of with a few samples of complete silence in the middle of a track. I had to deal with a file that had a few samples of silence in the middle of the song for some reason; the repair function changed the audible click and pop from the sudden silence into something that isn't exactly correct, but at least not annoyingly so. (audibly, it sounds more like some instruments play earlier than expected, though I'm not sure why it sounds like that even though the damage isn't that long - probably just our hearing?)
just brew it! wrote:FWIW it also has a clipping identification tool which will tag areas with suspected clipping
Chrispy_ wrote:Normalization won't help much, and dynamic range compression does require decision-making and work.I get really annoyed that people encoding things can't use the whole volume range. Nothing's worse than having to crank my sound system up twice
Chrispy_ wrote:LOL, there you go; Proof that an algorithm can recognise the problem. Why do we let humans do rubbish work when we know a machine will do it perfectly?
Chrispy_ wrote:I get really annoyed that people encoding things can't use the whole volume range. Nothing's worse than having to crank my sound system up twice as far as it should be, just because the audio of what I'm watching only utilises 0-30% of the available channel range. Not only does that amplify the interference from other sources, it also means that when I get a notification or other noise at "normal" volume it startles/deafens me and probably doesn't do my surround system any good either
Chrispy_ wrote:I know what you mean about the loudness wars, but if what you were saying was correct, normalisation would work on these uber-quiet tracks because the very loud peaks would give the normalisation algorithm the extents of the dynamic range, and then the majority of the soundtrack that was quiet would be increased in volume to bring it closer to the midpoint of the total 0-100% dynamic range.