[Ardour-Users] click free editing and zero crossings?

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Wed May 19 06:46:20 PDT 2010

Thomas Vecchione wrote:
> 2010/5/19 Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings at stackingdwarves.net 
> <mailto:nettings at stackingdwarves.net>>
>     On 05/19/2010 01:21 PM, Thomas Vecchione wrote:
>     > Or you inverse the phase of your second example;)
>     >
>     > While you example is not necessarily bad, it is limited.  The
>     basic concept
>     > of editing at a zero point is not bad at all and comes in
>     particular from
>     > working with ProTools and other tools for me where there is (Or
>     was last I
>     > worked with it) a very audible difference(click) between editing
>     at a zero
>     > crossing and not doing it.
>     i don't doubt that. my points are:
>     a) there is nothing magical about zero crossings.
>     b) you might as well edit at any <arbitrary value> crossing. what
>     helps
>     preventing clicks here is the fact that both sides of the splice
>     are at
>     roughly the same value. what helps even more is for both splice
>     sides to
>     cross <arbitrary value> in the same direction (unlike in my example,
>     which was intentionally nasty in that regard).
> True, but cutting at the zero crossing is infinitely more reliable 
> than trying to find the -.000234 crossing.  That is why people use 
> zero for a reference as it typically has a nice reference line in many 
> DAWs that require this for this exact reason.  That line COULD be at 
> -.000234 if they wanted, but then it becomes harder to visualize a DC 
> offset as well.
>     c) splices at similar values (or zero crossings, for that matter) are
>     not a 100% guarantee the edit will be clean.
> But they ARE the first step in helping to ensure that those edits are 
> as clean as possible.
>     IMH(HHHHHHHHHHH)O less cut, copy and paste at all events is more
>     musically. I wonder that editing recordings all the time is that
>     popular. It's good to have this feature, but bad to use it in
>     general. When I do cut, copy and paste music I prefer MIDI
>     instruments ;).
> Because not everything Ardour is used for is Music?  I use it quite 
> often for SFX, where I need to cut copy and paste exactly as described 
> quite often to build the sounds I want.
> Also because when recording a 128 channel orchestral recording, and 
> one violinist screws up in one spot, you might not necessarily want to 
> hold and pay the entire orchestra for another X hours till you get the 
> perfect recording, but instead might want to record just that one spot 
> with the one violinist so that you aren't paying the violinist to 
> reproduce a perfect take either of a 30 minutes long piece.
> And because on occasion you may not notice a single drum hit, or bass 
> slap, or half dozen other things that were off in time, tonality, etc. 
> while recording, and sometimes it can be easier to replace that single 
> sample, than to call a studio musician back i after they think the 
> recording is done, pay them enough to make it worth their while, for a 
> single hit.
>  I could come up with a half dozen other examples pretty easily as 
> well.  Yes capturing it right the first time is the best way, but is 
> not always practical, and as digital recording and editing becomes 
> more powerful, it is sadly becoming less and less practical in the 
> minds of those with the money.
>       Seablade

Don't get me wrong :) that's why I wrote "It's good to have this 
feature, but bad to use it in general". I started to do collages, SFX 
etc. editing in professional sound quality with using an analog Revox 
and because of doing this I guess Ross gives the most important hint ...

Ross Johnson wrote:
> I do this quite often by ear by scrubbing back and forth near where I 
> want to cut.

For non-professional sound quality, e.g. by using 4track cassette 
recorders there only is the way to punch in and out and that isn't a 
cut, but a fade in and out.


More information about the Ardour-Users mailing list