If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in m: I'm not sure how many of these tools still run on Win98SE, but I know some do. Programs such as: Wave Corrector Pro, Wave Repair, Vinyl Studio, and at least some older versions of Magix Audio Cleaning Lab, just for starters. (one can often find older versions on Amazon or on eBay, etc). But there are pros and cons to each of these. Incidentally, I think the first three are British in origin. :-) Once a computer has been paid for, modified, built to solve certain tasks, fitted with hardware that depends on the OS running on it, there's no useful distinction between it and the mind of its operator. Most of the reason for bloat and ever faster machines to do the same basic tasks is precisely because people want to change computers like they change shoes, always afraid to get deep into what they have, instead preferring to take every new promise instead of building their own life no matter how small and futile it might seem to 'limit' themselves that way. Not so long ago, most people couldn't even change shoes that readily either. As most of our serious problems come from the same things that bring us so many 'solutions', I prefer to be cautious and use what I have if it's a choice between that and giving most of it up. We've had this discussion several time, and the one thing I won't do is turn over my machines, or way of thinking, for one task at the expense of all the others. It's not going to happen (and likely wouldn't even if I had a few thousand bucks to throw at the problem because there are other things I'd want to do more). I have explained in extensive detail how and why I manage, in ways many professional sound engineers don't know so I think I've stated my case well enough. Just let me live with my choices. That doesn't hurt, but going round in the same circles again and again despite explaining very good reasons not to, CAN hurt, so let it rest. OK. Sorry if I offended. (I'm sometimes overly persistent, if not forgetful. :-) |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m: OK. Sorry if I offended. (I'm sometimes overly persistent, if not forgetful. :-) Ok. Take it as a cue for any other discussion... For what it's worth, I did just look up a Craig Anderton article on FSE. I've trusted his word on many things since thirty years ago, seeing his writing on guitar electronics and synthesisers. He is clearly impressed with FSE, but interestingly his first statements included an immediate assessment of merits versus difficulties. Basically, what he said was that he could have done the same with EQ, but it would have been tedious. I'm ok with tedium. EQ's not all that limiting, some of the smarter ones have really great parameter control, simple 2D graphics which ease the task a lot. The main thing lacking in most is easy control of progression over time, in fact most have NONE, they're fixed! A few good EQ tools with some time based progression and an ability to auto-correct for phase shifts in output would be a huge step toward FSE, the only thing lacking would be the visualisation. So while I can't go for FSE because no decent interface to it runs on what I have, apparently, there may well be some EQ tools that go beyond control over filter types, slopes, curves, such as I already have in DirectX plugins, but also allow time based changes. I don't need to see the spectrum in the time domain, I just need that much temporal control, and to hear it. There may be such tools that I missed... |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
Lostgallifreyan wrote in
: I just need that much temporal control, and to hear it. There may be such tools that I missed... Just ought to mention here that I do NOT mean stuff like Waldorf's Dpole or any other special effect VCF type thinger, those tend to butcher fine detail and offer very poor control. (Actually I wouldn't even use the Dpole as a special effect, it's like putting salt and sugar into food, each masking the other but totally changing a character that has more to do with them and little with the original food. Cakewalk make some useful stuff, but I don't think I found a good time variant filter there) |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in m: OK. Sorry if I offended. (I'm sometimes overly persistent, if not forgetful. :-) Ok. Take it as a cue for any other discussion... For what it's worth, I did just look up a Craig Anderton article on FSE. I've trusted his word on many things since thirty years ago, seeing his writing on guitar electronics and synthesisers. He is clearly impressed with FSE, but interestingly his first statements included an immediate assessment of merits versus difficulties. I'm not familiar with Craig Anderton, so I can't comment on his knowledge of audio restoration techniques and practices. But I do think a good source on this subject would be someone who has either designed the FSE tools for an audio editor, or an audio engineer who just has good knowledge of - and experience with - using this stuff, to actually restore many severely glitched audio files. And preferably (but not necessarily) with an EE background. Basically, what he said was that he could have done the same with EQ, but it would have been tedious. But I think I've heard that said about noise reduction software, too. Yes, theoretically that is essentially what is automatically being done by the noise reduction software or plug-ins, but still, I think the computer algorithms can often analyze and process it more effectively than me. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much use for noise reduction tools (including such plug-ins), unless you solely believe it just for amateurs, who don't want to invest the time doing it with a multiple band equalizer, which I don't believe is the only reason. :-) I'm ok with tedium. EQ's not all that limiting, some of the smarter ones have really great parameter control, simple 2D graphics which ease the task a lot. The main thing lacking in most is easy control of progression over time, in fact most have NONE, they're fixed! A few good EQ tools with some time based progression and an ability to auto-correct for phase shifts in output would be a huge step toward FSE, the only thing lacking would be the visualisation. So while I can't go for FSE because no decent interface to it runs on what I have, apparently, But I don't think we don't know that for a certainty. Unless you mean w/o doing anything to your system, like adding any other programs. I wasn't sure what you meant. there may well be some EQ tools that go beyond control over filter types, slopes, curves, such as I already have in DirectX plugins, Oh, that reminds me. I think there is an FSE tool built into the iZotope RX audio restoration plug-in suite - I don't know if you're familiar with that software (not exactly cheap, either, but is a lot less expensive than Cedar!). but also allow time based changes. I don't need to see the spectrum in the time domain, I just need that much temporal control, and to hear it. There may be such tools that I missed... BTW, whenever I try to make any of these corrections, I always preview the results before committing them - that let's me tweak them a bit better. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
"98 Guy" wrote in message ... Lostgallifreyan wrote: For example, if I open an instance of FireFox, that instance will be using what-ever version of the hosts file that existed at the time firefox was started. If I edit or delete the hosts file while that instance is running, it has no effect on that instance. Firefox continues to operate as if the original hosts file is still present. Even if I open more tabs and browse to new sites, the pre-existing hosts file is still in effect. If I keep this instance of FF running and open a new instance, the new instance will behave according to what-ever changes I've made to the hosts file. So it seems to be that each application has it's own version of the hosts file cached for it somewhere in memory, which is loaded at the time the application is started. Been a l-o-n-g time since viewing or writing to this NG. Good to see it active and you guys writing about something worthwhile and interesting (unlike many other NG's). Regarding HOSTS and browsers; I too still use FF2 (Bon Echo v2.0.0.22) on W98 and a large HOSTS file. There is NO perceivable performance hit, and while it's true FF opens the HOSTS file one time (then keeps it open), I've noticed Opera (v10.63) does not! I can change the HOSTS file with Opera browser open, UNblock a URL, and that UNblocked page is now accessible (simply with a refresh). So HOSTS performance/effectiveness is browser dependant. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
"none" wrote in :
Regarding HOSTS and browsers; I too still use FF2 (Bon Echo v2.0.0.22) on W98 and a large HOSTS file. There is NO perceivable performance hit, and while it's true FF opens the HOSTS file one time (then keeps it open), I've noticed Opera (v10.63) does not! I can change the HOSTS file with Opera browser open, UNblock a URL, and that UNblocked page is now accessible (simply with a refresh). So HOSTS performance/effectiveness is browser dependant. Sounds ok to me. I guess people who code for use of the TCP/IP stack know of it and use it as they want. It could also be useful for programs that can't connect to a web proxy (which is how Proxomitron presents itself to the world). Slightly off-topic, I read on the BBC news site last night that some people might lose net access due to the FBI shutting down some DNS hijacking network. The compromised machines still remaining might end up pointed to no- where-in-particular-anymore. This sounds like it might be a case of local hosts file attack. No idea if it though.. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
DNS-Changer malware RSS feed reader
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Slightly off-topic, I read on the BBC news site last night that some people might lose net access due to the FBI shutting down some DNS hijacking network. There was some malware circulating about a year ago that changed the DNS settings in people's routers and on their computers so that the DNS IP-address pointed to IP addresses controlled by hackers or botnet-owners. The hackers operated their own servers DNS at those IP addresses that performed god-knows-what in terms of messing up those systems that connected to them during DNS queries. The "authorities" somehow shut down the botnet in question and took control of the rogue IP addresses and set up their own surrogate servers that operated properly in terms of DNS queries, and they began to collect some metrics in terms of how many comprimized systems were using them, where those systems were located, etc. I believe that the initial number of comprimized systems using these fake servers was about 500k, and over time (a year?) the number dropped to 250k. The authorities believed that over time, the vast majority of system-operators/owners would discover that their DNS settings were mis-configured and would fix them, and so these surrogate servers wouldn't need to be online for more than a few months. But they were wrong, and they extended the deadline for turning off these surrogate servers at least once, and here we are - at the point where (finally) they will be shut off. They became reluctant to turn off the surrogate servers after learning that some of the comprimized systems using them belonged to fortune-500 companies as well as .gov and .mil domains, and that too many "important" users would be disrupted by essentially having no working DNS functionality if they took the surrogate servers off-line. The media picked up on this situation (which is what the authorities wanted) and in the end I don't know how many systems were still using the surrogate servers by the time they pulled the plug on them (which is supposed to be today). |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
"Bill in Co" wrote in
: But I think I've heard that said about noise reduction software, too. Yes, theoretically that is essentially what is automatically being done by the noise reduction software or plug-ins, but still, I think the computer algorithms can often analyze and process it more effectively than me. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much use for noise reduction tools (including such plug-ins), unless you solely believe it just for amateurs, who don't want to invest the time doing it with a multiple band equalizer, which I don't believe is the only reason. :-) In the case of NR, it's a contant print made with fine detail, to remove periodic or constant noise whose variations are on extremely short time scales. That is best done automatically, but FSE (and more importantly the underlying filter process) need human input. FSE isn't just frequency domain, it is also time domain, otherwise it would be no more than a static EQ. The main reason for FSE is the removal of transients that affect only part of the spectrum, and stand some chance of clean reduction if we can isolate them. This can only be as good as the underlying filter. So long as I can get control of a filter like that I don't miind if I can't see the time/frequency plot, time is enough, with the second dimension being used to plot a simple curve or two, such as cutoff frequency and slope. Many filters set those parameters statically, but my best shot is likely to be finding one that lets me draw dynamic curves the same way that some Cakewalk and SoundForge plugins do it. A good dynamic filter will have some phase offset correction I hope. I have fixed problems in bass signals with a static EQ and found a delay that I had to correct before merging the fixed sound with the original in a cross- fade. I don't need full FSE, I just need some dynamic filter that lets me avoid some of the tedium that results from making up for static methods' deficiencies. (I wonder if FSE might lead to many newcomers having no awareness of filters and their methods and limits. If so, it may lead to unrealistic expectations because any audio cleaner is only as good as its filters). |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
"Bill in Co" wrote in
: I'm not familiar with Craig Anderton, so I can't comment on his knowledge of audio restoration techniques and practices. English guy, probably. He has written product manuals for Peavey though, a US firm. He has written other manuals too, and academic books on synthesis, and electronic guitar projects. He has a knack of lucid explanations that go deep while not appearing difficult. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Data Feed inn Excel Form | S1L1Y1 | General | 10 | March 28th 08 08:45 PM |
Data Feed in Excel form | S1L1Y1 | General | 0 | March 27th 08 08:19 PM |
PDF Reader | Dapper Dan | General | 19 | April 11th 07 02:18 PM |
RSS Reader | Stan | General | 1 | August 27th 06 10:19 PM |
adding rss feed | Bob | General | 0 | June 20th 06 11:14 PM |