MONTE
New member
In case ya care, I was able to get it "less noticeable" with vynl restoration plug in sound forge 5, but it was still there.
S
safarisound
New member
Have you tried zooming in at the sample level to locate the pop?
I am not sure about your software, but on the Saw products (IQS) you can zoom in and re-draw the wave (sample) to fix even the nastiest of pops...and will not introduce any artifacts. Much better and cleaner than a plugin. I'd be glad to help you out with that.
SafariSound
I am not sure about your software, but on the Saw products (IQS) you can zoom in and re-draw the wave (sample) to fix even the nastiest of pops...and will not introduce any artifacts. Much better and cleaner than a plugin. I'd be glad to help you out with that.
SafariSound
MONTE
New member
What I saw was not a pop or a single glitch although you can tell where each starts it seems to "sustain" a bit corrupting the wave after the initial attack. This is what makes it so diffucult to remove completely. It's not just a single spike or glitch. I think it would take so much time to fix (if it's even possible) that it would be easier to just do a "punch in" there or re-record the track if that's possible?
E
elbenj
New member
Had a similiar problem with Cake and heres what I discovered..
First of all, if its possible to monitor your Cpu usage at the time of the pop do that..if the cpu usage spikes at the time of the pop/crack ..it is a result of the edit..which you may have already surmised..Cake (and Cubase may do it the same way) will keep these type edits as separate wave files that will be joined together at that point in time...this I believes creates additional cpu usage, especially is the wave files are not in close proximty to one another on the HD. This is pure speculation on my part.
The fix would be..to bounce the edited wave file within Cubase to a different track utilizing the mixdown or bounce feature. This would create "one true wave file" rather than the pieced together one that the cpu and cubase are piecing together in realtime..Ive found that this is a good thing to do with all edited wave files..and this works well in Cake..and of course the pieced together file can be deleted..after the new file is confirmed to be good
As was already mentioned..the sample rate could have been altered during the edit...RME has a utility that monitors the sample rate in realtime that would actually show if the sample rate changed or faltered at that particular point in the recording..
I dont know if this utility works with other audio cards..
In any case...both of the above scenarios would not show up in the wave file if you were to look for it...
Just something else to consider..good luck!
First of all, if its possible to monitor your Cpu usage at the time of the pop do that..if the cpu usage spikes at the time of the pop/crack ..it is a result of the edit..which you may have already surmised..Cake (and Cubase may do it the same way) will keep these type edits as separate wave files that will be joined together at that point in time...this I believes creates additional cpu usage, especially is the wave files are not in close proximty to one another on the HD. This is pure speculation on my part.
The fix would be..to bounce the edited wave file within Cubase to a different track utilizing the mixdown or bounce feature. This would create "one true wave file" rather than the pieced together one that the cpu and cubase are piecing together in realtime..Ive found that this is a good thing to do with all edited wave files..and this works well in Cake..and of course the pieced together file can be deleted..after the new file is confirmed to be good
As was already mentioned..the sample rate could have been altered during the edit...RME has a utility that monitors the sample rate in realtime that would actually show if the sample rate changed or faltered at that particular point in the recording..
I dont know if this utility works with other audio cards..
In any case...both of the above scenarios would not show up in the wave file if you were to look for it...
Just something else to consider..good luck!
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Thanks all.... yes - I can certainly re-comp the parts from the originals, but I was trying to save myself the added work!
BUT... in the end, it may not be a big deal after all -- I was concentrating on the the artifact when the track was solo'd, and neglected to see if it's even audible within the context of the mix... it turns out that some well-placed drums and cymbals effectively mask it, so I'm not going to worry about it just yet.............!
Lesson of the day -- if you can't fix the track, then bury the fucker in the mix!!
BUT... in the end, it may not be a big deal after all -- I was concentrating on the the artifact when the track was solo'd, and neglected to see if it's even audible within the context of the mix... it turns out that some well-placed drums and cymbals effectively mask it, so I'm not going to worry about it just yet.............!
Lesson of the day -- if you can't fix the track, then bury the fucker in the mix!!
MONTE
New member
Best of luck, Bear!