Speech Editing / Performance -Sound Forge - PC - MAGIX Community Forums Archive

Subject:Speech Editing / Performance Posted by: aerix Date:7/30/2001 2:12:13 PM Reviewing the forum here (this is my first post), it looks like most folks are using Sound Forge to edit music. I use it for editing talks that ultimately wind up on audio cassettes distributed by the not-for-profit organization I work for. I take out mistakes like stuttering, stumbling over words, even misspoken words, and add material at the starting and ending of each talk (introduction, turn the tape over, etc. -- by the way, is there an industry term for this material?). Over the years I've learned quite a few tricks for this kind of work. I wanted to know if anyone else uses Sound Forge this way and would like to exchange ideas on streamlining spoken audio files. Secondly, I have a new system that runs SF much slower than I'm used to. I've got a Pentium 4 (1.4 GHz), 512 MB RAM, 2 Western Digital 7200 RPM hard drives (20GB for programs, 40GB for files), Sound Blaster Live! sound card w. Live Drive IR, and an AOpen GeForce2 video card. When I perform an edit, the processing window displays the progress in spurts (not the smooth progress I used to see) and takes quite a bit longer than I'd like. I generally edit smaller chunks at a time (say, 12 minute segments) to speed things up, but I'm having to use pieces only about 5 minutes long, and it's still slow like this. In reviewing this forum I've seen that upgrading the video card can help. Any other advice to get SF working fast on this system?
Subject:RE: Speech Editing / Performance Reply by: Rahl Date:7/30/2001 4:21:53 PM Well I got half the computer you have and can get great results. I have an AMD-K 550 computer with 330 Megs of RAM, Sound Blaster Live Value and a 3dfx Banshee video card with Windows XP professional (beta testing it, works awesome with all Sonic Foundry programs that I own so far.). I use Sound Forge 5.0 to make music, but I also work as a reporter for a few radio stations. What I do to save time when I have clips is as I am listening to the audio file I drop markers as I go in areas that I feel could be edited. I drop a lot cause I get the delay (but I have been getting that delay since Sound Forge 4.0) I drop a lot of markers and cut in 15 to 20 second intervals. Then I use Wave hammer to normalize the project, then I compress the audio file in mp3 96kbs (which is great enough for voice overs). And to dump the audio to my computer I use a Toshiba tape deck with my source material, and then I pass it through a Peavey 1002-8 RQ mixer. To record the field tape I use a Panasonic Mini-Tape recorder with a Shure SM58. And I get great results. I suppose one thing that would help speed up the process would be keeping your field clips in an uncompressed format such as WAV. As soon as you compress, things do seem to get slower. What kind of operating system do you use, if you use Windows 98, I suggest you go get cashbooster at this address: http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/system/cb.htm There's a default setting for recording audio. And on the analogx site there's a bunch of neat recoding tools. I know this won't help much, but I am willing to exchange tips with you. If you have anything that you would think would help me out when it comes to recording audio for radio, let me know.
Subject:RE: Speech Editing / Performance Reply by: pup Date:7/31/2001 3:03:23 PM Hello. Rahl, when you use Wave Hammer to Normalize your spoken word projects, do you find the "Voice" preset to be sufficient enough, or do you need to make your own adjustments? I just started working on 30 minute radio infomercials. - SW
Subject:RE: Speech Editing / Performance Reply by: speedy Date:8/1/2001 12:47:34 PM My day job is computer repair. I can tell you that your problem is the p-4 for the speed problem you describe. Most apps that are currently out do not take atvantage of the p-4 . You would have much greater performance if you went back to a p-3 1000 (this is due to the way the p-4 tries to think ahead and guess your needs) Hope this helps! Keith
Subject:RE: Speech Editing / Performance Reply by: Rahl Date:8/1/2001 3:38:17 PM Subwolf, usually when I use wavhammer I don't have to do some adjustments there after. Just depends on the field tape.

Subject:Speech Editing / Performance

Posted by: aerix

Date:7/30/2001 2:12:13 PM

Reviewing the forum here (this is my first post), it looks like most folks
are using Sound Forge to edit music. I use it for editing talks that ultimately
wind up on audio cassettes distributed by the not-for-profit organization
I work for. I take out mistakes like stuttering, stumbling over words, even
misspoken words, and add material at the starting and ending of each
talk (introduction, turn the tape over, etc. -- by the way, is there an
industry term for this material?).

Over the years I've learned quite a few tricks for this kind of work. I wanted
to know if anyone else uses Sound Forge this way and would like to
exchange ideas on streamlining spoken audio files.

Secondly, I have a new system that runs SF much slower than I'm used
to. I've got a Pentium 4 (1.4 GHz), 512 MB RAM, 2 Western Digital 7200
RPM hard drives (20GB for programs, 40GB for files), Sound Blaster Live!
sound card w. Live Drive IR, and an AOpen GeForce2 video card.

When I perform an edit, the processing window displays the progress in
spurts (not the smooth progress I used to see) and takes quite a bit
longer than I'd like. I generally edit smaller chunks at a time (say, 12
minute segments) to speed things up, but I'm having to use pieces only
about 5 minutes long, and it's still slow like this.

In reviewing this forum I've seen that upgrading the video card can help.
Any other advice to get SF working fast on this system?

Subject:RE: Speech Editing / Performance

Reply by: Rahl

Date:7/30/2001 4:21:53 PM

Well I got half the computer you have and can get great results. I have an AMD-K 550 computer with 330 Megs of RAM, Sound Blaster Live Value and a 3dfx Banshee video card with Windows XP professional (beta testing it, works awesome with all Sonic Foundry programs that I own so far.). I use Sound Forge 5.0 to make music, but I also work as a reporter for a few radio stations.

What I do to save time when I have clips is as I am listening to the audio file I drop markers as I go in areas that I feel could be edited. I drop a lot cause I get the delay (but I have been getting that delay since Sound Forge 4.0) I drop a lot of markers and cut in 15 to 20 second intervals. Then I use Wave hammer to normalize the project, then I compress the audio file in mp3 96kbs (which is great enough for voice overs). And to dump the audio to my computer I use a Toshiba tape deck with my source material, and then I pass it through a Peavey 1002-8 RQ mixer. To record the field tape I use a Panasonic Mini-Tape recorder with a Shure SM58. And I get great results.

I suppose one thing that would help speed up the process would be keeping your field clips in an uncompressed format such as WAV. As soon as you compress, things do seem to get slower.

What kind of operating system do you use, if you use Windows 98, I suggest you go get cashbooster at this address:

http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/system/cb.htm

There's a default setting for recording audio. And on the analogx site there's a bunch of neat recoding tools.

I know this won't help much, but I am willing to exchange tips with you. If you have anything that you would think would help me out when it comes to recording audio for radio, let me know.

Subject:RE: Speech Editing / Performance

Reply by: pup

Date:7/31/2001 3:03:23 PM

Hello.

Rahl, when you use Wave Hammer to Normalize your spoken word projects, do you find the "Voice" preset to be sufficient enough, or do you need to make your own adjustments? I just started working on 30 minute radio infomercials.

- SW

Subject:RE: Speech Editing / Performance

Reply by: speedy

Date:8/1/2001 12:47:34 PM

My day job is computer repair. I can tell you that your problem is the p-4 for the speed problem you describe. Most apps that are currently out do not take atvantage of the p-4 . You would have much greater performance if you went back to a p-3 1000 (this is due to the way the p-4 tries to think ahead and guess your needs) Hope this helps!

Keith

Subject:RE: Speech Editing / Performance

Reply by: Rahl

Date:8/1/2001 3:38:17 PM

Subwolf, usually when I use wavhammer I don't have to do some adjustments there after. Just depends on the field tape.