Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Groove mechanic, two questions

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 4:14:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I've just started using Groove Mechanic. It works pretty well, but there are
a couple of things I can't figure out.

First, how do I set the recording parameters? They default to CD values,
which is fine for now, but I foresee having to use other values eventually.

Second, how can I make it play the line-in signal through my computer's
headphones? It plays back the recorded file when asked, but when I'm
recording -- silence. I have to keep a second set of headphones plugged into
my amplifier and constantly switch back and forth. Very inconvenient.
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 3:13:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jonathan Sachs wrote:

> I've just started using Groove Mechanic.

I purchased it, tested it with a live location recording of a string
quartet made direct to digital and noted the high number of vinyl
scratches it found and hasn't used it since. The very concept of being
able to batch process vinyl is wrong.

Don't misread me, the same false positives occur with any other scratch
remover. Using scratch removal on the bad scratches only has a much
better mileage in terms of preserving audio quality. Prior to Adobe
discontinuing CoolEdit 2000 that, and its noise reduction module would
have been the default recommendation. Look at Steinberg's "Clean" and at
the tools Magix has to offer, not that I have any personal experience
with using them, but they are the nearest competitors and sanely priced.

> Second, how can I make it play the line-in signal through my
> computer's headphones?

Take a second look at the options in the windows sound mixer, as always
when confused with something windows select "advanced", because advanced
tells it like it really is.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
May 18, 2004 12:33:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:13:13 +0200, Peter Larsen
<SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:

>Jonathan Sachs wrote:
>
>> I've just started using Groove Mechanic.
>
>I purchased it, tested it with a live location recording of a string
>quartet made direct to digital and noted the high number of vinyl
>scratches it found and hasn't used it since.

So have you actually tried it on a vinyl source? You might be
surprised at how well it can sometimes work.

>The very concept of being
>able to batch process vinyl is wrong.

Well yes, batch processing vinyl clicks is wrong, but if someone is
lazy and *wants* to do it, then there are a whole heap of programs out
there that do a worse job of it that Groove Mechanic. It has one very
important advantage: there are very few adjustments, so you can very
quickly try it out in all configurations to find out if it's going to
help on a particular LP.

>Don't misread me, the same false positives occur with any other scratch
>remover.

Right. And that's why passing a non-vinyl source through Groove
Mechanic (or any other vinyl declicker) and objecting to it finding
some phantom clicks is not really being fair.

>Using scratch removal on the bad scratches only has a much
>better mileage in terms of preserving audio quality.

Depends what you mean by "bad scratches". In my experience, really big
clicks and pops are next to impossible to fix automatically. Most of
the auto declickers replace big clicks with splats and plops. You're
far better off isolating them manually and doing something like a
redraw or paste in a replacement undamaged block from nearby. Only
pass through an auto declicker once the big guys have been manually
removed. Auto declickers are really only useful for what I'd call
medium size clicks.

>Prior to Adobe
>discontinuing CoolEdit 2000 that, and its noise reduction module would
>have been the default recommendation.

Yes, the CE2K audio cleanup plug does a pretty good job most of the
time, as does Jeffrey Klein's clickfix plug-in (and about 10 times
faster to boot). But these are now tools of the past, alas. The Sonic
Foundry Noise Reduction 2.0 DirectX plug-in also works very well, but
is expensive.

>Look at Steinberg's "Clean" and at
>the tools Magix has to offer, not that I have any personal experience
>with using them, but they are the nearest competitors and sanely priced.

Steinberg Clean and Magix Audio Cleaning Lab are fairly blunt
instruments, not at all like CE2K and the Sonic Foundry stuff. If
you're looking for an affordable declicker that works pretty well in
automatic mode, and still allows fine control over individual clicks,
then have a look at Wave Corrector.

Anyone interested in vinyl restoration might find my page of notes at
http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm of some interest.
--
Clive Backham

Note: As a spam avoidance measure, the email address in the header
is just a free one and doesn't get checked very often. If you want to email
me, my real address can be found at: www [dot] delback [dot] co [dot] uk
Related resources
Anonymous
May 20, 2004 3:05:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Clive Backham" <clive_backham@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40a91d70.1056695@text.news.ntlworld.com...
> Right. And that's why passing a non-vinyl source through Groove
> Mechanic (or any other vinyl declicker) and objecting to it finding
> some phantom clicks is not really being fair.

Yes it is, you want to KNOW if real transients are being removed.

> Yes, the CE2K audio cleanup plug does a pretty good job most of the
> time, as does Jeffrey Klein's clickfix plug-in (and about 10 times
> faster to boot). But these are now tools of the past, alas. The Sonic
> Foundry Noise Reduction 2.0 DirectX plug-in also works very well, but
> is expensive.
> >Look at Steinberg's "Clean" and at
> >the tools Magix has to offer, not that I have any personal experience
> >with using them, but they are the nearest competitors and sanely priced.
> Steinberg Clean and Magix Audio Cleaning Lab are fairly blunt
> instruments, not at all like CE2K and the Sonic Foundry stuff. If
> you're looking for an affordable declicker that works pretty well in
> automatic mode, and still allows fine control over individual clicks,
> then have a look at Wave Corrector.

I've tried most of the above and still prefer Wave Repair for both it's
manual and auto functions.

TonyP.
Anonymous
May 20, 2004 3:05:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Wed, 19 May 2004 23:05:49 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Clive Backham" <clive_backham@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:40a91d70.1056695@text.news.ntlworld.com...
>> Right. And that's why passing a non-vinyl source through Groove
>> Mechanic (or any other vinyl declicker) and objecting to it finding
>> some phantom clicks is not really being fair.
>
>Yes it is, you want to KNOW if real transients are being removed.

If you're aiming for excellent results, and are prepared to put in the
effort, then I agree completely. The rationale behind my comment is
that, when restoring from a vinyl source, it is sometimes better to
lose some of the musical transients along with the real clicks than to
do no processing at all. And if someone wants to do this
automatically, they have to accept there will be a compromise.

>I've tried most of the above and still prefer Wave Repair for both it's
>manual and auto functions.

You are very kind to recommend that program. I was trying to be
impartial, so avoided mentioning it. But readers ought to be aware
that Wave Repair takes a very different philosophy and is intended
mainly as a manual tool.
--
Clive Backham

Note: As a spam avoidance measure, the email address in the header
is just a free one and doesn't get checked very often. If you want to email
me, my real address can be found at: www [dot] delback [dot] co [dot] uk
Anonymous
May 21, 2004 11:34:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Clive Backham" <clive_backham@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40ab9cd5.2391434@text.news.ntlworld.com...
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 23:05:49 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
> wrote:
> >I've tried most of the above and still prefer Wave Repair for both it's
> >manual and auto functions.
> You are very kind to recommend that program. I was trying to be
> impartial, so avoided mentioning it. But readers ought to be aware
> that Wave Repair takes a very different philosophy and is intended
> mainly as a manual tool.

Credit where it's due, which is why I couldn't understand your original
comment.
I think that setting proper search criteria in wave repair, then checking as
many "hits" as necessary to make sure the real strike rate is high, then
using auto if necessary, is the best compromise I've found. I also like the
bezier interpolate feature.

TonyP.
Anonymous
May 21, 2004 11:56:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Clive Backham wrote:

>> I purchased it, tested it with a live location recording of a
>> string quartet made direct to digital and noted the high number
>> of vinyl scratches it found and hasn't used it since.

> So have you actually tried it on a vinyl source?

No. I still might so do - I don't consider the purchase a waste of
money, but I ended up purchasing also CoolEdit 2000 and its noise
reduction module, and use that - or now Audition - instead.

> You might be surprised at how well it can sometimes work.

I just wanted to determine the cost in terms of loss of quality. Blanket
scratch removal on 33 rpm vinyl comes at too high a quality cost in my
evaluation of this, the quality of your vinyl playback is in question if
it is not like that for you. What I often do end up doing is instead to
apply "fix single click" to those clicks that have larger amplitude than
the waveform and to use overall noise reduction if I can find some
groove to use as reference.

>> The very concept of being able to batch process vinyl is wrong.

> Well yes, batch processing vinyl clicks is wrong, but if someone is
> lazy and *wants* to do it, then there are a whole heap of programs out
> there that do a worse job of it that Groove Mechanic. It has one very
> important advantage: there are very few adjustments, so you can very
> quickly try it out in all configurations to find out if it's going to
> help on a particular LP.

It is indeed a rare find: software designed to solve only what it is
designed to solve, and it has the advantage of actually being designed
with batch processing in mind. Please do note that I write generally
positive about it. The lazy guys are however better off finding a
cartridge and a preamp that can properly reproduce the scratches, this
because properly reproduced scratches are less of a nuisance than
distorted or mistracked scratches. This also applies to loudspeaker
reproduction thereof. Back in the old days the first question in case
scratches were a nuisance on some system would be whether it had narrow
peaks or impulse response issues in the mid and treble ranges or both.

> >Don't misread me, the same false positives occur with any other scratch
> >remover.

> Right. And that's why passing a non-vinyl source through Groove
> Mechanic (or any other vinyl declicker) and objecting to it finding
> some phantom clicks is not really being fair.

I don't object, I just noted that scratch removal software can not tell
the difference between the transients caused by the movement of a bow
over the strings of an instrumenet in the viola family and a scratch.

> >Using scratch removal on the bad scratches only has a much
> >better mileage in terms of preserving audio quality.

> Depends what you mean by "bad scratches".

Amplitude 6 dB larger than audio amplitude, if it isn't, then they are
likely to have been clipped.

> In my experience, really big clicks and pops are next to impossible
> to fix automatically.

Cool Edits/Auditions "fix single click" is worth the price of the entire
package if you need click removal of bad clicks. It can do marvel: it
has fixed a mic stand bumped into, it has fixed an object falling off of
a table, it has fixed an instrument laid down noisily and it has great
power in terms of fixing the "single clapper louder than the rest"
issue, yes, it will remove a single handclap flawlessly as if the guy
never attended the concert. And yes, it can do vinyl clicks and bumps.
But yes, you are right, it needs to be told just what to fix.

> the auto declickers replace big clicks with splats and plops.
> You're far better off isolating them manually and doing something
> like a redraw or paste in a replacement undamaged block from
> nearby.

Or having software that can do at good guess at what the curveform
should have been when guided to the area to work on.

> Only pass through an auto declicker once the big guys have
> been manually removed. Auto declickers are really only useful
> for what I'd call medium size clicks.

Indeed, you are very right about this. The large ones need manual
attention no matter how, and the small ones don't really matter if the
playback is OK.

> Yes, the CE2K audio cleanup plug does a pretty good job most of the
> time, as does Jeffrey Klein's clickfix plug-in

Ouch, is it gone ...?

> If you're looking for an affordable declicker that works pretty
> well in automatic mode, and still allows fine control over
> individual clicks, then have a look at Wave Corrector.

Hmm, thanks, this is something where having more than one tool can be
very useful, thanks.

> Anyone interested in vinyl restoration might find my page
> of notes at http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm of some interest.

At a glance indeed recommendable reading for those interested.

> Clive Backham


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
May 22, 2004 2:25:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:56:09 +0200, Peter Larsen
<SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:

>The lazy guys are however better off finding a
>cartridge and a preamp that can properly reproduce the scratches, this
>because properly reproduced scratches are less of a nuisance than
>distorted or mistracked scratches.

True, and as an added bonus, clicks well reproduced as very narrow
spikes with little ringing are much easier for declicking programs to
detect and repair. So not only are they less objectionable to start
with, they are also more likely to be fixable without artifacts.

>I don't object, I just noted that scratch removal software can not tell
>the difference between the transients caused by the movement of a bow
>over the strings of an instrumenet in the viola family and a scratch.

I'm not that experienced with restoration of classical, so haven't
really studied the effects on strings. What I've noticed is that reed
and brass instruments such as saxophone and trumpet are regularly
trashed by automatic declickers.

>Indeed, you are very right about this. The large ones need manual
>attention no matter how, and the small ones don't really matter if the
>playback is OK.

I'm something of a perfectionist, and tend to spend ages tracking down
even tiny little "ticks". I should get out more :-)

>> Yes, the CE2K audio cleanup plug does a pretty good job most of the
>> time, as does Jeffrey Klein's clickfix plug-in
>
>Ouch, is it gone ...?

CE2K has been shelved by Adobe (which is a big shame). ClickFix is
still available from www.jdklein.com, and works with Adobe Audition.
--
Clive Backham

Note: As a spam avoidance measure, the email address in the header
is just a free one and doesn't get checked very often. If you want to email
me, my real address can be found at: www [dot] delback [dot] co [dot] uk
Anonymous
May 23, 2004 4:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Clive Backham wrote:

> CE2K has been shelved by Adobe (which is a big shame).

Yes, they throw the newcomer market away and thus in the end loose sales
of the big version.

> ClickFix is still available from www.jdklein.com, and works
> with Adobe Audition.

Thanks, I had better go get it this time ....

> Clive Backham


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
!