Needle drop editor for Mac

[ironbut]

I know that some of my pals here are transferring their vinyl collections to digital. Most are using some kind of DAW to split, trim and perhaps add fades to the resulting files which are usually the size of an album side.

I'm a big believer in "less it more" in audio and that goes double for editing digital. Light weight programs tend to sound better, are much faster and above all, are a breeze to learn. To that end, I have 5 different programs that I use for audio editing/processing depending on what needs to be done. I could have one DAW that does all that (maybe lacking one or two of the functions) but they tend to be what folks call "bloatware" and have 100's of uses that I don't need (Logic, Sound Designer etc).

So, back to the needle drop thing.

A program that I use to split and trim live recordings has just come out with an updated version and I think it would be perfect for needle drop fans. It's called Snapper 2 and it's made by Audio Ease. It works with OSX's Finder and the latest version enables you to adjust fades and easily trim your selections either before or after you export or drag and drop to a new file in your finder.

The interface/waveform is much nicer now and it's easy to customize to your tastes (I like a slightly transparent window just 'cause it's cool!).

Snapper 2 is $79 USD but you can try a 100 day unrestricted demo for free.

Here's a link to the video tutorials and video manuals (btw, the "what's new" is the only place to find the info on trimming and adjusting fades)

http://www.audioease.com/video.php?play=2

[Voltron]

Thanks for the tip, Steve. I need to get back into 'dropping.

[ironbut]

BTW, with many of these programs that you use with big ass files (24/96-192) your Mac's memory can quickly get clogged up. I always keep the Activity Monitor icon in my Dock set to system memory so I can monitor when it does. If your Ram gets full your computer will default to virtual memory (HD) and processing will slow down and you can even end up getting crashes.

Here's a little shareware program that I use to clean out memory between projects;

http://www.activata.co.uk/ifreemem/

After installing/openning it, an icon will appear in your toolbar and you just click on it to drop down the interface. It seems to take about a minute to do it's thing.

[jp11801]

Steve how do you think it compares to wave editor, I've got my processing/edits down to 45 minutes an LP in WE.

[ironbut]

Steve how do you think it compares to wave editor, I've got my processing/edits down to 45 minutes an LP in WE.

Hey jp,

Of course it depends a lot on how much metadata you want to enter (it's easier to enter track numbers, genre etc in the iTunes "get info" window IMHO). But if you just want a simple file name, you can do that in the Finder window just like any other file.

So, if you keep it simple, I'd say you could do a normal album in 15 minutes or less. Just keep everything in the same folder so you don't have to move from folder to folder till you're done.

Sound wise, it's at least as transparent as WE. There's really very little processing involved since it doesn't really change the original file if you just drag and drop the selection back into the Finder window. You could just cut out(select) a track, drag and drop it into the finder (making a new file), click on that new file (which opens it), double check that your fades and cuts are accurate, then drag that back into the Finder window, rename the file and you're done. If you wanta change the format to BWF, Apple lossless, Mp4, flac or Mp3, you set the desired file type in Preferences and use the "export" button instead of dragging and dropping.

Give it a try though,.. you won't believe how fast you can do this kind of stuff in Snapper.

Edited March 1, 2011 by ironbut

[luvdunhill]

Ironbut, what are you using for an ADC?

[Voltron]

Ironbut, what are you using for an ADC?

Duh. Metric Halo.

[luvdunhill]

Duh. Metric Halo.

ah. what chipses does it use? I give them bonus points for nice technical specs section, but this piece of info is missing:

http://www.mhsecure.com/v5mm/ULN-8Specs.html

[ironbut]

Hey Mark,

The unit I have is an different from jp and Al. Mine is an earlier version called the ULN-2+dsp. I know that a pal of mine has been inside of the ULN-8 and I'll be visiting him in a couple of days up in Wa state (DocB).

If I can remember, I'll ask him which converters it uses.

In the meantime, here's some pic's of the guts of mine a while back (bear in mind, mine was designed back in 2001 and is 24/96).

http://img842.imageshack.us/i/img0172it.jpg/

http://img571.imageshack.us/i/img0171l.jpg/

http://img822.imageshack.us/i/img0173l.jpg/

http://img571.imageshack.us/i/img0177e.jpg/

[luvdunhill]

cool stuff.

I'm currently excited about playing with both the TI PCM4222 and the Cirrus CS5381. Both are great chipses, I was just curious what was being used in the wild. I can do 24/216 with the TI chip and 24/192 with the CS chips and am hoping to have something fully functional soon. I'm just about to the casing part, so fun times.

[ironbut]

Sound great! I look forward to hearing what you come up with.

One thing that might not be immediately obvious regarding these pro audio boxes, the needs and priorities for them are different and as a result, the devices used are almost never the audiophile approved ones.

One of the main concerns that studios have is the number of times a signal is sent through the digital and analog section.

Say, if you record a session with 8 microphones, each signal is routed to an ADC but you need to apply an analog limiter after a digital eq to the 3 drum feeds and an analog compressor after a digital delay to the vocals. That means that 4 of the signals need to be converted back to analog, sent through the outboard processors and back into the box through analog returns. They in turn need to be sent through the ADC again to be mixed and recorded in the digital realm. That mix must be monitored in the analog world where we all live.

The resulting digital, multi track file will be tweaked and adjusted in post production where more of the channels could be sent and returned to other outboard analog processors. So again, another trip in and out of the box. This is about the point where the mixing engineer will finish his work and send the digital files off to be mastered.

Once in the hands of the mastering engineer, this whole process will need to be repeated again and even more trips through a different box.

The results need to be predictable and consistent no matter how many times the signal is sent through a these devices. Slight colorations in op amps that make them pleasing to the ears may not be so nice if you had to go through that same device 10 or 20 times. As a result, it seems like designers for studio gear tend to be conservative and use devices that aren't the latest and greatest but rather ones who've been proven to work when layered endlessly and are compatible with a large variety of studio gear.

This probably has nothing to do with your current project, but I thought I'd throw that out as a point of interest.

[luvdunhill]

Interesting. My implementation is a single stage, just analog in and digital out, 2 channels supported. I can see why these loops would be bothersome, so just avoid them I say