| Author |
|
mjb50
MusicFan
Joined: 28 April 2021
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
|
| Posted: 30 April 2021 at 10:50am | IP Logged
|
|
|
When measuring durations, I carefully trim the audio in a wave editor to within ¼-second of the start and end of musical content, so
that any between-track pauses, tape hiss, or tape bleed-through normally isn't included in the measurement. I then use the duration
the editor tells me. However, since fractional seconds are not really supported anywhere, I typically have to round to a whole
number of seconds, and I am often unsure whether to round up or down.
Of course I realize the normal way of rounding in math is to disregard fractional seconds below 0.5, otherwise round up to the next
whole number. But I'm never quite sure what to do with fractional seconds between about 0.2 and 0.7. For example, it feels harmless
to round 3:05.185 down to 3:05, but 3:05.389 is starting to get into "I'd miss the very end if I cut it off at 3:05...how can I say
it's only 3:05?", especially if there's no fade-out. But then, it seems unfair to say it's 3:06 when it's really not even halfway
there.
What does everyone else do?
Edited by mjb50 on 30 April 2021 at 6:13pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 30 April 2021 at 12:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Good question. Given that we rarely use decimal points when reporting track lengths, I don't typically round up or down. So, 3:05.389 is just 3:05 for me. If it were 3:05.989, I might say the track runs "almost 3:06," but generally, I'd just report it as 3:05. The reason is to avoid driving someone crazy by saying, "I can't find any CDs where the song makes it all the way to 3:06!"
__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
AdvprosD
MusicFan
Joined: 12 June 2020
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: 30 April 2021 at 6:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Since this is "Clock" timing, wouldn't it make sense that anything before the mark of the next second still belongs to the previous one? sort-of like if
you would still say it's 12pm even though the clock says 12:00:59?
__________________
<Dave> Someone please tell I-Heart Radio that St. Louis is not known as The Loo!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
crapfromthepast
MusicFan
Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 30 April 2021 at 7:15pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
In general, try not to overthink it. Plus or minus a second is pretty much in the noise for most of us.
Personally, I measure times this way: I load the file into Audacity. I don't adjust for any opening silence. I scroll to the fade. I boost the volume by 36 dB (the maximum in Audacity) and play. I note what time is on the counter when the music ends.
Am I off by a fraction of a second? Probably.
But this is not one of the details to lose sleep over; different analog transfers of the same source tape can differ by a fraction of a second.
I also analyze the fade to see if there are any artifacts of noise reduction, like the high frequencies disappearing. To me, knowing that there's noise reduction on the track is far more important than knowing the track length to a fraction of a second.
__________________
There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one Crap From The Past.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Measuring durations
