https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Sat, 11 Apr 2026 21:50:19 +0000 Fri, 30 Apr 2021 19:15:29 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.07 360 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=9593 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum//images/Top-40-Music-on-CD-Forum-Logo.png https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9593&PID=58106&title=measuring-durations#58106 Author: crapfromthepast
Subject: 9593
Posted: 30 April 2021 at 7:15pm

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.]]> Fri, 30 Apr 2021 19:15:29 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9593&PID=58106&title=measuring-durations#58106 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9593&PID=58105&title=measuring-durations#58105 Author: AdvprosD
Subject: 9593
Posted: 30 April 2021 at 6:25pm

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?]]> Fri, 30 Apr 2021 18:25:48 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9593&PID=58105&title=measuring-durations#58105 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9593&PID=58102&title=measuring-durations#58102 Author: aaronk
Subject: 9593
Posted: 30 April 2021 at 12:10pm

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!"]]> Fri, 30 Apr 2021 12:10:40 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9593&PID=58102&title=measuring-durations#58102 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9593&PID=58101&title=measuring-durations#58101 Author: mjb50
Subject: 9593
Posted: 30 April 2021 at 10:50am

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]]> Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:50:59 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9593&PID=58101&title=measuring-durations#58101