![]() |
Measuring durations |
Post Reply ![]() |
Author | |
mjb50 ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 28 April 2021 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 39 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 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 |
|
![]() |
|
aaronk ![]() Admin Group ![]() Joined: 16 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 178 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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!"
|
|
![]() |
|
AdvprosD ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 12 June 2020 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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!
|
|
![]() |
|
crapfromthepast ![]() Music Fan ![]() ![]() Joined: 14 September 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 60 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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.
|
|
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
|
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |