LensWork Technology Blog

MP3 problem. Help?

I'm having a dumb little problem with converting some analog recordings to MP3 files and wondering if any of you can help. I have some long recordings — several hours long — that I am uploading to digital files. I do this real-time by simply re-recording the analog file. I play the audio (cassette or reel-to-reel) and pipe it over via patch cord to an MP3 recorder. The resulting MP3 file I then open in Adobe Audition to clean up and save as the archive. Most of the time it works just fine, but on occasion an odd problem crops up.

With these very long recordings, occasionally I cannot open them in Audition. Actually, they open, but are truncated. The, say, 7 hour audio file will play just fine in any MP3 player, so it has all recorded. But, Audition only opens part of the file — perhaps 30 minutes, perhaps a few hours, but definitely truncated. No matter what I do, it always imports into Audition — or Audacity or Premier Pro or SoundBooth — as a truncated file.

I've tried various alternate encoding bitrates; I've tried encoding to WMA files; I've tried converting the truncated file to WAV using a re-encoder. Nothing will fix the file once it is corrupt. My only choice is to rerecord the entire 7-8 hours of audio and hope it doesn't fail. What is so mysterious is that the file will play for the full 7 hours, so I know all the data is there in the file, I simply cannot get to it. It's as though there is an "end of file" byte before the end of the file and once there, all is lost as far as opening the file for editing in any software I have.

Frustrating.

Anyone have a suggestion about how to open/edit these truncated MP3s in their entirety?

Almost seduced

I received suggestions from several friends that I might be interested in looking at the new iPod Touch 4G for my upcoming travels. Because I trust their judgments, I decided to give it serious consideration. It surely is a sexy little thing, and the engineering behind it is impressive as it typically is with Apple stuff.

   

With the holiday weekend to loaf and spend time looking, I threw myself into a full research project. I looked a several dozen YouTube videos. I read every review I could find. I reviewed APPs on the Apple store. I drew up comparison tables and charted pluses and minuses until I was frayed with analysis. I finally went to Best Buy to look for myself. Yup, very impressive and even sexier in real life than I imagined from the pictures and videos on the Internet.

But, I'm not buying one and I'm blogging my thoughts about it just in case others might find my analysis of use.

Cutting to the chase, I find it simply too much of a compromise in every aspect — at least for the things I would use it for. Admittedly, that's a bit unfair because several of the things it excels at I would never use. I don't play computer games. I don't watch many videos or Hulu-type stuff. These are things the iPod Touch does very well, but are of no use to me whatsoever.

What about the things it does do that I would use? That's was the focus of my analysis — how would it do what would need it to do?

• I listen to music. But, I already have a Sansa Fuze that has longer battery life, interchangeable micro SD cards for expandable storage, and all the functionality I want and need. For listening to music, the iPod would at best be a lateral move and maybe even a step down from my current device.

     

   

• I record audio dictation, field notes, and audio for media presentation. Although the iPod Touch does audio recording with several different APPs, my Olympus DM520 has advantages the iPod simply does not. The Olympus has variable mic sensitivity, a low cut filter, will record WAV, MP3 or WMA in every possible resolution I could ever want. It organizes files into project folders. It's built-in mic is stereo. Most importantly, it has interchangeable micro SD cards so I can simply swap out in the field if I need more storage space. It also uses standard AAA batteries that last longer than the iPod and I can also swap them in the field if I need to.

  

  • And then there's my Zoom H2 which is even a step-up from the Olympus. It boasts 4-channel surround sound with 4 mics. Really spectacular mics. Adjustable limiter. Manual level controls. Switchable mic gain. Either this or the Olympus would significantly out-perform an iPod Touch.
• I love listening to audio books. The Olympus does that, too, including Audible audiobooks with bookmarking. Sure, the iPod does Audible "e" format books, but I'm satisfied with the sound quality I get from my Olympus now.
  • The iPod has bluetooth capabilities built-in that I would use with regularity. I love the freedom of my bluetooth headphones and/or bluetooth phone receiver. I've used both for audio books and find it a real joy to be cord-free while I wander around untethered listening to an audiobook. However, I recently found a bluetooth transmitter dongle that plugs into the 3.5mm jack of any audio device and pairs with my bluetooth headphones. I've been using it for about a month and it works great. Four hours of battery life on a charge and can be used with any device as long as it has a standard 3.5mm headphone jack. I've used it with my Olympus, my Sansa Fuze, even with our TV. If I owned an iPod Touch, I'd use its built-in bluetooth, but this device does the job even if it's not quite as convenient.

       

    

• I read ebooks. I'm currently using a Kindle 3 and love it. But, the iPod Touch does a fine job of presenting eBooks, too. It's so-called "Retina display" is truly stunning. Even so, it's physically smaller than the Kindle and my aging eyes prefer the slightly larger Kindle readability. I wish the Kindle were better in dark environs, a competition that the iPod Touch would win hands down. On the other hand, in bright light their positions reverse. I read more in the light than I do in the dark, so I guess the Kindle has the edge.
• Out in the world I Skype, do email, and etc., but for all of this I would use my netbook instead.

I started this weekend burning with lust for a new iPod Touch. I've cooled to the point of decision against it. I does a lot of things and all of them pretty doggone well. There is no doubt that it is a sweet bit of technology that deserves the gazillion fans it has. I found not once instance, however, where it's capabilities were better than a dedicated device engineered to excel at only one thing. No matter what I looked at, although the iPod does each function well, I found another devices simply did it better. In some regards, that's a very high compliment to the iPod — it requires three dedicated devices to out-perform it.

The iPod Touch's greatest strength — at least for my needs — is that is packages so many functions into a single, impressive device. If I were motivated to compromise in each application I need, the single device would certainly be persuasive. As it is, for my needs, I'd rather have, carry, and manage three specialty devices that do their single task better than the multi-talented iPod.

Voice e-mail responses

"Due to the volume of email I respond to on a daily basis — combined with my lousy typing abilities! — I find it faster and easier to take advantage of VOICE EMAIL as my reply."

That's the first line of the emails I send as responses to the hundreds of emails I receive. I rarely type an email response; it simply takes me too long with these stubby little fingers of mine. So, I respond with a voice recording and send that instead. Almost without fail, I'll get a response back from the receiver with some mention of the audio recording and how fun it was to hear a response rather than read it. They are excited to try this out for themselves. For example . . .

   

What a fascinating technique for answering an email. I LIKED it; it felt very personal. Your technique of answering by voice file might make an interesting topic for one of your Blogs!

   

Okay, here goes.

   

It's a bit more involved than just the voice email aspect, but I thought as long as I was sharing, here's the whole process that allows me to respond to tons of email.

   

1. If the response only needs to be an acknowledgement or general courtesy, either my assistant or I simply respond with a macro (think "cut and paste") response. Probably not supposed to admit this, but we do use these when that's all that's needed. These are almost the only typed response email I do unless the response is a simple one-liner. Those I will type.
2. Any email that requires a personal response from me gets piped over from Outlook to a special OneNote notebook I use just for email responses. The integration between Outlook and OneNote is spectacular for this. One button click in Outlook can move dozens of emails!
   1. A single OneNote page is created for each email.
   2. Each page is automatically date and time stamped as to when it was created.
   3. It's worth noting that these emails can be moved to OneNote by me or by my assistant. Typically I haven't read the email at that point other than to note it is going to take a more thoughtful response than a simple one-liner.
3. I try to set aside time every day to work these emails.
   1. I read them, highlight the important passages or questions I want to respond to, jot down a few notes for my response (if necessary) and then, sometimes, move on to the next one without responding at that time.
   2. I find it handy to store up a batch for when I know I'll have uninterrupted time to record my audio responses.
   3. When I find I have 15-20 minutes, I can jump in and respond with voice email to as many as 15-20 emails. That's blazingly fast for me, at least compared to having to type responses. Again, keep in mind that these are responses that are more involved than a line or two. Think a few paragraphs or more and you get the idea.

• For the audio recording, I use the simplest audio recorder I can. No use pulling up Audition or Audacity or some full-featured recorder for simple messages like this.
  • In truth, I'd use OneNote's built-in recorder, but it only creates Windows Media audio files and too many Mac users can't play them natively. Instead, I use only universally playable MP3 files in my responses.
  • I'm currently recording voice emails with Step Recorder, a very simple and easy to use software. Shareware. $15. Windows only. I prefer it to Windows built-in Sound Recorder for its extra capabilities. I'm sure there are Mac recorders that do the same, but look for these handy features:
    • It's small. Not much screen real estate.
    • It allows me to determine the MP3 compression settings.
    • It allows recordings of unlimited length.
    • It has a pause control.
    • I can rerecord over parts if I mess something up without having to rerecord the entire message.
    • It automatically saves the file as I record it — no "File, Save as . . ." fussing.
    • Uses a customizable auto file naming setup. I've customized mine as, "Voice response from Brooks Jensen.mp3".
    • It has a voice activation option so as I pause in my speaking, it pauses its recording. Helps make smaller file sizes.
  • I record using mono 48kbps, 22kHz MP3 compression.
  • My typical responses seem to be in the ½- 1½ minute range and file sizes run about 200-375k. Comfortable for emailing as an attachment. I could compress to smaller file sizes, but I prefer this compression as the best compromise between file size and voice fidelity.

1. After I've recorded my voice email, I drag and drop the audio file from the folder on my desktop onto the OneNote page, automatically embedding the MP3 file in the page.
2. I add the following using a keystroke macro. I type in ~bv — my code for Brooks Voicemail, and my macro program types in . . .

      

   Tuesday, October 12, 2010 09:10AM

      

   Due to the volume of email I respond to on a daily basis — combined with my lousy typing abilities! — I find it faster and easier to take advantage of VOICE EMAIL as my reply. Please listen to the attached audio file as my reply to your email. Thanks!

   Brooks Jensen

   Editor, LensWork Publishing

      

   P.S. If you don't have audio capabilities on your computer or would prefer a text reply, please let me know and I'll have my response transcribed and resent to you.

      

   Notice that it automatically inserts the date and time.

3. I copy the return email address from the page to the clipboard. Then I click the "Email this page" button in OneNote which hands off the page, complete with formatting and my highlighting, to Outlook. The audio file is automatically included in the email as an attachment. I add the email address with a paste and send.
4. Last step, I move the OneNote page to an archive folder where the page preserves the original email and my voice recording response.

      

No doubt these instructions look long and involved. Why not just type a response? In practice, I find this approach much, much faster to do than it's taken me to describe here in this post. I once did a test and found that I could do 7 voice emails in the same time it takes me to type a response for one. Again, I'm referring to emails that require something more than a simple one-liner.

And speaking of that, I also find that when I type my response emails, I tend to cut short my response because of time. Think of it this way, I can say a lot more in 60 seconds than I can type in 60 seconds. The result is that I'm able to offer more thorough and engaging responses with the time I have available for any given email.

And finally, there is the personal aspect. Reading a typed response is simply not the same as hearing a person's voice. Inflection, intonation, emotion and enthusiasm — all come across so much more effectively in the spoken word than they do in emoticons. ;-)

So . . . faster, better, easier. What's not to like?

It's all about distance

This last week I've been testing a couple of microphones in our new video studio in preparation for recording a new LensWork Visual Workshop. Rather than hassle with a lapel mic, I thought I'd try a desk mic — sort of like Johnny Carson's old desk set up. (For you youngsters, he's the old Jay Leno.) The idea of a desk mic has always appealed to me because once it is set, you don't ever have to move it or do any re-testing; just sit down and start talking. It's a lovely theory.

Unfortunately, there is just no getting around the old rules of thumb. Just like in photography, it's all about distance. The closer the source is to the recording device, the better the resolution of details and the better the fidelity. Period. After four hours of testing and re-testing both the desk mic and the lapel mic, the comparisons of the two made the decision easy. We've decided to stick with a lapel mic.

Listen for yourself:

Deskmic

Lapelmic

Not a debate. A modestly-priced lapel mic at 5-inches from my mouth is simply better — by audible amounts — than a more expensive desk mic positioned 16-inches away. You can fuss all you want, but the distance is the determining factor. Four hours out of my life because I keep forgetting that some rules simply cannot be broken without a consequence.

I remember once spending days trying (and failing) to make a decent 11x14" print from a crop of about half of a 35mm negative — all because I didn't get close enough to the subject. That was in 1970. Forty years later and I'm still learning the same lesson.

Cross-platform strategies

One of the best virtues of the printed book is that it is a perfectly all-platform medium. If you have eyes, a photobook is open to you, even if its language is foreign. If only computers could be so equally accessible.

I've made it a habit over the last 15 years to pay particular attention to cross-platform computer technologies. Among the most important are PDF, MP3, and now Flash. With these three we have almost the perfect triad — layout capable documents, universal high-resolution stereo audio, and — finally — a practical, universal video. This is a godsend for us photographers. We can now produce just about anything we can envision and it can be seen by almost anybody.

Assuming they have a computer. Assuming they are running either Windows or the latest Mac OS. It's still a bit dicey in the world of Linux, Ubuntu, iPhones, and who knows for sure about iPad or small-screen netbooks. Windows 95 and OS9? Forget it. Okay, so our triad is not actually universal, but it's a lot closer than back in the days of Word documents, Real Media, and MOV/WMV/MPEG2 video files. Progress, yes, but ultimate destination, clearly not.

However, I might suggest this should not prevent us from forging ahead. Perfection is not a requirement for the pursuit of excellence. Along with our camera skills, our image creation skills, and our matting/framing skills, it seems it might be just as important to develop PDF, MP3, and Flash skills to supplement our arsenal of tools. By learning these three cross-platform delivery technologies, we can develop an audience for our work even if it's not one that can include everyone, everywhere, always.

The learning never stops.

Computer noise during audio recording

Brooks,
How do you deal with the noise from the computer when you are recording?  Do you record in a separate room?

— Yaakov

   

I use a Behringer Ultra-Voice VX2000 voice processor that I've referenced in an earlier post. It has a "noise gate" which is essentially a way to employ a low noise threshold below which the signal is truncated. Sound is only allowed to pass the noise gate once it reaches a specific volume. By setting the noise gate just above the fan noise of the computer, the noise from the fan is cut out by the noise gate during recording. When you speak, the gate barrier threshold is exceeded and the signal gets through. Because your voice is so much louder than the computer fan noise, the fan is never heard. It's a neat trick.

There are other noise-gate units besides the Behringer. Just do a Google search for noise gate and you'll probably come up with a number of hardware options. Typically, the noise gate will be an inline piece of hardware that is between the microphone and the computer sound card input. Obviously, it will have some sort of dial that you can adjust to set the threshold where you need it to be. A noise gate is a great tool, but it's not a substitute for simply isolating your recording studio in a room that is as quiet as can be. The computer fan is the most obvious source of "white noise" that the noise gate will help with, even in a quiet, sound dampened (think carpeting in the average home) room.

It's also possible to do a post-processing noise gate type adjustment to the recorded file, but I've always found them to have an artificial sound that is not satisfactory. Use hardware noise gates whenever possible.

An Amazing Olympus Recorder

Disclosure: I have nothing to disclose. I am a genuine fan of this product, which I bought retail. 'Nuf said?

For some time now, I've been suggesting to photographers that they add to their camera bag an audio recorder. Great for note taking, great for capturing environmental background audio for potential multi-media project, great for interviewing the people you are photographing, great for photographers over, say, the age of 50 for reasons you know oh so well. Ahem.

Over the course of my life, I've probably owned and used over a hundred audio recorders of one type or another — from reel-to-reel, to cassettes, to microcassettes, and the latest MP3 digital recorders. I'm now using the best recorder I've ever seen/used (and keep in mind, I used to be the electronic buyer for the 9th largest retailer in the world, so I've seen more than the average technogeek).

It's the Olympus DM-520. Highlights as follows:

• Small, intuitive, rugged
• Stereo recording
• Great built-in mics with excellent acoustics
• External mic jack should you want to use a handheld or lapel mic, for example
• WAV, WMA, or MP3 file options
• 4GB built-in memory can record 70 hours of Internet-quality audio (128kbps MP3)
• Accepts micro SD cards (I've added a 16 GB— yes gigabyte! — card to mine)
• I can record a whopping 120 hours(!) at the insane resolution of 320kkbps MP3; up to 26 hours at full 44kHz WAV files. Yowza.
• Programmable recording "scenes" use a specific combination of settings appropriate for different recording scenarios
• Bookmarkable while recording and playback
• Files can be organized with five different folders
• Also has special folders for Podcasts and Audible.com audio books. I use mine for note-taking, podcasts, and audio books and still have tons of memory left for field recording.
• Very long battery life (50 hours or so)
• Manual or automatic recording volume control
• Peak level attenuator
• Metal housing (helps control/reduce handling noise)
• One button recording
• Headphone monitoring

Those of you who know anything about audio recorders will recognize this as an impressive list. It goes with me everywhere except the shower. The ultimate note taker for those odd bits of inspiration and stray thoughts that crop up at the oddest times. It's the recorder I've lusted after for 40 years. Thank you, Olympus. Less than $160 at Amazon.com. Full details available in the downloadable instruction manual from Olympus.

Welcome to the LensWork Technology Blog

As you long-time readers of LensWork are fully aware, we tend to concentrate on the artmaking side of photography and the creative process rather than on technology, cameras, or equipment. But, truth be known, as photographers our productive life is very involved with technology. Without cameras, lenses, equipment of all sorts — and now computers, software, email, websites, etc. — our life as creative photographers would be pretty difficult.

Well, after 17 years of publishing LensWork and LensWork Extended without technology discussions, we're comfortable adding such to our repertoire with this blog. 

But with a twist.

It seems self-evident that here in the new millennium "technology" for photographers is much broader thing than merely cameras or other photographic equipment. We've specifically titled this The LensWork Technology Blog for a reason — so we are free to discuss software, computers, PDF publishing, print and book publishing, ebooks, digital printing, folios, website design and marketing, special edition prints and folios, and even blogging itself — that encompass such a variety of skills and tools so important to photography and the creative process to modern fine art photographers. To limit the discussion to just cameras and lenses seems more an anachronism than a useful strategy.

So, in this blog I'll share with you my random collection of thoughts, discoveries, explorations, hard-won experience, and — I fully anticipate — some technological failures and struggles as I wade through this world of technology and its use to create photographic artwork.

I'm particularly excited about the technology of blogging because it offers, almost for the first time in my publishing history, a fully integrated platform that allows an exchange of ideas with LensWork readers and between our readers. Since 2004, we published one of the most popular podcasts about photography on the Internet. To date, there are about 600 podcast episodes available on our LensWork website in which I discuss various aspects of photography and creative process. (Consider yourself invited.) I love doing these podcasts and will continue them in addition to these new blogs. Podcasts however, by their nature, are a one-way street and blogging offers a different opportunity that allows not just a two-way street but also cross-traffic that opens all kinds of lines of communication that further the notion of a community of photographers who share a passion for photographs, the creative process, and the technology required to produce them. I tend to think of LensWork readers as a community and I love the idea that the community, from around the globe, can find each other through these new LensWork blogs.

By the way, I use the term "blogs" (plural) because we're launching three blogs simultaneously, each with a specific focus and purpose —

• this blog on technology,
• another we're titling Ask Brooks in which I'll do my best to respond to questions from our readers (or help them search for answers to their questions within the community of other photographers who follow the blog),
• and finally a sort of relaunch of LensWork Vision of the Heart. Version 1.0 of Vision of the Heart was a podcast-format production that offered commentary on photographs we'd published in LensWork or LensWork Extended. As such, it was intended to be a discussion of images (rather than either creativity or equipment) and was one of my favorite projects for the last few years on our LensWork website. Unfortunately, as a podcast it was simply too cumbersome to produce and bogged down in its own logistics. The blog format, however, is ideally suited for this project so we are relaunching it using blogging rather than audio as the platform. This also will allow you, the LensWork community again, to add your comments and join the conversation.

So, here we go! Welcome aboard.