Can't add track markers

[Roger]

Greetings everyone

I’m an old user, had many hours of use of this fine program, but after having had a crash, have re-installed the program, got the key etc.
I find that once a .wav recording has been scanned in one track, no track divisions, I cannot insert track markers using the “tab” key, in preparing a recording for CD burning. Using the “tab” key does show a marker, but on clicking the divide icon at the top I get the “too close to an existing “ message. Using the "tab" key was how i added track markers originally.

I have enabled Auto-scan “track splitting” in “Options”.

I need to (a) remove some announcers chat, (b) insert track markers so that discs when burned have separate tracks and (c) divide the recording into 2, because it is 95 minutes long.

Previously this would have been a doddle. Now it is impossible.

Help please, you experts!!!!

Roger

[citguy]

Hi Roger: There are track fragments too small to see on the spectrum. Use your arrows to find the ends of tracks and join the bits of tracks in that area back into one larger track then do your split and it will work.
Stan

[Roger]

Hi Stan

Thanks for your suggestion. However, the track list found by clicking "Tracks" at the top shows only 1 track. I don't think what you have identified is really the problem.

I found out that there is a small marker running along below the main window, which moves the waveform along and indicates where the splitting marker will operate. This is so different from what I had previously that it's almost like a new program. Now I stop the playback at the precise moment and click the "Split" icon, and I get the division OK. So far so good. (Apologies for non-technical terms!)

I have looked minutely through the help guidance and can find no real description of this. Previously I must have been using an early version of the program. I am certain the use of the "tab" key inserted the track markers before.

Perhaps you could point me to the paragraph in the Help notes where the "new" correct procedure is described.


Cheers and thanks for your help

Roger

[citguy]

Hi Roger. I only offered the suggestion based on having the same problem and solving it by joining all the track fragments back together then splitting. These "fragments" did not show as tracks for me either. Possibly you are experiencing a different problem.
Stan

[Roger]

Hi Stan

I see. Well, once you got back to having just ONE track, what was your procedure for splitting....and where does it tell in in the Help notes.?
I did manage this act, and divided my recording into 12 tracks, very pleased I was too! But I was doing it intuitively and by trial and error. I'd like to be more organised if I can be!

In my previous version, there was a "variable sensitivity" setting, which enabled one to predetermine how long the gaps of silence would be when autmatically inserting tracks. Setting this to zero gave one long track, which one could then scan manually, adding track markers as one went along. This was ideal for me. Is there a way of recreating that setting?

Perhaps Derek might come in on this, if no one else has a suggestion.

Thanks for your help, Stan, and anyone else who chips in.

Cheers
Roger

[citguy]

Roger wrote:

I see. Well, once you got back to having just ONE track, what was your procedure for splitting....and where does it tell in in the Help notes.?

I only recombine the bits around the area I was having trouble splitting or setting the end of a track. You can always use the "rescan tracks" command and suggest how many tracks there are at any time. You of course will lose all previous track splits. If you use the "toolbar arrows" to locate the "next" track boundary in both directions you should be able to attach the track fragments to the previous track or next track then adjust the boundaries to your liking.
Stan

[Derek]

Hello Roger

I'm a little confused but I think I can help you!

First of all, to explain the new track detection procedures: in earlier versions, there was a sensitivity control but this wasn't very effective; the latest version allows you to to tell the program how many tracks are present and this makes the program much better at finding tracks. To use this feature select Re-scan tracks on the waveform menu and under 'user assisted' enter a target track count.

On the same Re-scan Tracks command there is the option to 'Remove All'. This removes all track markers and gives you one long track. You can then manually add track markers as described below.

There are various ways to do this but using the TAB key is probably the easiest. Navigate to each point in turn and press the TAB key wherever you want a track marker.

Note, the TAB key inserts 'Cue Markers' into the Correction List. To convert them to Track Markers, you use the 'Cue Markers to Tracks' command on the Tracks menu. Job Done!

One possible problem can arise if you leave your finger too long on the TAB key. Keyboard auto-repeat can cause multiple markers to be inserted very close to each other and this may have caused the error message you got.

Good luck and let me know if you need further help.

[Roger]

Thanks, Derek.

Whilst not necessarily agreeing that the new method of inserting track markers is better, I do see now how to do it. But I still feel scanning with minimum sensitivity ( i.e. producing one long track) then running through wnd inserting track marks directly by hitting the Tab key was simpler and quicker. I would think that the "new" system is better for those who are scanning LPs, CDs etc when they know how many tracks they have to find. How would you know how many track numbers to aim for if you are scanning a broadcast recording of a completely new piece of music like a symphony, or an in-house recording of an opera, for example? It has to be done manually. I agree the old 'sensitivity' control was a bit inaccurate, and I had it usually set at zero. That worked fine!

Sometimes old fogeys like me like old programs which worked perfectly for us!

But all power to your elbow in continuing your developmental work, and thanks to you and everyone else for helping me.

Cheers
Roger

[citguy]

Hi again Roger. Yes, Derek is much better at clearing up questions. It strikes me that you might be editing "tape recordings" which tend to have a continuous background noise, albeit almost unnoticeable. I have found that sometimes this continuous "tape motion noise" can confuse automatic track detection because there is no "clean break" between selections as on most vinyl.
Stan

[Roger]

Hi Stan

I use orginal material from many sources....digital satellite sources recorded to SD cards, SD cards recorded in-house on a Roland Edirol RO0, DAT recordings, minidisc recordings. Only now and then are analogue tapes with some element of tape hiss used. I am dealing here with as good an original source as you can get, by and large, with minimal unwanted noise. I really doubt whether background noise is going to be a problem for me in most cases.

That's why the early WC program was so easy for me. I could just scan a recording with zero track markers, run through the waveform and hit the Tab key to make markers and then divide, then save the tracks I want. Easy-peasy.

If only Derek could allow me to download that early program version, I'd be"over the moon"!

However, thanks for your input and blessings to you from the UK

[Derek]

Yes, you should still be able to do this with the latest version; the only difference is that there is no longer a sensitivity control for track detection. Instead you simply enable or disable track detection under auto-scan options. If you disable track splitting, then you'll end up with one long track like you did previously when you set the track detection setting to zero.

The operation of the TAB key hasn't changed. It always was used to insert 'cue markers'. You never could use it to split tracks. To split tracks, you would have used the 'split track' toolbar button and it still acts the same as it always did. So it is a mystery why you were getting the 'too close to an existing marker' message when you used it.

If you can provide a little more information, I can investigate further.

all the best

[Roger]

Dear Derek

Thanks for your offer of help. I will await my next opportunity to scan a recording, and let you know how i get on

Cheers
Roger