Hi Micky,

Glad you find this interesting and instructive. You could do it yourself if you really want to. It's simply a matter of (1.) finding the click, (2.) measuring the sample levels, (3.) using a calculator to find the difference in dB, and (4.) applying a gain change. "Simple" in concept although it does take a finite amount of time. Much less time to actually do it, though, than to explain it and assemble the graphics.

As I recall you downloaded Audacity. I haven't looked at it for ages. Does it have a "spectral view" function that would let you find the location of the clicks and quickly and accurately? If so, you really could do this yourself, and it might be an instructive exercise for you.

I will try to do a little more work on it this coming weekend.

I am glad you bought Jay Rose's books. Of all the books I've read over the years, his probably come closest to the way I would like to write a book on this subject... so of course I think they're good. Actually, I think you'll find many other people will recomment Jay's books, too.

Thanks again for your offer but I really don't need anything from Amazon. However, at this point in time you owe me 472 beers, so it might be worth my while to fly out to Seattle one of these days... <JK>

Hi Greg!

Glad you find this interesting and instructive. You could do it yourself if you really want to. It's simply a matter of (1.) finding the click, (2.) measuring the sample levels, (3.) using a calculator to find the difference in dB, and (4.) applying a gain change. "Simple" in concept although it does take a finite amount of time. Much less time to actually do it, though, than to explain it and assemble the graphics.

I am totally going to try doing these steps this weekend. I really appreciate you showing all these cool techniques. I hate to admit it, the math is a little over my head, but I don't think it will be a problem since you have made the process very clear (i.e. how to calculate the numbers and such).

Much appreciated.

As I recall you downloaded Audacity. I haven't looked at it for ages. Does it have a "spectral view" function that would let you find the location of the clicks and quickly and accurately? If so, you really could do this yourself, and it might be an instructive exercise for you.

That's a good question. I will check this weekend and get back to you asap.

If it does not have a spectral view, I would not mind buying an app that does. I will keep you posted. :)

I will try to do a little more work on it this coming weekend.

Again, I can' thank you enough for teaching me all of this cool stuff. :)

I haven't recorded with my binaural mics in a few weeks, but plan on getting out soon to do some more tests (i.e. testing auto feature and manual features of my recorder). It will be interesting to see if I can reproduce the clicks with a local sound source! :D

I am glad you bought Jay Rose's books. Of all the books I've read over the years, his probably come closest to the way I would like to write a book on this subject... so of course I think they're good. Actually, I think you'll find many other people will recomment Jay's books, too.

That's great! Sounds like money well spent! :)

I can't wait to add his books to my collection of other geek/art/design/video books.

Thanks again for your offer but I really don't need anything from Amazon. However, at this point in time you owe me 472 beers, so it might be worth my while to fly out to Seattle one of these days... <JK>

Hahah! Sounds good to me!!! Definitely will buy you many brews if you make it out to the west coast one of these days!

Thanks again Greg! You ROCK!

Have an awesome day!!!

Cheers,
Micky

P.S. Do you blog about audio or anything? If so, I would totally follow you via RSS feed and such.

I <snip> plan on getting out soon to do some more tests (i.e. testing auto feature and manual features of my recorder). It will be interesting to see if I can reproduce the clicks with a local sound source!

I think there are a few variables you want to play with.

First of all, which input to use. As I recall, the spec sheet for those mics & battery box say you should connect them to the line input, rather than the mic input. The line input is designed to accept much higher audio voltage from the mics.

Second, whether or not to use AGC, or limiting (which is just a fast version of AGC). (I've honestly forgotten which recorder you have, and I can't scroll back to your original message while I'm writing this, so I don't know which functions you have.) After listening to that file, I strongly suspect that the clicks are related to some sort of AGC. So I would leave both those functions off.

I think if you use Line input, and no AGC (or limiting) the problem will go away.

Then, of course, the trick is to try different combinations, and see if and when the clicks return.

-----

As far as doing the math for gain adjustment:

1.) locate the samples where the click occurs.

2.) remove the 3, 4, or 5 samples where the waveform slopes in the reverse direction. Drop a visible cue marker where you've removed these samples.

NEXT the calculations. You will have to perform separate calculations for each channel!

Use a scientific calculator with a LOG function. (I like the TI-30 models)

3.) find the value of the left channel sample immediately before the cue marker. Call this value S1.

4.) find the value of the left channel sample immediately after the cue marker. Call this value S2.

5.) to find the ratio of the samples, divide S2/S1. The result will be some decimal value between 0 and 1. Call this result RatL (ratio left).

6.) now, while the ratio is displayed in the calculator, press "LOG" and wait a second, the calculator will find the log of RatL.

7.) now simply multiply by 20 (press "X 20" of course). That converts the log to a dB value. Write that down.

Example: if S1=12789, and S2=12345, then divide S2/S1=0.965... and we'll call this RatL.

OK, the calculator already has 0.965... in memory, so just press "LOG" and the result is -0.0153...

Finally, multiply X 20 and the final result is -0.307dB. That means the sample after the click is -0.307dB lower in level than the sample before the click.

In this example, you would then select a short region of the waveform where you'll adjust the gain. The initial LEFT gain is +0.307dB. (You boost the gain in order to make S2 louder than it was, which will make it match S1).

Now repeat the math, this time comparing the samples in the right channel waveform.

Of course after you perform the gain adjustment, look at the samples before and after the cue marker. Both left channel samples should be the same level (before and after), both right channel samples should be the same level (before and after), although the left channel values will most likely be different from the right channel values. If you find that the before and after values are not the same, there's a problem with your values or your calculations.

That's all there is to it. And, in addition to fixing your clicks, this is a good repetitive exercise that will start to give you an intuitive understanding of how dB values work.

Hi Greg!!! Thanks again for all of your help. :)

First of all, which input to use. As I recall, the spec sheet for those mics & battery box say you should connect them to the line input, rather than the mic input. The line input is designed to accept much higher audio voltage from the mics.

Doh! You know, now that you mention it... I think I have been using the mic input rather than the line input. :(

From the manual:

21583


Audio Inputs
Internal Stereo Microphone, Mic input (Stereo miniature phone type, plug-in powered mic), Line input (Stereo miniature phone type)
*The Internal/External Mic and the Line input can't be used at the same time; only the Line input is effective.

I can't believe I did not realize that it was best to use the line input. To be truthfully honest, I did not even realize that there was a line input. I always just plugged my mics into the mic input and called it good... Sheesh, I can't believe I did not think about using line input when using the battery pack. :(

Looking back at our conversations here, it looks like you point this out at least a couple times and I never put two and two together. For example:

But if he was running them into a mic input (rather than a line level input, as suggested in the instructions for that mic/module combo) then he might have overloaded the mic preamps. That would show up as some sort of anomaly in the waveform, but might have been much lower than 0dBFS depending on the configuration of the recorder.

I feel like a total idiot.

I wonder if I hurt any of my equipment? I do have a tendency to learn the hard way.

Second, whether or not to use AGC, or limiting (which is just a fast version of AGC). (I've honestly forgotten which recorder you have, and I can't scroll back to your original message while I'm writing this, so I don't know which functions you have.) After listening to that file, I strongly suspect that the clicks are related to some sort of AGC. So I would leave both those functions off.

I will definitely try this the next time. I kinda have a feeling things will be better now that I have been taught all of this new stuff. I just can't believe I got any good audio samples during my S.F. trip!!!

I think if you use Line input, and no AGC (or limiting) the problem will go away.

I bet you are right! I wish I would have known all of this from the get go... I would not have wasted your (and others) time with my silly questions. :(

Thank you so much for teaching a noob like me the ropes!!!!

Then, of course, the trick is to try different combinations, and see if and when the clicks return.

Sounds good to me. I will post back my results as soon as I can get out to test.

As far as doing the math for gain adjustment: ...<snip>... That's all there is to it. And, in addition to fixing your clicks, this is a good repetitive exercise that will start to give you an intuitive understanding of how dB values work.

Greg, you are da MAN! THANK YOU!!!!! :)

Have a great day!

Cheers,
Micky

I wish I would have known all of this from the get go... I would not have wasted your (and others) time with my silly questions.

Micky, IMHO anything that results in a positive learning experience is not a waste of time. The only questions that are silly are questions that were not asked, and are therefore unanswered. Don't sweat it! No apology required.

If you won't buy that from a philosophical perspective, consider this. Suppose you had listened to your planetarium track and said to yourself, "Dang, I hope that doesn't happen next time." But you had not posted the question and the audio samples here. You (and we) would really have no idea what went wrong.

Now imagine that next week you found yourself with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to record something irreplaceable. (The President and the Marine Band show up, unannounced, at the local high school, and you happen to be passing by.) So you hook up your gear the same way, make a recording, and end up with the same clicks. You'd be really discouraged, right? Instead, you now have some new data, you understand your equipment better, and in all likelihood your next recording will be much better. That's why I think any positive learning experience is a good one.

Note that I did not smack your knuckles with an oak yardstick, so hopefully the experience was not too painful. ;) I am always happy to explain, whenever an explanation is requested. The only time I walk away is when the person on the "receiving" end of the lesson tries to argue with me, rather than being open to a learning experience.

Clearly it's always a good idea to read, re-read, and thoroughly digest the manuals for all your equipment. Your case is a good example. Of course it's just "common sense" to connect the mics to the mic input. Nothing in the recorder manual specifically warns you to the contrary (although there are some rather obscure-looking numbers in the specs that might give you a hint... if you have enough experience to understand the specs). But over in the literature for the mic/battery combo is this little warning (IMHO it should be in bold type): when using the battery box, use the recorder's LINE input rather than the MIC input. On the other hand, if all this equipment and terminology is new to you, you might not even realize the significance of the term "Line input"... (you might just think that means "mic line" which is a commonly used phrase). My father was fond of saying, "We live and learn." (Also "You can't leave the table until you clean your plate.") When the learning process stops, we're in trouble.

In your defense, I do not think those clicks are the result of clipping, nor are they a malfunction of the mics, nor are they a malfunction of the battery box. If they were clipping, all clipping would occur at a specific level; and the two channels would clip at different points in time. Also, your waveform does not look like clipping... is it not "flat-topped." So simply switching to the mic inputs might not correct the clicks that we've heard so far.

Those clicks occur at the same time on both channels, and seem to occur right before I hear the AGC drop the level of the recorded signal. AGC should not produce clicks. Therefore, I really start to suspect some malfunction of the AGC (or limiter) in your recorder. That's why I want you to be sure to leave AGC and limiting off for your next test.

Nevertheless, the mics should, in theory, be plugged into the line input, so I want you to do that, too. Just a little extra insurance. And besides, in some situation the mic inputs might clip (even if they haven't clipped so far)... so by using the Line inputs you will try to avoid that potential problem.

So I think this has been a great experience. You've learned something about your mics, and something about your recorder (even if it might be bad news, you probably know how to avoid the problem in the future). You've learned how to calculate dB level differences, and you've learned how to fix a file with some very bizarre clicking noise.

By the way, does Audacity have a Spectral view, so you can easily locate the clicks? And did you have a chance to try correcting any of them on your own?

Carry on!

Micky, IMHO anything that results in a positive learning experience is not a waste of time. The only questions that are silly are questions that were not asked, and are therefore unanswered. Don't sweat it! No apology required.

Thanks for understanding Greg! Much appreciated. :)

If you won't buy that from a philosophical perspective, consider this. Suppose you had listened to your planetarium track and said to yourself, "Dang, I hope that doesn't happen next time." But you had not posted the question and the audio samples here. You (and we) would really have no idea what went wrong.

Great point.

Thanks again for all of your help. :)

Now imagine that next week you found yourself with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to record something irreplaceable. (The President and the Marine Band show up, unannounced, at the local high school, and you happen to be passing by.) So you hook up your gear the same way, make a recording, and end up with the same clicks. You'd be really discouraged, right? Instead, you now have some new data, you understand your equipment better, and in all likelihood your next recording will be much better. That's why I think any positive learning experience is a good one.

More great points!!!!

I actually run into those types of situations (well, not presidential encounters, but on a more micro local level) every once in a while via my job at the local newspaper... I can't even begin to count the number of times that I have gone out to film something, for example, and I come back with a huge list of "things I would do differently next time". :D

Thanks to this forum, and the cool folks on here willing to help a noob (present company definitely included), every time I go out to film something my audio captures keep getting better and better!

Clearly it's always a good idea to read, re-read, and thoroughly digest the manuals for all your equipment. Your case is a good example. Of course it's just "common sense" to connect the mics to the mic input. Nothing in the recorder manual specifically warns you to the contrary (although there are some rather obscure-looking numbers in the specs that might give you a hint... if you have enough experience to understand the specs). But over in the literature for the mic/battery combo is this little warning (IMHO it should be in bold type): when using the battery box, use the recorder's LINE input rather than the MIC input. On the other hand, if all this equipment and terminology is new to you, you might not even realize the significance of the term "Line input"... (you might just think that means "mic line" which is a commonly used phrase). My father was fond of saying, "We live and learn." (Also "You can't leave the table until you clean your plate.") When the learning process stops, we're in trouble.

Amen to that!

I assumed that the battery pack just meant that I did not need to turn on the plugin power... I am not sure why I did not even consider the line input. :(

In your defense, I do not think those clicks are the result of clipping, nor are they a malfunction of the mics, nor are they a malfunction of the battery box. If they were clipping, all clipping would occur at a specific level; and the two channels would clip at different points in time. Also, your waveform does not look like clipping... is it not "flat-topped." So simply switching to the mic inputs might not correct the clicks that we've heard so far.

That's interesting... I do plan on testing my mics again very soon and I will post my results here.

Random thought:

I have never replaced the batteries in the battery pack. I don't think they are out of juice, but I am thinking that it might be a good idea to replace them for my next outing... Batteries are probably not related to the clicks, but it seems like it might be good to swap out batteries on a regular basis? Heck, I really wish my battery pack had some sort of battery level indicator.

Those clicks occur at the same time on both channels, and seem to occur right before I hear the AGC drop the level of the recorded signal. AGC should not produce clicks. Therefore, I really start to suspect some malfunction of the AGC (or limiter) in your recorder. That's why I want you to be sure to leave AGC and limiting off for your next test.

Hehe, I plan on never uing AGC/limiting on my recorder EVER again! :D

Nevertheless, the mics should, in theory, be plugged into the line input, so I want you to do that, too. Just a little extra insurance. And besides, in some situation the mic inputs might clip (even if they haven't clipped so far)... so by using the Line inputs you will try to avoid that potential problem.

That's a great idea! I can't wait to test. :)

I will post some new recordings as soon as possible.

So I think this has been a great experience. You've learned something about your mics, and something about your recorder (even if it might be bad news, you probably know how to avoid the problem in the future). You've learned how to calculate dB level differences, and you've learned how to fix a file with some very bizarre clicking noise.

I owe you one, big time!

By the way, does Audacity have a Spectral view, so you can easily locate the clicks? And did you have a chance to try correcting any of them on your own?

I have not had a chance to try and fix, but I am planning on spending some time this weekend to do just that. If I make some progress, I will post my results. :)

Looking at Audicity, there is a "plot spectrum" in Analyze menu:

21614

Gosh, I really wish I had CoolEdit Pro!

I will experiment some more this weekend and get back to you with my findings. :)

Thanks a billion Greg!!!!!! Have a great week! Chat with you this weekend.

Cheers,
Micky

Battery boxes first came into use with some of the MD recorders that didn't provide "plug in power" for electret mics. However, people realized that by using a rather high battery voltage (perhaps 9 volts), compared to the typical "plug in power" from a recorder (which is often in the 1.5 to 3 volt range), a battery box could also allow the mic to have more headroom before clipping. This is especially important when recording loud sounds: rock concert, construction site, etc.

The mic signal is proportional to the sound level. The battery box simply allows a higher level before the mic clips. So when you're recording something fairly loud, a typical mic input can't handle that high signal level from the mic (even 'though the audio signal voltage is lower than the 9 volt power supply). Thus you're safer to use the line input, especially when recording something loud. However... there's always a "however." In this case, if you are recording something fairly quiet, the line input might not have enough gain to get good recording levels, so you might need to use the mic input after all!

--

Battery voltage goes down for two reasons: shelf life, and drain. Even if the batteries are never used they will slowly discharge. Packaging on batteries today (reputable brands, at least) includes an expiration date; that should be a safe indication of shelf life. When the battery box is not connected to anything, there should be no current drain. Even when recording, the drain should be fairly low. Hopefully the specs give you some idea of how many hours of use you can expect from a set of batteries.

You don't really need a battery meter built into the battery box... that would just add to the size and price. You need an inexpensive digital multimeter. I have done some fairly precise electronic work from time to time, and I love good test equipment. I have Fluke meters and Tektronix oscilloscopes, etc. But you don't need anything fancy or pricey for your purposes. Inexpensive meters are amazingly good these days!

I'm sure you can get one at the local Radio Shack, although from what I've seen of RS pricing lately, you will pay three times what it's really worth.

In all honesty, something like this 7 Function Digital Multimeter (http://www.harborfreight.com/7-function-digital-multimeter-90899.html) will be adequate for checking battery voltage, and some other random electrical tasks. It will be slightly less accurate than a more expensive meter, but the difference won't really be significant for your application. It will be a lot less durable than a more expensive meter... the test leads will probably fail before anything else. But if you only use it once a month to check your battery box, and you don't abuse it, it will be OK. Eventually you'll want a better meter, but something like this is fine for a starter.

Most non-rechargeable batteries should be a bit above 1.5 volts when they're fresh. Your meter should verify that. You probably want to discard them when they get down around 1.25 volts Again, read the literature that came with the battery box... if they specify some "discard" voltage other than my guesstimate of 1.25, follow their advice. If you're really OCD you could keep a chart of the voltage each time you check the batteries... personally, I wouldn't bother!

Wow, I wish I knew half as much as you do when it comes to all of this stuff. Thanks Greg. You are a wealth of great information. :)

I hope that one of these days I can teach you something... If you ever need web design/coding help feel free to shoot me an e-mail.

Also, thanks for link to that 7 Function Digital Multimeter! That looks like a fun device! Can't beat the $3.99 price tag. :)

I will post my findings this weekend after I have played around more with Audacity.

Thanks again!!!

Have a great day!

Cheers,
Micky

I hope that one of these days I can teach you something... If you ever need web design/coding help feel free to shoot me an e-mail.
I used to teach HTML courses, in addition to basic electrical theory. ;) But I sure could have used some help with Perl. I was writing on a Win machine, and then porting it over to a Unix server. @$#%$^$&%* I'm on a shared server now and I don't think the farm will let me run scripts or even SSIs... probably wise from their point of view, as one bad script from one client could crash the server for everyone.

Also, thanks for link to that 7 Function Digital Multimeter! That looks like a fun device! Can't beat the $3.99 price tag. :)
Get at least two. Keep one in the car for checking fuses, light bulbs, etc. Heck, get ten. They make great stocking-stuffers. Everyone should have at least one DMM. They're also good for checking cable continuity (and correct phasing of XLR cables), voltage from wall-warts... you name it.

Keep in mind that these meters have an internal battery (probably 9V) so when you see the little battery symbol on the meter's display, you'll need to replace that.

Hey, I'm sorry, I've been extremely busy this week, I meant to post a screen grab of the spectral display from CoolEdit, so you know what you're looking for. I will try to get to it soon.

OK, Micky, here are a few screen captures to show how the Spectral View (in CoolEdit Pro) is used to find the clicks in your file. You already know how to fix them, once you find them.

The first image (Spectral-01.gif) shows what Spectral View looks like. You need to take a minute and get your head around this, because it's so different from waveform view. The horizontal axis is time scale, same as with Waveform view. Left channel is the upper graph, right channel the lower graph.

However, the vertical axis is different. Look at the scale at the right side of the graph, you'll see that the vertical axis now represents frequency. Low frequencies at the bottom, high frequencies at the top. Intensity at any given frequency is indicated by color!

For example, you'll see that there's a thin yellow-white area near the bottom of each channel's graph. The yellow-white color indicates that those are the loudest sounds. The fact that they're near the bottom of each graph indicates that they're lower frequencies (look at the scale, they're pretty much below 1,000 Hz.)

Above the yellow, there's an area of red, which gradually tapers off to violet. Red is less loud than yellow, violet is less loud than red. That indicates that from about 1,000 Hz to about 5,000 Hz, there's still significant sound level, but it's gradually getting lower in amplitude. Above that, it tapers to darker violet and dark blue: the level is getting lower as the frequency gets higher. (That's what you'd expect in normal sound files.)

Now look at those two big vertical spikes. The color of those indicates a sound that has a lot of energy up into the higher frequencies. The fact that it's a narrow spike indicates it's a pretty short duration in time. Those are the first pair of clicks in the "snippet" file that you sent.

You'll notice that the spike on the right has a lighter blue background. That just indicates that I've selected (highlighted) that spike by dragging my mouse across it... the same as you'd select any area of any file.

The second image (Spectral-02.gif) is the exact same part of the file, in time, but here we've switched back to the traditional Waveform View. Don't be confused by the file name... this is not a spectral view. You can see the same area, in time, is highlighted here.

The third image (Spectral-03.gif) shows that I've zoomed in on the time (horizontal) scale, to the part of the file that I previously selected. I've also zoomed in slightly on the amplitude (vertical) scale. You can start to see the click clearly.

The fourth image (Spectral-04) is zoomed in even further. Now you can see the click clearly. You recognize this from the images I sent with my click-fixing explanation last week.

The point of this brief demo is to illustrate what the Spectral View looks like, and how you use it to accurately find each click in the file. Hopefully, Audacity has a similar spectral view, so you can easily find all the remaining clicks (in the file I fixed last week), and then try fixing them yourself.

Make sense?

It looks as if the spectral view in Audacity will let you see the same thing. I like CoolEdit's color scheme better than the Audacity color scheme in the image you posted... maybe because I'm used to looking at an oscilloscope which has a black screen except for where the beam traces the waveform. Maybe you can change the color scheme on Audacity so it's a bit clearer.

Note, too, that my Spectral View has a linear frequency scale, so the fundamentals are all really squished down near the bottom. That makes it very easy to spot high frequency anomalies. Your spectral view has a logarithmic frequency scale, so the spikes (which show the clicks) don't stand out as well. Maybe you can change Audacity's spectral view to have a linear scale.

Let me know how you make out... Carry on!


P.S.: How did you get your thumbnails up in the body of the post? I added them as attachments and they all ended up at the bottom.

Long time no talk Greg! I can't believe I missed your last two messages!!!! I appoligize for not replying... The forum messages must have gotten lost when they hit my e-mail inbox. :(

I hope things are going well with you.

Things have been pretty busy in my neck of the woods (day job is keeping me busy).

Thanks so much for those screen grabs and all of the information about the spectral view and Cool Edit Pro.

I hate to admit it, but since we last talked I have not had a chance to download a demo and/or buy a copy of CoolEdit. I really want to get a copy so I can follow along with all of you examples without getting lost in Audacity trying to find the same views and tools. :)

Just as an update: I went back to the planetarium and captured the audio for a second time.

No clicks/pops/crackling!!!!

I took your advice, and use the "line in" input along with the battery pack.

Record settings:

96khz
24bit
Limiter/agc = off
Plug-in power = off
Mic gain = low
Low cut = off

I took pictures of my settings right before recording just to make sure I could remember things later! :D

I think my first recording was clicking due to the fact that I had my battery pack/mic plugged into the mic input (vs. the "line in" input).

Anyway, I got a clean recording of the show... Of course, I don't plan on doing anything with this recording... I re-recorded the show purely for learning (my equipment) purposes. :)

Greg, I owe you many thanks for all of your help!!!! Thanks a billion!!!!! As soon as I get setup with Cool Edit I will let you know how it goes.

Thanks to everyone that replied! This forum is the best on the net! :)

Cheers,
Micky

Oh, also... I learned how to place attachments inline by looking at Robert's post on page #1.

After uploading, I hovered over the image link at bottom of the post to get the "attachmentid" number.

I used this code to attach the image(s):

22576

22576

Seems like it should be easier than that. :(

Anyway, hope that helps! :)

Have a great Friday!

Cheers,
Micky

Hi Micky,

Glad to hear you found a solution. I would still like to know what caused the original "clicking." Given that you had the machine set up incorrectly, what in the machine caused that particular kind of problem, since is it not clipping? (After a lengthy Google search, I found one other user who had exactly the same kind of "clicking" problem on the same recorder. I looked at his files, and the problem was exactly the same as on your files! So it is not an isolated problem in your particular unit.)

I'm afraid you will have to watch eBay a long time, in hopes of finding an old "discarded" copy of CoolEdit. That company (Syntrillium) and product were bought up by Adobe several years ago. If you do find it somewhere (which is not impossible) you will need to be sure that the seller includes a working registration password to unlock the program.

Anyway, thanks for the report!

FYI - CoolEdit is sold by Adobe under the name Audition. The current version isn't all THAT expensive, $349 for the full package or $99 if upgrading from a previous version of Audition or from Soundbooth.

Steve, thanks for that reminder. I think I mentioned that long ago, but perhaps Micky had lost track of that tidbit. Since Audition is a current product, it will be much easier to find, if that is within his budget.

Oooh, nice!

Thanks for tip/reminder Steve!

I totally spaced being told about Audition! $349 is not a bad price at all. :)

Amazon.com: Adobe Audition CS5.5: Software

Wow, I didn't realize it was a part of the Adobe CS5.x suite... My work just got me a copy of CS5 master collection... I have not installed yet, but it looks like I lucked out.

Thanks again Greg! I can't thank you enough for all that you have taught me. I owe you one. :)

Thanks to everyone for all of the help.

Have an awesome week.

Cheers,
Micky

It's not part of CS5. It will be a part of CS5.5.

It's not part of CS5. It will be a part of CS5.5.

Doh! I was looking at the CS5.5 page... I just assumed it was in 5.0. :(

I guess having Audition in the 5.5. upgrade gives folks another reason to upgrade their 5.5 install.

Thanks for clarification Adam. Much appreciated. :)

Have a great day!

Cheers,
Micky

Thanks again for your offer but I really don't need anything from Amazon. However, at this point in time you owe me 472 beers, so it might be worth my while to fly out to Seattle one of these days... <JK>

Let's just round that up to 500!

Let me know when you are in my neck of the woods. :D

Cheers,
Micky