• Hi and welcome to the Studio One User Forum!

    Please note that this is an independent, user-driven forum and is not endorsed by, affiliated with, or maintained by PreSonus. Learn more in the Welcome thread!

Help editing

wildCHILD

New member
Hello,
This is maybe a simple Question/Answer.
But I'm stuck here. I am editing a bassline. Just before hitting the right note i touched another string which can be heard on the track. I want to delete this part where i touched the string and "fill" this gab with the "fading" note I played right before. I tried to use bend markers/bending but this does not seem to work properly. I attached a picture that should describe the problem figurateively.
Please help me. THX

The space that is highlighted/marked should be "filled" with the "fading note before. How can i fix that smoothely?

Screenshot 2025-12-16 173726.jpg
 
1. Cut at the start of the note you want to stretch.
2. Stretch the note - press option/alt and hover over the end of the note you want to stretch. You'll see the cursor turn into a clock with arrow. Drag the end of the note so it just overlaps the next note
3. Crossfade the two events together (x key).

Bend markers only move transients within an event. They don't change the length of the event.

Hope this helps!
 
Last edited:
Hello,
This is maybe a simple Question/Answer.
But I'm stuck here. I am editing a bassline. Just before hitting the right note i touched another string which can be heard on the track. I want to delete this part where i touched the string and "fill" this gab with the "fading" note I played right before. I tried to use bend markers/bending but this does not seem to work properly. I attached a picture that should describe the problem figurateively.
Please help me. THX

The space that is highlighted/marked should be "filled" with the "fading note before. How can i fix that smoothely?

View attachment 2328
This is one way to do it:

(1) Use the scissor tool and split the audio clip about the same width before the end of the note, and copy the resulting tail.

(2) Then paste the copy of the tail at the location of the silence and move it so it joins the existing tail of the original note.

Then merge the original clip with the tail you pasted and moved.

You might want to do another scissor action to separate the most recent bass note and its new tail, if necessary.

Now you can adjust the volume level of the merged clip by selecting the merged clip and moving the mouse upward or downward.

There will be a "handle" for adjusting the volume level, but if the clip is too short, then there will be no handle, in which case you can increase or lower the volume via the context menu (right click), which is the same context menu you will use to merge audio clips (called "merge events".

There might be other ways to do this; but I do it this way, and it will work nicely.

[NOTE: Stretching the note also works; but it's good to know the "split, copy, paste, merge" technique, since it works for doing audio clip edits when stretching is not what you need to do, for example if you want to extend the middle part of a note or to add something else, although if you split the middle of a note, then I suppose you can stretch only the middle. I use the Stretch technique to adjust how wide or narrow an audio clip is, and it's very nice. I use 11ElevenLabs AI voices in my old-time science-fiction radio plays and often need to adjust the starts and ends of the generated audio clips, for which stretching is excellent to produce a precise voice-over. There are 27 chapters at present, but I am updating the original few chapters which were done over a decade ago when I was doing everything with a Fender Stratocaster and an Alesis ION Analog Modeling Synthesizer (for outer space sounds). I read everything and did all the voices myself, since it was not practical to hire a voice actress for the female characters; but now 11ElevenLabs has a very nice set of voice actors and actresses; so I use them in the newly updated chapters and the current chapters. ]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 

Attachments

  • SW-Splirt-and-Merge-Note-Tail.jpg
    SW-Splirt-and-Merge-Note-Tail.jpg
    183,3 KB · Views: 15
  • SW-Context-Menu.jpg
    SW-Context-Menu.jpg
    150,1 KB · Views: 11
  • SW-Arrow-Scissor-Tools.jpg
    SW-Arrow-Scissor-Tools.jpg
    85,5 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
I think the easiest way is to use 3 bend markers:
- bend marker 1 at the start of the note you want to stretch
- bend marker 2 right before the note you want to snuff
- bend marker 3 at the end of that note (right before the next one starts)
Then move bend marker 2 as far to the right as possible (onto bend marker 3), extinguishing the snuff note.

Splitting is not a viable option because bending works on file/clip level, not on event level. When you split an event then both parts are still bound to the same file/clip, so bending affects both parts. As proof you can split an event in a left and a right part, bend the left part, delete it, and stretch out (widen) the right part to where the left part started. That will reveal the content of the left part again, including the bending :)
 
Last edited:
I think the easiest way is to use 3 bend markers:
- bend marker 1 at the start of the note you want to stretch
- bend marker 2 right before the note you want to snuff
- bend marker 3 at the end of that note (right before the next one starts)
Then move bend marker 2 as far to the right as possible (onto bend marker 3), extinguishing the snuff note.

Splitting is not a viable option because bending works on file/clip level, not on event level. When you split an event then both parts are still bound to the same file/clip, so bending affects both parts. As proof you can split an event in a left and a right part, bend the left part, delete it, and stretch out (widen) the right part to where the left part started. That will reveal the content of the left part again, including the bending :)
This is very interesting!

I knew about (a) the first technique in this topic--"stretching", which is done with the Arrow tool after the "bad" or "undesired" part of the audio is split and deleted or removed--and (b) the second technique in this topic--what I call the "split, copy, paste, merge" technique".

I use both of these; but my primary audio clip editing strategy is (b), where (a) is used to adjust the start and end of the audio clip once it's modified with (b).

For example, consider I have selected a female voice in 11ElevenLabs AI; copied the words I want the AI voice to speak; and then have downloaded the resulting audio clip that 11ElevenLabs AI generates, which for the script "Look over here!" will be an audio clip with the AI voice saying "Look over here!", possibly with an exclamation accent at the end, although not always.

What happens occasionally and at times more often is the timing and phrasing of the words will be different from what I want, where instead of "Look over here!", it might be more like "Look <long pause> over here!". The words are there, but instead of flowing naturally and smoothly, 11ElevenLabs AI uses different emphasis and timing, where the key to understanding this is that there is a virtual festival of ways to say the same phrase or set of words.

The words can be spoken rapidly or slowly, which are two ways; and there are other ways to say the words, where one way might be to syncopate the words like snare drum rimshots or a tom-tom riff. The ways phrases are spoken also depends on the primary language of the speaker, where for example a Chinese speaker might use a different phrasing style than an Indian speaker or a Spanish speaker. This is important when writing scripts for radio plays and movies; and the more you know about specific speaking and singing styles the better.

Putting this into perspective, I decided to discover how to write scripts in the late-1970's and after nearly half-century of having FUN with dialogue, it's becoming easier and more intuitive like playing Jazz saxophone for decades and becoming proficient. In particular, word timing and emphasis is a key aspect of the strategy for writing scripts--specifically dialogue for different characters--so when I have a specific character in mind, I also have a rather detailed concept of the way the character speaks, including vocal tone, textures, word timing, word emphasis, and so forth.

Combine all this, and it maps to needing to be able to adjust the various parts of an audio clip, which for AI voices--and my voice-overs, as well--nearly always requires a bit of audio clip editing, which usually includes running each AI voice or voice-over through a set of effects plug-ins that change the tone, texture, and other characteristics of each voice, which you can hear in the chapter of my old-time science-fiction radio play that I posted in my previous post.

There are a few effects plug-ins that are excellent for transforming and morphing human voices to make them be surreal, other-worldly, terrifying, disturbing, funny, and so forth. These effects plug-ins are (a) Vocal Bender (Waves), (b) Melodyne (Ceremony), (c) VocalSynth 2 (iZotope) (d) Bruce Vig Vocals (Waves), (e) Stutter Edit 2 (iZotope), (f) AmpliTube (IK Multimedia), and basically every other effects plug-in, since even reverb and echoes will change the tone and texture of voices. Making it all the more complex and elaborate, it's possible to enhance voices with (a) other voices and (b) instruments, which also can be run through the same set of morphing and transforming effects plug-ins.

[NOTE: After writing every day about something and generally going ADHD/OCD on minutiae, I tend to be a bit "chatty"; but (a) I like to touch-type and (b) writing and learning stuff is like playing golf or Jazz saxophone, where the primary rule is that you need to do it every day for hours at a time if you want to become proficient. As I grow older, I have to be a bit gracious about my "chattiness", and l usually give folks a clue by telling them I am "chatty" and apologizing in advance--something like "I'm chatty, and there's not much I can do about. It's not my fault, I was born this way, but so what." Most folks tell me "It's OK" and then add "If you need to sit down or want some fruit punch and a cookie, let us know" or something similar. đŸ¤ª ]

Moving forward, for what I am doing, the various techniques for editing audio clips are important; and I am very happy about learning there is a Bend tool in addition to the Arrow tool that I use for (a) stretching and (b) for the "split, copy, paste, merge" technique", which I suppose reduces to merging.

Another thing I learned today is that there are two flavors of this stuff, (a) merging and (b) bouncing, which you mentioned in your post at a high level which now make sense to me.

I knew about bouncing and merging as separate activities, but not so much as different ways to do audio clip editing at the moment; so this is another new bit of information for me. For reference, my understanding of bouncing was that it's a way to render audio to create a mix for posting to YouTube; so it's not something I considered to be a developmental tool or technique.

The key to understanding this is that instead of reading and studying official user guides, I tend to click on stuff in the graphic user interface (GUI) until whatever I want to happen occurs, which is based on doing GUI software engineering since the first version of Windows starting in early-1987, which as I recall was Windows 1.1 rather than the actual first version.

I click on GUI stuff and then observe what happens. If it's what I want to occur, then excellent; but otherwise I exit and start over where I then click on other stuff, and so forth. It's a variation of what I call "scouting around", where the key is that nobody actually knows everything but you can do experiments on computer stuff so long as you have backups and can restore and do more experiments. Do enough experiments and sooner or later what you want to do will be revealed.

I enjoy writing but not so much reading, at least technical information written by technical writers who tend not to be software engineers, hence mostly function as human Grammarly-bots for software engineers. Call it a "pet peeve" or "stereotype", but I tend to think (a) that software engineers are not so literate and (b) that technical writers usually have no actual idea what software engineers are trying to explain. This is not a very gracious perspective, but it's my observation after over half a century of reading user manuals and trying to make sense of them.

The practical aspect is a bit like mathematics when "smart" folks skip most of the intermediate steps based on thinking I know all that stuff, when actually I need to see all the intermediate steps if there is any possibility of it ever making sense to me.

Wandering back from the asides, I never have used the Bend tool and until today didn't know it existed, since I never clicked on it or took the time to look at it; but you mentioned it and then after watching a few YouTube videos, (a) it makes sense and (b) I am intrigued; so I plan to do a few experiments.

My current understanding, which matches your observations, is that (a) merging is non-destructive but (b) bouncing is destructive. This is important, because I thought merging was destructive, which is wrong.

Making sense of these strategies for editing, morphing, and transforming audio clips--(a) stretching, (b) merging, and (c) bending--is important, and while I understand them better with the addition ol understanding bouncing and merging, the question becomes a matter of which strategy works best, which I think depends on the goal of the editing, morphing, and transforming, at least for working with voice-overs (AI and real), although voice-overs generally are just flavors of instruments and singing, hence generally it's all the same--voice-overs, instruments, and singing.

Without doing any experiments, intuition suggests (a) bending is done automagically based on an algorithm while (b) stretching and merging its done manually.

In some respects, when voices (AI and real) are modified by editing, morphing, and transforming, it might not matter so much which of the three ways is used {stretching, merging, bouncing}; but I am intrigued by this and plan to do some experiments to get a better sense of what actually occurs, where as noted my current intuition suggests it might be a matter of the actions being algorithmic or manual, although ultimately it's all done by software engineering and algorithms, which one might suppose makes it a matter of being primarily (a) AI or (b) manual.

Connecting a few more dots and using Melodyne as an example, I can change the pitch, duration, and other characteristics of "blobs" easily in Melodyne; but there are what can be called "reasonable bounds or limits" for what sounds natural versus artificial or "auto-tuned".

Interesting conversation, and thanks for the information on the Bend tool.
 
Last edited:
Note on merging being destructive or not:
When splitting events every resulting event is still a window on the full file/clip. So as long as the events are not moved you can delete some and then widen the adjacent events to reveal the full file/clip. No need for a new file/clip there. You can also move the pieces around on the timeline without the need for a new file/clip. But as soon as you merge those pieces into one event that will require an altered file/clip.*

Same for slip-editing: You can split up an event and then [Ctrl-Alt]/[Cmd-Alt]-move the content of the resulting events to change the timing wrt. the other pieces, no new clip/file needed. But merging after slip-editing does.*

* Edit: Did some checking, and merging in itself doesn't create a new file, yet. It is still using the original files/clips and it is still reversible (Dissolve) so it isn't destructive as such. Knew it but forgot it :oops: But as soon as you bounce you consolidate the result into a new file/clip.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your answers. I chose surf.whammys method and it worked fine, except i put a crossfade at the beginning and end of the "tail" i inserted.
Crossfade is a new one for me; so I read about it in the Studio One Reference Manual, and it's easy to do.

I did an experiment using the linear crossfade; and it's very nice, and it's definitely a smoother transition from the original tail to the newly copied and pasted tail after it's moved into position.

I think the key is to widen the timeframe and select the part of the tail that matches where you want to extend the original tale. Then the difference from the original tail and the newly spliced tail copy is not so great, which causes the linear crossfade algorithm to do a smooth transition.

The way I was doing it works, but sometimes it would require a bit of additional splicing, joining, and moving around to get a smooth transition.

I like the crossfade addition; and for voice-over splicing I think it will be smoother--so long as there is no beginning consonant or more intense start of the spliced tail. If there is a sharp or dramatic consonant, then removing it probably is better and takes another step; but otherwise I think linear crossfade will work nicely.

This relates to another audio-engineering technique used primarily for singing, where the singer either (a) forgets to over-annunciate or (b) doesn't know how to annunciate for the most clear and distinct vocals.

This usually occurs at the starts and ends of words, where for example the word might be "crazy" but the singer didn't emphasize the "c", which is the starting consonant.

Perhaps the best example is Elvis Presley, who was 21 years-old at the time, doing uvular trills on the "h" of "hound" in his first big hit song, although "Heartbreak Hotel" also was a big hit.

This is easiest to hear at 2:00 in the official YouTube recording; and it's something I didn't note for more than half a century, even though I have listened to the song probably thousands of times and continue to study it every so often.

It continues to amaze me that 21year-old self-taught Elvis knew about uvular trills; so my current best guess is that one of the Jordanaires or a producer told Elvis about uvular trills with the goal being to make "hound" very distinct when played on the radio.

I also like the way Elvis ends words with "uhh"

Making it all the more amazing, in those days they used one-track Ampex magnetic tape machines, where one was used for the instruments and voice, but another one was used to create slapback echo--at least the way Sam Phillips did it a Sun Records.

"Hound Dog" (Elvis Presley) is the 31st take of everyone (musicians and singers) playing the entire song (instruments and voices) at the same time, which for reference the Beatles did in their early recording sessions. In those days, musical groups actually could perform their songs in real-time without miming, overdubbing, pitch correcting, and auto-tune.

Another example is "Who Owns My Heart" (Miley Cyrus), which is another song I study and was produced by Rock Mafia.

Miley Cyrus is a skilled singer; but at least in "Who Owns My Heart" she was a bit forgetful or perhaps lazy about the starts and ends of word, so Rock Mafia (producers) had her overdub starts and ends of words, along with creating a festival of custom echoes to make the song more fascinating, something I call "sparkling", which I suggest is based on Quantum Sonic Entanglement where the idea is to manipulate phonons (tiny vibrations waves similar to photons). If nothing else, "sparkles" and the way they are entangled with the unconscious mind of listeners explains the reason there are over 150 "sparkles" in "Billie Jean" (Michael Jackson), which (a) had to be done by design and intent because (b) it takes time and resources to record the "sparkles" and then to mix them smoothly.

I devoted an hour or so to counting the sparkles in "Hound Dog", "Who Owns My Heart" and "Billie Jean" but in both cases stopped counting around150 sparkles in each song. This is easiest to hear in an immediately conscious way if you listen with studio-quality headphones like SONY MDR-7506 headphones (a personal favorite). For reference the "sparkles" in "Hound Dog" primarily are vocal and done intuitively by Elvis; but in the other two songs, the "sparkles" were done intentionally by design--except the uvular trills which are done by design and intent..

You can tell Miley Cyrus can sing by the scatting she does starting at 2:28 in the live performance at the House of Blues; and you also can tell what Rock Mafia did with vocal processing and overdubbing.

My current hypothesis is that "sparkles" are one of the primary requirements of hit songs, which as noted mostly is because while a few of the "sparkles" might initially be random like Elvis Presley hiccuping when he was nervous but then started hiccuping intentionally after he discovered it made teenage girls go crazy. Then a few decades later, Michael Jackson studied early-Elvis records and zoomed-in on the hiccups, which is the reason there more more hiccups in "Billie Jean" than I have taken the time to count.

Continuing with crossfading, for example, consider the phrase "crazy" with a distinct "c" consonant at the start . . .

You want to extend or stretch the word to be "cra-azy", so you only need the "azy" part of the original tail; but in copying it you get the entire word with the "c" consonant and "r" at the start. In this case, you can cut the "c" and "r" off the copy and then do a linear crossfade after moving and positioning everything.

There are two other types of crossfades, (a) using the Range tool and (b) doing an exponential crossfade (which is intriguing); so I need to do some experiments to understand how they work as contrasted to linear crossfades:

Whether using either of the two extra types of crossfades make sense is another matter, and for smoothing a single, rapid note, using linear crossfade might work best.

Until I do some experiments, intuition suggests that (a) linear crossfade it smoothed horizontally at a primarily constant volume level while (b) exponential crossfade is done in a curve that increases rapidly from lower volume to higher but steady volume rather than being smoothly horizontal at a consistent volume level for the duration.

What I remember from Differential Equations class, is that an exponential curve goes from nothing rapidly to approximately 60-percent and then stays stead, which is handy in epidemiology, where for example a measles outbreak begins with two people but rapidly expands to a large group of people and then stays steady.

In the diagram, intuition suggests that the exponential curve gets to the same steady volume level but starts low. Intuitively is doesn't make a lot of sense for the exponential curve to increase the volume level above what the linear crossfade does, hence the way I diagrammed the two crossfades.

Thanks for letting me know about using a crossfade!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 

Attachments

  • SW-Intuitive-Crossfade-Curves.jpg
    SW-Intuitive-Crossfade-Curves.jpg
    56,3 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Melodyne is what I use. Takes 3 seconds to delete the offending note or even unwanted harmonic like an open string.
You need the paid versions that can do polyphonic notes

I noticed that you recorded the bass in stereo? That’s not usually what you want. And it will make it harder to edit in Melodyne. You will need to convert it to mono first.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top