Mickguard Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoughtless 7 Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Audacity(sp) will let you record and save as mp3. Why not just record a wav file then convert to mp3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted July 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoughtless 7 Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Audacity will do what you want. I know some programs use wav, but the size is pretty small (if thats what you're worried about), but yeah, audacity. Its free and its what i use to convert my songs to mp3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Mick, I know it sounds good in theory and all, but you really don't wanna do it. You want to record in 16-bit, 44.1k (CD quality) minimum. I'd say 24-bit, 44.1k actually, but it depends on how you set yourselves up. You can always convert to MP3 later, but you can never reclaim lost quality from lossy compression (ie. MP3, WMA, etc.) Not that it has to be all "precious" and everything, but since almost all software records to .wav anyhow and then "transparently" (ie. it doesn't tell you it's doing this, it just does it) converts to MP3 at the end, you might as well keep the .wav. That way you can use any software at all, and then use any tool at all to convert, split, etc., your MP3. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verhoevenc Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 To my knowledge there's one simple reason essentially nothing records DIRECT to mp3 and they all convert to it later: The way mp3 works is it's a COMPRESSION type for audio. It looks over the audio file, see's any patterns, adn then instead of having those patterns written out a couple times, it just references them, which means, if in a single song you have the pattern 001110010101 lets say 100 times. It'll put a marker down each time that appears and tells it to reference that. Therefore you've just cut out 99 times the pattern 001110010101.... that's a big space saver if you think that it does that for most all the patterns, big and small. That's how it's able to take a 3 minute 30MB+ wav file, and make it a 3MB mp3 file. What I'm trying to say, is that in REAL time.... it can't reference because it doesn't see the whole picture yet. Therefore, it's can't compress any. So there's really no point to it.... Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester700 Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Actually, using CBR (constant bit rate), MP3 encoders don't need a very big "picture", and as long as there's a buffer big enough, theoretically this shouldn't be a problem. Software can record MPEG VIDEO in realtime, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Yeah. I mainly just don't think it gets you anything. The only advantage to recording direct to mp3 rather than converting is disc drive space. Any computer from the past 10 years or so should be able to easily store a 2 hour set as .wav. Then convert to mp3 after. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafty Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 No doubt. 1 minute of audio at 16-bit, 44.1 is only about 10 MB. All you need is a gig and a half or so to hold a couple hours of audio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 I don't see where audio quality is all that necessary. It seems to me that they just want to record their jam sessions that way they can go back and find that cool riff and remember it. Its not like they are gonna distribute a jam session CD or anything. Having said that, you shouldn't have much problem saving directly to wav and then converting later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted July 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorecki Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 (edited) It's a cheezy option but in Windows, I believe 'Sound Recorder' is still available and it will allow you to record at bit rates considerably lower than most sound tools do these days. You can record at 8-bit, 11k if you wish with it. Gonna sound like cha-cha, but it will work. Edited July 25, 2006 by Gorecki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verhoevenc Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Nope. As far as I remember from my PC days sound recorder doesn't let you record for that long. I think the max time's measured in minutes... Chris Nope. As far as I remember from my PC days sound recorder doesn't let you record for that long. I think the max time's measured in minutes... Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Yeah, I could tell that sound quality wasn't an issue, so I emphasize my recommendation more in terms of convenience. It's really just as convenient to record and then convert. Mp3 compression, even if it does things "on the fly" will always require additional "calculations" by comparison; hence, stability issues. The only real question I have is: why is mp3 mission-critical? That will solve the mystery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorecki Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Nope. As far as I remember from my PC days sound recorder doesn't let you record for that long. I think the max time's measured in minutes... Chris Nope. As far as I remember from my PC days sound recorder doesn't let you record for that long. I think the max time's measured in minutes... Chris Nah... It'll record as long as the hard drive will allow. That's the limit. I recorded all day lectures with it some time ago, that's why I thought of it. Also, if still lurking around on the internet Cool Edit 96 (original two track version of Cool Edit Pro) will allow really low bit rates (4k). I used it back in the my days of doing voice response programming and engineering and still use it now as the audio (sample) editor in Ableton Live (Yes Greg, I'm giving Live a crack). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted July 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorecki Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 The only real question I have is: why is mp3 mission-critical? That will solve the mystery. It's not...I just was focused on mp3s. But yeah, with Cool Edit Pro I can always record at lo-fi quality...it's mostly a question of keeping the ultimate file size down in order to minimize the chances that Windows will start to squawk. Also working on huge files still takes more time than will be necessary (my machine is three years old now...it's starting to huff and puff...) I know a couple hour file in Cool Edit at 8-bit 11k stereo is manageable even on a 1 Ghz box. As for cherps, burps and dropout. Defrag the drive before you start. That'll help reduce the possiblity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafty Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 The only real question I have is: why is mp3 mission-critical? That will solve the mystery. It's not...I just was focused on mp3s. But yeah, with Cool Edit Pro I can always record at lo-fi quality...it's mostly a question of keeping the ultimate file size down in order to minimize the chances that Windows will start to squawk. Also working on huge files still takes more time than will be necessary (my machine is three years old now...it's starting to huff and puff...) It's actually harder on your computer and the resulting recording to convert to mp3 on the fly. Like has been said, there's no way to record "directly" to mp3. It just doesn't work that way. If you've got an old computer, you're better off just recording at a lower bit rate than trying to covert to mp3 on the fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 Just confirming the above post. Recording to mp3 will be harder on your computer, and if your computer is only 3 years old (mine's older!) you likely have tonnes of room for storage of a 2-hour set. If you really like the file size of mp3, convert it AFTER. Whatever software you are using will be MUCH happier and more stable recording a simple .wav file as opposed to an mp3. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitarfrenzy Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 Hard drives are cheap these days, just buy one and add to your computer. Have all your recordings stored on the secondary drive, and let your main hard drive run the software. You'll get more stable results this way, and you'll have room to record to .wav files and keep your recordings higher quality. Then encode them to mp3 to get the best sound out of them. That way you can even go back and redo the encoding if you want, or aren't satisfied with the sound, until your happy. If you go straight to mp3 you can't do that, and are stuck with the sound quality it captured, like GregP stated earlier. Just my opinion though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted July 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Irizarry Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 Hard drives are cheap these days, just buy one and add to your computer. Have all your recordings stored on the secondary drive, and let your main hard drive run the software. You'll get more stable results this way, and you'll have room to record to .wav files and keep your recordings higher quality. Then encode them to mp3 to get the best sound out of them. That way you can even go back and redo the encoding if you want, or aren't satisfied with the sound, until your happy. If you go straight to mp3 you can't do that, and are stuck with the sound quality it captured, like GregP stated earlier. Just my opinion though. Its an excellent idea and typical of how servers are set up - the operating system and software go on one drive or partition and the data on another. It makes backup a bit more straightforward since you can just target your data drive. You'll want an external backup of some sort though. Think about how long its taken you to acquire, build, rip or otherwise obtain your data and consider that drives don't last forever. Losing a bunch of data is PAINFUL. Probably the most straightforward thing is to back up to an external drive located in an enclosure and connected by USB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted July 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.