A Simple Recorder

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Sun Sep 22, 2002 11:44 pm

[Maybe V-Dat already does this, but I don't have it so don't know]

A Simple Recorder:

A little 2 input "record to wav" module/device. Pulsar is sorely missing a "render to wave feature" (Spirit, you are right, I am a convert to the importance of this idea). However, with Pulsar, I imagine that it will have to stay realtime unlike VST rendering functions. I am invisioning something like Toby-bear's Channel Grabber, or better yet, something like TapeIt by silverspike http://www.silverspike.com/ - that thing rocks. I use it religously.

borg · Post by **borg** » Mon Sep 23, 2002 6:26 am

i vote for this one, too. it shouldn't be that hard. it would come down to a totally stripped down sampler, something like the 'STS-1'.
(remember the 'sample catcher' algo and spirit?

)

developers, the ableton crew will thank you

w_ellis · Post by **w_ellis** » Mon Sep 23, 2002 1:17 pm

I presume you're referring to this thread: http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 5&forum=11

I read this one too and thought it could be a really useful device. As I'm learning Java at work I thought I'd give it a go and I now have a nearly-working version. Obviously having it in Java has it's plusses and minuses! It should run on anything that will support a Java Virtual Machine, but won't integrate easily with a Audio Sequencer etc.

So, I'm probably going to write a VST plugin version in C++ as well, as I think this is the best compromise. Will probably be PC only as I don't have a Mac.

Currently it functions as follows:

User sets a buffer period (any length, only limited by hard-disk space), temp file directory and output file. Then the recorder can be set into buffering mode, which means that it records to one of two temp files, each of which is the size of the buffer. It switches between the two files when the buffers fill.

When the user hits record, the recording continues on the current temp file until the user presses stop at which point the temp file is written out to the file chosen by the user. If the pre-buffer is smaller than was required, the other temp file is used to grab the extra data.

This description probably doesn't make any sense at all, but the general idea is that you have a continuous buffer of audio that is streamed to the hard-drive and can be collected (and/or extended) at any point.

If anyone has any ideas on what they would need for this to be useful as a VST plugin, please let me know. I'm currently only planning to add a gain control (maybe) and a VU meter.

Cheers,
Will

borg · Post by **borg** » Mon Sep 23, 2002 7:51 pm

great will!!! although i'm still just on a mac (i'll be buying a pc laptop soon). i'm looking forward to it.

contact this person:
joehahn@protman.com
http://www.protman.com/

on the website of his former band k-rad http://www.padk-rad.com/ he offered money for someone who could design such a device...

giucant · Post by **giucant** » Sat Dec 07, 2002 10:01 am

i vote for simple recorder: always needed on the fly bouncing.....without open cubase.

greetings

cannonball · Post by **cannonball** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:36 am

hi

yes i vote too for a

simple stereo recorder

in sfp3.1 enviroments

cannonball

mr swim · Post by **mr swim** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:20 am

this is an excellent idea. At the moment I either have to create program/keygroup/wav file in sts-3000 or use soundforge. The latter is easier, but I always think it is better to record straight from the card rather than involving more drivers and translations etc etc etc. So, a simple little record module would be really useful. Might be nice to have monitor outputs ? Not sure if that's necessary, but you developers will know if I'm being silly !

ds-sound · Post by **ds-sound** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:48 am

Such a device will be great, but what's so problematic with:

SFP-Mixer >> Asio-Dest' >> WaveLab ...?

Both solutions need same button pressing, Why's WaveLab such a drawback?

mr swim · Post by **mr swim** » Mon Jan 13, 2003 5:15 am

ds-sound - I think the only problem is that in doing that you are already involving a translation of the input to asio (could well be wrong about that ! It might make no difference at all . . . ). If that is true, then it just seems that cutting out this step - going straight to wav. - would cut out the possibility of loosing sound quality / information.

If that is true, then it would definitely be nice to record straight to wav. If it ain't, I'm in agreement with you . . . there's probably no point !