Topic: Tascam DR-05: Possible to cut-into recording at any point?

[Gutbucket]

^There you have it.

Other manufacturer options-
Roland R-05 and R-09HR can divide, combine, rename, trim (divide and keep only the wanted portion), move and copy the files natively.  I think they can also convert WAV to MP3 natively.

Sony M10 can split files, not sure if it can join or rename them as well, but I think it can at least rearrange playback order.

Some Olympus recorders such as the LS-14 and LS-P2 can divide, trim, and erase sections of files.

And there are probably others as well.  Check their user manuals for details to confirm they'll do what you want.  I suspect the Roland R-05 may have more extensive file manipulation functions than most, so you might take a look at that one first if the DR-05 doesn't do what you need.

[Modulo3]

But it's the playback splitting I'm after.

Not sure which manual you have, but look up page 85 on the original manual, or page 83 on the REVISED version, and you will see the operation called "Dividing the selected file (DIVIDE). A recorded file can be divided into two at a specified position.".

I was aware of the file divide function, but it doesn't do the job I need: I'm looking for a punch-in/punch-out functionality, like on a tape recorder. The DR-05 can divide the file at a specified point, but doesn't offer the ability to insert a new recording at the point without doing too many key presses. Not to mention, the file is split into two sequentally named files, having an 'a' and 'b' appended to each segment. It doesn't seem to let me put recording between them, say a 'c' file. It's not that this sequence doesn't work , it just doesn't give me a quick way to really "cut-in" without resorting to Audacity. But you're getting close to what I want to do

[dogmusic]

But it's the playback splitting I'm after.

Not sure which manual you have, but look up page 85 on the original manual, or page 83 on the REVISED version, and you will see the operation called "Dividing the selected file (DIVIDE). A recorded file can be divided into two at a specified position.".

I was aware of the file divide function, but it doesn't do the job I need: I'm looking for a punch-in/punch-out functionality, like on a tape recorder. The DR-05 can divide the file at a specified point, but doesn't offer the ability to insert a new recording at the point without doing too many key presses. Not to mention, the file is split into two sequentally named files, having an 'a' and 'b' appended to each segment. It doesn't seem to let me put recording between them, say a 'c' file. It's not that this sequence doesn't work , it just doesn't give me a quick way to really "cut-in" without resorting to Audacity. But you're getting close to what I want to do

Again, I was just responding to your not seeming to know that there was a divide file function on the DR-05 (ie., "playback splitting"), not to solve your particular problem, which is that you want an INSERT or PUNCH-IN feature.

You might check out the voice recorders which are made for dictation and could have some onboard insert feature. Or just get a cassette recorder and go Lo-Fi.

[Modulo3]

@gutbucket
The Roland R-05 looks nice (it can sample at 88.2 KHz, 24 bits), and the price is right. But the Zoom H5 (which I stumbled upon quite by accident) has a punch-in feature and voice memos. Despite its lack of 88.2 KHz recording, I'll likely go for the Zoom.
Thanks for the list

[Gutbucket]

Personally, I'd not worry one whit about sampling rates faster than 48kHz.

[Modulo3]

You might check out the voice recorders which are made for dictation and could have some onboard insert feature. Or just get a cassette recorder and go Lo-Fi.

I seriously was thinking of going the low-fi route until I came across the Zoom H5 's specs. Seems to do exactly what I want it to. Thanks.

[Modulo3]

Personally, I'd not worry one whit about sampling rates faster than 48kHz.

I'll gladly take that advice. I'm aware that 48 kHz sampling is used in cinema (easily syncs to 24 frames of video per second), and I believe that's the audio quality (or some even multiple thereof) found on DVDs, but is there a reason to use it elsewhere? Can regular CD players now understand a 48 kHz @ 24-bits format? I know how naive this all sounds... I'm new to the wide world of digital recorders.
A bit off-topic: what about DSD (Super Audio CD) recorders? Is the sound all that much better with them compared with 44.1 kHz @ 16-bits?

[Gutbucket]

48kHz is most common for video.  If combining with video that rate will be least problematic.  44.1kHz is CD compatible.  If burning CDs, recording to that rate will be least problematic.

Sampling rates can be converted on a computer pretty easily and with transparent these days, but if you record at the same rate at which the recording will be used, you simplify your process, make things easier, and introduce less potential for problems.

Recording at 88.2 or 96kHz consumes twice the storage space, and provides minimal if any real advantage.  Those rates simply record higher ultrasound frequencies above the range of human hearing.  Other than being a similar storage hog to high-rate PCM, the primary drawback with DSD is that it is not easily editable.  Some software can cut and fade DSD and that's about it. Usually it needs to be converted to PCM prior to any audio editing.  More trouble than it's worth to my way of thinking, and most listeners don't hear any significant difference.

The bandwidth capability of any analog cassette recorder will easily fit within 44.1kHz/16bit.

[Modulo3]

48kHz is most common for video.  If combining with video that rate will be least problematic.  44.1kHz is CD compatible.  If burning CDs, recording to that rate will be least problematic.

Sampling rates can be converted on a computer pretty easily and with transparent these days, but if you record at the same rate at which the recording will be used, you simplify your process, make things easier, and introduce less potential for problems.

Recording at 88.2 or 96kHz consumes twice the storage space, and provides minimal if any real advantage.  Those rates simply record higher ultrasound frequencies above the range of human hearing.  Other than being a similar storage hog to high-rate PCM, the primary drawback with DSD is that it is not easily editable.  Some software can cut and fade DSD and that's about it. Usually it needs to be converted to PCM prior to any audio editing.  More trouble than it's worth to my way of thinking, and most listeners don't hear any significant difference.

The bandwidth capability of any analog cassette recorder will easily fit within 44.1kHz/16bit.

That's exactly what I was after. Thanks!