Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity => Topic started by: crunchy on September 21, 2003, 08:12:34 PM

Title: Better App for Recording
Post by: crunchy on September 21, 2003, 08:12:34 PM
I have Sound Forge 6.0 , Cool Edit Pro 2.0 and N-Track 3.0 that I can use for recording. Does one of these stand out as being the best recording program? I am thinking Sound Forge would be a good choice since the other two seem to be geared more towards multi track mixing. Which one takes up the fewest system resources?  I would be recording at 24 and 16 bits. Thanks for any input.
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: Wes on September 21, 2003, 09:09:48 PM
I personally say none of the above. I recommend wavelab.  The 2gig split feature comes in very handy in the field

Wes
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: rabhan on September 21, 2003, 09:12:22 PM
yeah, use wavlab for recording and dithering, just not resampling.
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: zhianosatch on September 22, 2003, 12:58:04 AM
why not resampling?
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: crunchy on September 22, 2003, 01:02:51 AM
Anyone want to send a copy my way?
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: RRobar on September 22, 2003, 08:22:29 AM
PM me
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: Simp-Dawg on September 22, 2003, 11:37:19 AM
yeah, use wavlab for recording and dithering, just not resampling.
yeah what's the story on this?

personally i find flaws with most of the recording software i've used...sound forge has thus far been my most reliable and robust choice, but the 2gb limit can be a PITA.  thus my switch to wavelab, though i've had problems with it more often than not.  it sometimes reverts back to microsoft sound mapper as the recording device and i get nothing from the usbpre unless i catch it and change it manually.  it will often crash at the end of recording the 2nd file in a split, and i have to manually restore the raw data in sound forge, cut out the extra sample that get stuck in there, and piece it back together with the 1st file.  not the worst thing in the world but it still sucks.
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: nic on September 22, 2003, 12:25:29 PM
Soundforge(ver 5-6+) only has the 2GB limit when being used on a FAT filesystem.
if you use NTFS, you dont have to worry about it
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: Simp-Dawg on September 22, 2003, 01:05:16 PM
Soundforge(ver 5-6+) only has the 2GB limit when being used on a FAT filesystem.
if you use NTFS, you dont have to worry about it
NO SHIT?!?!  do you have proof of this???  if this is indeed the case, i am wiping my hard drive clean and reformatting with NTFS and only using SF from now on, i find it does a great job of all the processing needs i have, except multitracking capability which is really not an issue for me at this time.
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: nic on September 22, 2003, 01:52:07 PM
I can only speak from experience(and Im a Win2k MCP).
a few months ago I was transferring a 90meter DAT(16/48) while I went to run some errands.
ended up being gone for 4.5+ hours and when I got back it was still recording(silence at that point, but it still uses the same amount of "file space"). I stopped the recording and opened the file. no artifacts/noise/missing samples/etc where the 2GB barrier would have occurred. the recording was all in 1 file.

the 2GB barrier isnt a Windows limitation, it is a file-system limitation. many programs/apps hard-coded the same limitation because it(and the Windows OS) used the FAT file-system. NTFS4(used in NT3-4) might have the 2GB limit, but NTFS5(Win2K and XP) doesnt have this limitation.

this is one of the problems I have with the 24bitfaq site....I do not understand why it says to use FAT.
FAT IS ONE OF THE MOST UNSTABLE AND CORRUPTION PRONE FILE-SYSTEMS ANYWHERE.
this is why many people feel Win95a/b/c, 98/SE and ME are so unstable(well, ME is unstable)
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: Matt Quinn on September 22, 2003, 03:02:14 PM
Newbie Question- how do I tell which file system I'm using?
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: nic on September 22, 2003, 03:10:27 PM
tube, what OS are you using?
if Win 95>ME then you are running FAT.
if you are using 2000 or XP, right-click My Computer> Manage> Disk Management. it will tell you what filesystem you are using on each partition
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: nic on September 22, 2003, 06:06:57 PM
SoundForge officially supports file sizes of 4GB+
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/Products/showproduct.asp?PID=668&FeatureID=5797
(yes, Sony recently purchased all of Sonic Foundry's products. SoundForge 7 should ship later this month)

a little clarification on the file-size limitations:
(copy/pasted here, link to page at bottom)

"LIMITATIONS:
First, when creating any type of file, one should be aware that there is
a limitation in Windows95/98 of 2 gigabytes (GB) that limits files
(regardless of file type) to the same maximum file size as the FAT16
file system, which is 2 GB minus 1 byte (FAT16 on NT limit is 4
gigabytes). Therefore, on computers using the FAT32 file system, the
maximum file size is 4 GB minus 2 bytes. To create larger than 4GB
files load NTFS on your NT machine. The file size limitation is hundreds
of GB. (232 clusters so file size depends on cluster size setup on
disk.) Here are the limits for
FAT16: file 2 gigabytes, partition 2 gigabytes
FAT16 (NT): file 4 gigabytes, partition 4 gigabytes
FAT32: file 4 gigabytes, partition 2 terrabytes
NTFS: file 2 terrabytes, partition 16 exabytes (18.4 x 10^18 bytes)"


http://realforum.real.com/realforum/msg07620.html


filesystems Windows use(chronological order of release. default FS listed 1st):
Windows 95a - FAT16
Windows NT4 - NTFS or FAT16
Windows 95b/c - FAT32 or FAT16
Windows 98/SE - FAT32 or FAT16
Windows 2000 - NTFS5 or FAT32
Windows ME - FAT32 or FAT16
Windows XP - NTFS5 or FAT32

Windows 2000 and newer will read/write FAT16 data

if you follow the link above you will see that Windows 98 had a limitation of 2GB in order for it to be back-wards compatible with previous versions of Windows. Many programs adopted the hard-coded limit of 2GB to stay backwards compatible as well.
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: dmonterisi on September 22, 2003, 06:21:19 PM
The file size limitation is hundreds
of GB. (232 clusters so file size depends on cluster size setup on
disk.)

there was a recent discussion on laptop-tapers re: what cluster size to set your partition to.  i gave up on following the thread after a while, but you can search the laptop-tapers archive at yahoogroups for more info.
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: Simp-Dawg on September 22, 2003, 06:32:06 PM
Quote
Therefore, on computers using the FAT32 file system, the
maximum file size is 4 GB minus 2 bytes.

that can't be true.  otherwise sf should write files larger than 2 gb to my FAT32 formatted storage partition.  unless maybe i need to change the cluster size?  do you know how this works out?  is larger/smaller cluster size better?
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: dmonterisi on September 22, 2003, 06:36:55 PM
i think larger cluster size if better if you will only be storing large files like music files.  if however, there will be smaller files on there, your disk could end up being more fragmented.  I believe this is the way it ultimately came out.  Here's the best post i could find summarizing it:

"Let me shed some light on the cluster issue, including the pros and cons of
larger cluster sizes.

First, some basics. Hard drives are made up of individual areas called
sectors. Under current file systems, these are not used directly and
instead clusters are used. A cluster is made up of one or more
sectors. When you set the cluster size, you set the minimum allocation
unit that will be used for file storage. The file allocation table (FAT)
then keeps track of the clusters that a given file uses.

Larger cluster sizes means that your hard drive will spend more time
reading data out of the current cluster than going to find out where the
next cluster is. If you double your cluster size, it stands to reason the
number of FAT queries is cut in half. From a physical standpoint, every
time you move to a new cluster, you are possibly in another physical
location on your hard drive, requiring a head seek that takes time to
execute (8-11ms is common with today's high speed hard drives). Optimally,
your cluster size should be set to reflect your normal data usage. That
is, if you tend to work with 32k chunks of data, then a 32k cluster size is
optimal. However, we all know that different applications use data
differently.

For use with large data files, it is best to use larger cluster sizes. For
lots of small files, it's best to have smaller cluster sizes.

However, this leads to the problem with larger cluster sizes, namely
increased slack. Slack is simply the unused space resulting from the
storage of a small file (say 100 bytes) in a larger cluster (say 32k). 31k
of your disc is unused, though shown as allocated by the file system. So
when you increase the cluster size, you will increase the amount of room
required to store your existing files (and any future small files you may
store).

Particular to NTFS, any cluster size over 4k will disable the built-in file
compression. According to the source I used, 4k is the standard for NTFs
partitions.

The best compromise would be to create a separate audio data partition on
your hard drive, leave the cluster size at default for your OS and apps,
and increase the cluster size in your audio partition. 32k or 64k sounds
reasonable to me.

References of note include:
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/index.htm
http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/file/clust.html


Greg Teltschik"
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: nic on September 22, 2003, 06:37:09 PM
simp_dawg...FAT32 on a 2000 or XP machine *may* be limited for back-wards compatability with pre 2000 machines...I don't know, it could just be the recording app you used has a hard-coded limitation of 2GB.
I believe(w/out checking) that 24bitfaq.org has a section on cluster sizes.
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: Simp-Dawg on September 22, 2003, 07:16:50 PM
well, damon, +T to you for digging up that info.
luvean, i already +T'd you today so you'll have to wait till tomorrow! ;)
i'm using sf5.0 right now, maybe i'll try formatting to NTFS and using SF6.0 and see if that helps...it's just crazy enough to work!

now...if FAT32 on win2k or xp may be limited...what other OS's are there that use FAT32 that this can be tested on?!?!  don't mean to come off standoffish, just questioning that statement, maybe i missed something.

also, i do know of other programs that adhere to these file limitations, i don't know if it's because it's hardwired to the software coding or is a result of the file system.  for example, in outlook, the .pst file (personal folders) can only be 2gb, and then gets corrupted.  i know i've seen this happen on win2k systems, and there's no warning from the software whatsoever other than your personal folders just stop working.  soundforge at least says nope, you're recording too big of a file, sorry. well, not exactly like that ;)
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: MattD on September 22, 2003, 07:34:12 PM
you don't have to reformat to go to NTFS ... use the convert filesystem command

According to the error message I got, Windows cannot defrag a partition that has a cluster size of over 4k. My "archive" drive is in 64k chunks, so how can I defrag this when the time comes?

-Matt
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: rabhan on September 22, 2003, 09:07:05 PM
you don't have to reformat to go to NTFS ... use the convert filesystem command


-Matt

directions????
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: MattD on September 22, 2003, 09:14:32 PM
From the help file:

Convert
Converts FAT and FAT32 volumes to NTFS. You cannot convert the current drive. If convert cannot lock the drive it will offer to convert it the next time the computer restarts.

convert [drive:] /fs:ntfs [/v]

Parameters

drive:

Specifies the drive to convert to NTFS.

/fs:ntfs

Specifies that the volume be converted to NTFS.

/v

Specifies verbose mode. All messages will be displayed during conversion.

Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: MattD on September 22, 2003, 09:15:41 PM
I should mention that you do this at a command prompt. Start > Run ... type "cmd" (w/o the quotes) to open the DOS prompt window, then do the above there.

-Matt
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: rabhan on September 22, 2003, 09:49:34 PM
so like this?:

c:> convert e: /fs:ntfs /v

?
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: MattD on September 22, 2003, 10:35:06 PM
yeah, but I didn't use the /v
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: Simp-Dawg on September 23, 2003, 12:38:56 AM
From the help file:


ahh yes, spoken like a true techie...this means the same thing as "DUUUH" ;D
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: MattD on September 23, 2003, 07:47:33 PM
;) Hey, I didn't say it!
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: zhianosatch on September 23, 2003, 09:51:02 PM
but it's so true ;)
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: rabhan on September 24, 2003, 01:27:44 PM
yeah, but I didn't use the /v

is it backward compatable?

can you make these changes with data on the drive?

can you take a drive with 2 or more partitions and only change a few of them but not all of them, meaning, can you have a physical drive with 2 different file systems on it?
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: Simp-Dawg on September 24, 2003, 02:32:02 PM
i don't think that fat32 drives can read data on ntfs, if that factors in at all....

so thinking about the "perfect" recording software...what i would want is:
at least 24/96 capability
multitracking AND support for multiple soundcards
record each channel as it's own track OR auto-split to get around the 2GB file limit OR just be able to record larger than 2GB per wav file
STABILITY!!!!!!!
FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

just dropping some ideas
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: mfh2014 on September 24, 2003, 08:27:20 PM
Check out Samplitude Pro...Im using version 7.02 and its running well on win2k w/ ntfs
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: MattD on September 24, 2003, 11:43:18 PM

is it backward compatable?

can you make these changes with data on the drive?

can you take a drive with 2 or more partitions and only change a few of them but not all of them, meaning, can you have a physical drive with 2 different file systems on it?

No ... unless you use 3rd party software to go from NTFS > FAT32. That's technically unsupported by MS, so if you lose your shit, you're shit outta luck.

Yes, you can make changes with data currently on the drive.

Pretty sure you can do it for each virtual drive/partition. I think I know this b/c I had to do my C:/D: one at a time for some reason and they're on the same physical drive.

-Matt
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: rabhan on September 24, 2003, 11:52:56 PM
i think i will just stick with fat32, wavelab for recording and dithering, SF or CEP for resampling, cdwav for tracking, and not worry about anything else.
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: jpschust on September 25, 2003, 05:41:42 PM
since we are talking formats and partitioning, just a little hint for all of you who resample really really big files (ala photoshop rendering or wavelab resampling) partition your hard drive to give you one partition for your OS and one for everything else.  will speed things up immensely and keep your OS running quickly.
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: dklein on September 27, 2003, 04:00:20 AM
since we are talking formats and partitioning, just a little hint for all of you who resample really really big files (ala photoshop rendering or wavelab resampling) partition your hard drive to give you one partition for your OS and one for everything else.  will speed things up immensely and keep your OS running quickly.

Not too sure if that kind of partition does you any good from a performance perspective.  Because it's a logical partition, you're still using one drive with the same read/write heads and they can only be in one place at a time.  Logical partitions are great for keeping things separate, running ghost images and backups etc.

In my various computers, anything on a single drive is still pretty rotten compared to 2 physical drives - a single laptop drive is even worse.  On my desktop pc, a separate controller card seems to make a difference, even against onboard controllers that are supposedly ATA 133.  In both cases, the audio temp files are on another physical drive.

Here's the results of opening a 1.7GB 24 bit audio file in CEP 2.1 (where the entire file must be read and peak sampled).  This is mostly and I/O disc intensive task.

laptop, single 4200 rpm drive with a separate logical partition for OS and data - 41 minutes

desktop, 7200 rpm drive, promise ATA100 controller - 2 min40 sec
desktop, 5400 rpm drive, motherboard controller - 5 min30sec

I don't have the patience to do anything on the laptop!
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: rabhan on September 30, 2003, 03:58:53 PM
sometimes in the field we dont have a choice. not everyone can bring a desktop on the road with them, i have done it once b4 and it is a big pain in the ass compared to everything else i bring on tour. but if i have a choice, i would do all my audio work on my DAW.
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: dklein on September 30, 2003, 04:55:28 PM
hah!  :clapping:  I wasn't suggesting anyone take a desktop anywhere!

Just that the partition thing doesn't offer performance improvement on a laptop (but there are still good reasons to do it).

And that it's way faster to do anything else on a good desktop.  Good call!  I'm not that much of a wise-ass!  :spin:

Very brave of you to travel with a desktop - I guess that means lugging a monitor too!
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: rabhan on September 30, 2003, 06:57:44 PM
yeah, not fun!
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: dmonterisi on September 30, 2003, 07:02:13 PM
desktop FOBDFC?
Title: Re:Better App for Recording
Post by: rabhan on September 30, 2003, 07:07:54 PM
no, for transfering audio and editing audio