Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
Jeremy Nicoll writes: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, at 08:57, Rodolfo Medina wrote: >> Jeremy Nicoll writes: > >> > You do realise that merging files, adjusting balance etc are all possible >> > with sox? >> > >> > One reason I do that sort of thing with sox is that by keeping note of the >> > commands I used to do each stage, I automatically document how I >> > manipulated a set of audio files. Documenting anything done via a GUI as >> > in Audacity is a great deal more difficult. >> > >> > It's worth documenting what you do so that if necessary you can exactly >> > repeat the process at a later date. >> >> >> Thanks... In fact, what you suggest is exactly what I wanted to do but >> didn't manage to... In fact, suppose I have two files: piano.wav and >> voice.wav, created by sox in recording piano and voice respectively, >> simultaneously. piano.wav is a stereo file, with the two channels, left and >> right, inside it; whereas voice.wav is a monophonic file. When I put them >> together to create the final, say, result.wav, I must properly allign them. >> Now, Audacity makes this job easy thanks to the graphical possibility of >> seeing the waving forms and magnifying them. Instead, with sox, I tried to >> use the `delay' option with no success. Maybe can you suggest a better and >> proper way to do that...? > > I've never tried that. The sox mail list is a good place to ask for sox > help. > > One thing I'd suggest (since sox is potentially complicated) is that instead > of trying to use sox with one command that does everything, you try to do it > in stages. That way you can check that what you get at the end of each stage > is what you expect. Sox has effects that will tell you about what is in a > file. > > I think first I'd check simply that I could create a file containing all > three channels, eg by: > > sox -V2 --no-clobber -M piano.wav voice.wav threech.wav > > The -V2 sets a fairly high level of verbosity; you might need -V3 > > The --no-clobber prevents sox from overwriting a file. It's easy to get a > command wrong and accidentally destroy an original file; personally I work on > copies of files AND use --no-clobber. > > -M tells sox to merge the files. You should end up with a 3 channel file, > with the piano audio on channels 1 and 2 and voice on 3. > > > If that works (and ironically, Audacity might be an easy way to make sure) I > think I'd next try to make a file with the voice channel offset from the > others, perhaps by (guessing again!): > > sox -V2 --no-clobber threech.wav delay 0 0 2t voicedelayed.wav > > For an experiment, it's worth making the delay substantial, for example the > two second value (2t) here. It'll be easy to tell if that worked. Later you > can try different values to get the audio aligned where you need it to be. > > (Also note that there's an effect named 'silence' that can be used to chop > unwanted 'silent' or at least quieter than the wanted sound audio out of a > track, so a different approach that might help would be to make sure that > none of the tracks have much silence at the start, before you merge them.) > > Note that so far, none of the three channels have had their relative volumes > changed. > > To do that, and create a stereo file from the three, you'd need to use the > remix effect. I did: $ sox -M piano.wav voice.wav voicedelayed.wav delay 0.3 0.3 0 to delay piano of 0.3 seconds (`delay' at the end of the command line), and $ sox voicedelayed.wav final_result.wav remix -m 1p-5,3p-5 2p+5,3p-5 to decrease the volume of the left channel of piano of 5db, increase the volume of the right channel of piano of 5db and decrease voice's volume of 5db. It seems to be working fine. Thanks. Then I'll be using sox instead of Audacity to manipulate recorded tracks... >> One more thing: I remember, Jeremy, your suggestion of purchasing a >> multi-channel audio interface, to be preferred to a mixer, and will do in >> future. But do you think that the solution I'm adopting for now: different >> files on different single-channel audio cards and then merging them - dou >> you think this is a good solution as well...? What difference between this >> cheap one and more or less expensive multi channel interface...? > > Your current solution is the cheapest I can think of, and no doubt you'll > learn quite a lot doing this. The reason why I'm starting with that cheap solution is not only its cheapness but that I first want to learn with it, and also because it suits my basic needs for now. Thanks, Regards, Rodolfo
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, at 08:57, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > Jeremy Nicoll writes: > > You do realise that merging files, adjusting balance etc are all possible > > with sox? > > > > One reason I do that sort of thing with sox is that by keeping note of the > > commands I used to do each stage, I automatically document how I manipulated > > a set of audio files. Documenting anything done via a GUI as in Audacity is > > a great deal more difficult. > > > > It's worth documenting what you do so that if necessary you can exactly > > repeat the process at a later date. > > > Thanks... In fact, what you suggest is exactly what I wanted to do but > didn't > manage to... In fact, suppose I have two files: piano.wav and voice.wav, > created by sox in recording piano and voice respectively, simultaneously. > piano.wav is a stereo file, with the two channels, left and right, inside > it; > whereas voice.wav is a monophonic file. When I put them together to > create the > final, say, result.wav, I must properly allign them. Now, Audacity makes > this > job easy thanks to the graphical possibility of seeing the waving forms > and > magnifying them. Instead, with sox, I tried to use the `delay' option > with no > success. Maybe can you suggest a better and proper way to do that...? I've never tried that. The sox mail list is a good place to ask for sox help. One thing I'd suggest (since sox is potentially complicated) is that instead of trying to use sox with one command that does everything, you try to do it in stages. That way you can check that what you get at the end of each stage is what you expect. Sox has effects that will tell you about what is in a file. I think first I'd check simply that I could create a file containing all three channels, eg by: sox -V2 --no-clobber -M piano.wav voice.wav threech.wav The -V2 sets a fairly high level of verbosity; you might need -V3 The --no-clobber prevents sox from overwriting a file. It's easy to get a command wrong and accidentally destroy an original file; personally I work on copies of files AND use --no-clobber. -M tells sox to merge the files. You should end up with a 3 channel file, with the piano audio on channels 1 and 2 and voice on 3. If that works (and ironically, Audacity might be an easy way to make sure) I think I'd next try to make a file with the voice channel offset from the others, perhaps by (guessing again!): sox -V2 --no-clobber threech.wav delay 0 0 2t voicedelayed.wav For an experiment, it's worth making the delay substantial, for example the two second value (2t) here. It'll be easy to tell if that worked. Later you can try different values to get the audio aligned where you need it to be. (Also note that there's an effect named 'silence' that can be used to chop unwanted 'silent' or at least quieter than the wanted sound audio out of a track, so a different approach that might help would be to make sure that none of the tracks have much silence at the start, before you merge them.) Note that so far, none of the three channels have had their relative volumes changed. To do that, and create a stereo file from the three, you'd need to use the remix effect. > One more thing: I remember, Jeremy, your suggestion of purchasing a > multi-channel audio interface, to be preferred to a mixer, and will do in > future. But do you think that the solution I'm adopting for now: > different > files on different single-channel audio cards and then merging them - dou > you > think this is a good solution as well...? What difference between this > cheap > one and more or less expensive multi channel interface...? Your current solution is the cheapest I can think of, and no doubt you'll learn quite a lot doing this. I'm afraid I've no idea about what's currently available in cheap audio interfaces. Reading buyer reviews in eg Amazon is a good way of finding out what can and cannot be done with equipment though. More expensive interfaces will be sold on the assumption that people using them are using higher quality equipment, eg decent microphones. As price and quality of mics increase you expect to get things like: mics that add little (or barely audible) noise to a recording; mics that are more accurate, mics that can better cope with both quiet and loud sounds... Such mics though typically need 'phantom power'. They'd probably be on 'balanced' audio cables (so 2 wires plus earth/screen per mic), and possibly XLR connectors... There comes a point where the box you plug the mics into needs to be designed for that. Then, the signal that comes from a mic is (especially with very sensitive mics) very small. It needs to be amplified - which is what microphone pre-amplifiers do. Cheap mic pre-amps tend to add noise or ruin the sound from a decent mic... After that, the amplified sound from each mic needs to be converted from an analogue signal to digital. Better quality converters cost more money
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
Jeremy Nicoll writes: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, at 01:37, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > >> Thanks... But for my present needs, it seems that sox and audacity are >> sufficient: with sox I record tracks from multiple audio cards into >> different files; then with Audacity I merge those tracks into one final >> file, and have the possibility of adjusting at pleasure the balancing >> between left and right channel for each track and also adjust the relative >> volumes. In my litte basic experiments, I don't note any minimum effect due >> to time drifting or so, about which I read... > > You do realise that merging files, adjusting balance etc are all possible > with sox? > > One reason I do that sort of thing with sox is that by keeping note of the > commands I used to do each stage, I automatically document how I manipulated > a set of audio files. Documenting anything done via a GUI as in Audacity is > a great deal more difficult. > > It's worth documenting what you do so that if necessary you can exactly > repeat the process at a later date. Thanks... In fact, what you suggest is exactly what I wanted to do but didn't manage to... In fact, suppose I have two files: piano.wav and voice.wav, created by sox in recording piano and voice respectively, simultaneously. piano.wav is a stereo file, with the two channels, left and right, inside it; whereas voice.wav is a monophonic file. When I put them together to create the final, say, result.wav, I must properly allign them. Now, Audacity makes this job easy thanks to the graphical possibility of seeing the waving forms and magnifying them. Instead, with sox, I tried to use the `delay' option with no success. Maybe can you suggest a better and proper way to do that...? One more thing: I remember, Jeremy, your suggestion of purchasing a multi-channel audio interface, to be preferred to a mixer, and will do in future. But do you think that the solution I'm adopting for now: different files on different single-channel audio cards and then merging them - dou you think this is a good solution as well...? What difference between this cheap one and more or less expensive multi channel interface...? Thanks, Rodolfo
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, at 01:37, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > Thanks... But for my present needs, it seems that sox and audacity are > sufficient: with sox I record tracks from multiple audio cards into > different > files; then with Audacity I merge those tracks into one final file, and > have > the possibility of adjusting at pleasure the balancing between left and > right > channel for each track and also adjust the relative volumes. In my litte > basic > experiments, I don't note any minimum effect due to time drifting or so, > about > which I read... You do realise that merging files, adjusting balance etc are all possible with sox? One reason I do that sort of thing with sox is that by keeping note of the commands I used to do each stage, I automatically document how I manipulated a set of audio files. Documenting anything done via a GUI as in Audacity is a great deal more difficult. It's worth documenting what you do so that if necessary you can exactly repeat the process at a later date. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
Zenaan Harkness writes:
> If you ever need more flexibility, or more control over latency, or a
> need to adjust individual track offsets ("latency") after the fact,
> post-recording mix down sessions, many types of automation whilst
> recording, and many other high end audio tasks - jackd/Ardour may be
> just the solution you will then be looking for :)
>
> jackd may be built Ardour these days - if so, that would likely make
> config even easier.
>
> [...]
>
> Summary: the best of
> the best is available with jackd and Ardour, for absolutely any
> tricky situation.
Thanks... But for my present needs, it seems that sox and audacity are
sufficient: with sox I record tracks from multiple audio cards into different
files; then with Audacity I merge those tracks into one final file, and have
the possibility of adjusting at pleasure the balancing between left and right
channel for each track and also adjust the relative volumes. In my litte basic
experiments, I don't note any minimum effect due to time drifting or so, about
which I read...
Rodolfo
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:16:06AM -0400, Ric Moore wrote: > On 08/16/2017 09:40 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > please excuse my amateur wording here. Summary: the best of > > the best is available with jackd and Ardour, for absolutely any > > tricky situation. > > Doesn't jack require an rt kernel to enable all of it's features?? Ric That sounds right - I certainly installed the ...-rt kernel, but I think it just depends on your latency requirements - again from memory, I tyhink jackd will happily run at "pulse audio" levels of latency with a simple setting, and thereby audio will be buffered long enough to not need an -rt kernel.
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On 08/16/2017 09:40 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: please excuse my amateur wording here. Summary: the best of the best is available with jackd and Ardour, for absolutely any tricky situation. Doesn't jack require an rt kernel to enable all of it's features?? Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 01:42:18PM +0200, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
> Zenaan Harkness writes:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:03:46AM +0200, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
> >> Apparently, Audacity doesn't let you record simultaneously from two or more
> >> sources... you have to choose one source.
> >
> > Ardour should only take half a day to start using - it absolutely
> > rocks - high end DAW FTW :D
>
>
> Thanks... As far as I see, Ardour and Jack are powerful tools... On the
> other
> hand, with the above recording procedure, i.e. several simultaneous sessions
> of
> sox, no drifting or latency effects did I appreciate at all... So it is maybe
> worth for me to continue that way till the moment such problems will arise...
Indeed - if it aint broke as they say :)
Glad to hear you have achieved your desired recording result.
If you ever need more flexibility, or more control over latency, or a
need to adjust individual track offsets ("latency") after the fact,
post-recording mix down sessions, many types of automation whilst
recording, and many other high end audio tasks - jackd/Ardour may be
just the solution you will then be looking for :)
jackd may be built Ardour these days - if so, that would likely make
config even easier.
One little nugget in the back of my mind from a few years ago when I
was last multi-tracking, is a jackd plugin with high quality "audio
anti aliasing" (not sure the proper term sorry) in real time, to mix
input sources which are delivering different sample rates, AND
different skew rates, with respect to each other - basically a full
software "time lock" function WITH high end sample rate anti
aliasing. I didn't need it, but it looked like it would allow
seamless "real time latency/skew correction" of basic mobo line-in
tracks, with tracks coming from hardware with proper time sync
codes... please excuse my amateur wording here. Summary: the best of
the best is available with jackd and Ardour, for absolutely any
tricky situation.
Have fun :)
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
Zenaan Harkness writes: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:03:46AM +0200, Rodolfo Medina wrote: >> Rodolfo Medina writes: >> >> > deloptes writes: >> > >> >>> >> >>> For human voice, I bought a USB audio card and plugged a third >> >>> microphone into it. So now I have: >> >>> >> >>> mic1 for piano basses; |__ plugged together into the >> >>> mic2 for piano highs; | above Y cable >> >>> mic3 for voice -> -> -> -> plugged into the USB dongle. >> >>> >> >>> Then I do: >> >>> >> >>> $ sox -t alsa default piano.wav >> >>> >> >>> and, at the same time, on another xterm session, >> >>> >> >>> $ sox -t alsa wh:2,0 voice.wav >> >>> >> >>> where wh:2,0 is the USB device (do: `arecord -l' first). This way I get >> >>> two audio files: piano.wav and voice.wav. The first one is stereo and >> >>> the second is mono. In the end I merge the two together with Audacity. >> >>> By default, Audacity puts the mono file just in the middle between left >> >>> and right channel; but, if you like, you can have it weight more left or >> >>> more right, in the percentage you want. I must say that the result is >> >>> acceptable, and more... >> >>> >> >> Why not do all that directly in Audacity? I am sure it works and it will >> >> take care of the timing automatically >> > >> > >> > Thanks, I'll have a try. >> >> >> Apparently, Audacity doesn't let you record simultaneously from two or more >> sources... you have to choose one source. > > Ardour should only take half a day to start using - it absolutely > rocks - high end DAW FTW :D Thanks... As far as I see, Ardour and Jack are powerful tools... On the other hand, with the above recording procedure, i.e. several simultaneous sessions of sox, no drifting or latency effects did I appreciate at all... So it is maybe worth for me to continue that way till the moment such problems will arise... Rodolfo
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:03:46AM +0200, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > Rodolfo Medina writes: > > > deloptes writes: > > > >>> > >>> For human voice, I bought a USB audio card and plugged a third microphone > >>> into it. So now I have: > >>> > >>> mic1 for piano basses; |__ plugged together into the > >>> mic2 for piano highs; | above Y cable > >>> mic3 for voice -> -> -> -> plugged into the USB dongle. > >>> > >>> Then I do: > >>> > >>> $ sox -t alsa default piano.wav > >>> > >>> and, at the same time, on another xterm session, > >>> > >>> $ sox -t alsa wh:2,0 voice.wav > >>> > >>> where wh:2,0 is the USB device (do: `arecord -l' first). This way I get > >>> two audio files: piano.wav and voice.wav. The first one is stereo and the > >>> second is mono. In the end I merge the two together with Audacity. By > >>> default, Audacity puts the mono file just in the middle between left and > >>> right channel; but, if you like, you can have it weight more left or more > >>> right, in the percentage you want. I must say that the result is > >>> acceptable, and more... > >>> > >> Why not do all that directly in Audacity? I am sure it works and it will > >> take care of the timing automatically > > > > > > Thanks, I'll have a try. > > > Apparently, Audacity doesn't let you record simultaneously from two or more > sources... you have to choose one source. Ardour should only take half a day to start using - it absolutely rocks - high end DAW FTW :D
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
Rodolfo Medina writes: > deloptes writes: > >>> >>> For human voice, I bought a USB audio card and plugged a third microphone >>> into it. So now I have: >>> >>> mic1 for piano basses; |__ plugged together into the >>> mic2 for piano highs; | above Y cable >>> mic3 for voice -> -> -> -> plugged into the USB dongle. >>> >>> Then I do: >>> >>> $ sox -t alsa default piano.wav >>> >>> and, at the same time, on another xterm session, >>> >>> $ sox -t alsa wh:2,0 voice.wav >>> >>> where wh:2,0 is the USB device (do: `arecord -l' first). This way I get >>> two audio files: piano.wav and voice.wav. The first one is stereo and the >>> second is mono. In the end I merge the two together with Audacity. By >>> default, Audacity puts the mono file just in the middle between left and >>> right channel; but, if you like, you can have it weight more left or more >>> right, in the percentage you want. I must say that the result is >>> acceptable, and more... >>> >> Why not do all that directly in Audacity? I am sure it works and it will >> take care of the timing automatically > > > Thanks, I'll have a try. Apparently, Audacity doesn't let you record simultaneously from two or more sources... you have to choose one source. Rodolfo
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
> > > Thanks, I'll have a try. But can we say that all this allows us to do > without > mixer or multi-channel audio interface...? In fact, I suppose I could > even add some other USB cards if I wanted to add more instruments, say a > violin... > > Cheers, > > Rodolfo there are always some physical limitations, so it depends on your computer, if it is usb3, how the usb are implemented etc. you can always try regards
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
deloptes writes: >> >> For human voice, I bought a USB audio card and plugged a third microphone >> into >> it. So now I have: >> >> mic1 for piano basses; |__ plugged together into the >> mic2 for piano highs; | above Y cable >> mic3 for voice -> -> -> -> plugged into the USB dongle. >> >> Then I do: >> >> $ sox -t alsa default piano.wav >> >> and, at the same time, on another xterm session, >> >> $ sox -t alsa wh:2,0 voice.wav >> >> where wh:2,0 is the USB device (do: `arecord -l' first). This way I get >> two >> audio files: piano.wav and voice.wav. The first one is stereo and the >> second >> is mono. In the end I merge the two together with Audacity. By default, >> Audacity puts the mono file just in the middle between left and right >> channel; but, if you like, you can have it weight more left or more right, >> in the >> percentage you want. I must say that the result is acceptable, and >> more... >> > Why not do all that directly in Audacity? I am sure it works and it will > take care of the timing automatically Thanks, I'll have a try. But can we say that all this allows us to do without mixer or multi-channel audio interface...? In fact, I suppose I could even add some other USB cards if I wanted to add more instruments, say a violin... Cheers, Rodolfo
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
> > For human voice, I bought a USB audio card and plugged a third microphone > into > it. So now I have: > > mic1 for piano basses; |__ plugged together into the > mic2 for piano highs; | above Y cable > mic3 for voice -> -> -> -> plugged into the USB dongle. > > Then I do: > > $ sox -t alsa default piano.wav > > and, at the same time, on another xterm session, > > $ sox -t alsa wh:2,0 voice.wav > > where wh:2,0 is the USB device (do: `arecord -l' first). This way I get > two > audio files: piano.wav and voice.wav. The first one is stereo and the > second > is mono. In the end I merge the two together with Audacity. By default, > Audacity puts the mono file just in the middle between left and right > channel; but, if you like, you can have it weight more left or more right, > in the > percentage you want. I must say that the result is acceptable, and > more... > Why not do all that directly in Audacity? I am sure it works and it will take care of the timing automatically regards
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
Rodolfo Medina writes: > Rodolfo Medina writes: > >> According to: >> >> http://www.upubuntu.com/2013/05/how-to-record-your-voice-from.html >> >> I record live sound via microphone just doing: >> >> $ sox -t alsa default output.wav >> >> Now I was wondering about the stereo o non-stereo character of such a home >> made recording... I tried to use two microphones together, plugging them >> together into the PC with a small common connection doubber. Can we say the >> result is stereo...? I would doubt... and how to have - if possible - a >> stereo effect with the above basic recording instruments? > > > > > Thanks to all. The problem seems to be solved with such a cable: > > https://www.thomann.de/at/pro_snake_78219_yadapterkabel.htm Well, actually better this one: http://hosatech.com/product/ymm-261/ > as suggested by deloptes and other listers. The cable consists in two female > 3.5mm terminations, each of them mono, and a male 3.5mm stereo. One mic at > one female end, the other one at the other female end, and the male end > plugged into the microphone input of my netbook. All this seems to produce a > perfect stereo effect: the two channels sound to be very well separated. > > I'll be using the above simple connection system to live piano recording: mic > 1 on the basses (left), mic 2 on the high (right). > > My next step is trying to add human voice, say in the middle. I'll see if > this is possible by slightly complicating the above solution, without preamp > or mixer or multi-channel audio interface. I'll be posting here if the > attempt succeeds. For human voice, I bought a USB audio card and plugged a third microphone into it. So now I have: mic1 for piano basses; |__ plugged together into the mic2 for piano highs; | above Y cable mic3 for voice -> -> -> -> plugged into the USB dongle. Then I do: $ sox -t alsa default piano.wav and, at the same time, on another xterm session, $ sox -t alsa wh:2,0 voice.wav where wh:2,0 is the USB device (do: `arecord -l' first). This way I get two audio files: piano.wav and voice.wav. The first one is stereo and the second is mono. In the end I merge the two together with Audacity. By default, Audacity puts the mono file just in the middle between left and right channel; but, if you like, you can have it weight more left or more right, in the percentage you want. I must say that the result is acceptable, and more... Thanks, Rodolfo
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
Jeremy Nicoll writes: > On Sun, 6 Aug 2017, at 17:18, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > >> To add a third microphone for human voice (the former two are for piano), >> I plan to use a second PC as suggested by Fungi4All. This way I'll >> continue to do without mixer or audio interface, till the moment I'll want >> to do things more professionally. Now, they're just home made records... > > The single best reason for using a multi-channel (ie not just a stereo) audio > interface is simplicity. All the channels will be in-sync with each other > and all the audio signals can be captured on a single computer. ...within different files...? Thanks, Rodolfo
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017, at 17:18, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > To add a third microphone for human voice (the former two are for piano), > I plan to use a second PC as suggested by Fungi4All. This way I'll > continue to do without mixer or audio interface, till the moment I'll want > to do things more professionally. Now, they're just home made records... The single best reason for using a multi-channel (ie not just a stereo) audio interface is simplicity. All the channels will be in-sync with each other and all the audio signals can be captured on a single computer. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
David Christensen writes:
> On 08/06/17 09:18, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
>> The cable that made me possible to live record stereo from two mics, without
>> mixer nor preamp nor external audio card nor audio interface, is a 3.5mm
>> twin-mono-female and a 3.5mm single-stereo-male: the two mics plugged into
>> the two mono females and the stereo male plugged into the `mic' input of my
>> PC. This cable was solded for me by the owner of the electricity shop near
>> my house.
>
> That is called a stereo break-out cable:
>
> http://hosatech.com/product/ymm-261/
>
>
>> To add a third microphone for human voice (the former two are for piano), I
>> plan to use a second PC as suggested by Fungi4All. This way I'll continue
>> to do without mixer or audio interface, till the moment I'll want to do
>> things more professionally. Now, they're just home made records...
>
> As I understand it, professional digital audio recording gear includes clock
> in and clock out connectors. All the devices are linked together with
> cables, one device serves as the master clock, and all the other devices are
> slaves.
>
>
> Without hardware clock synchronization, the clocks for the various recording
> devices will drift ("clock skew") and the recordings will lose time
> alignment. One work-around is to record audible synchronizing marks near the
> beginning of a take and near the end -- e.g. strike two sticks together, clap
> your hands, use a "clicker" device, etc.. Then during editing/ mix-down, use
> digital audio workstation software with time-stretch/ time-compression/
> time-alignment features to adjust the individual recordings until all the
> synchronizing marks line up exactly.
It seems that Audacity can do that...
Rodolfo
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On 08/06/17 09:18, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
The cable that made me possible to live record stereo from two mics, without
mixer nor preamp nor external audio card nor audio interface, is a 3.5mm
twin-mono-female and a 3.5mm single-stereo-male: the two mics plugged into the
two mono females and the stereo male plugged into the `mic' input of my PC.
This cable was solded for me by the owner of the electricity shop near my
house.
That is called a stereo break-out cable:
http://hosatech.com/product/ymm-261/
To add a third microphone for human voice (the former two are for piano), I
plan to use a second PC as suggested by Fungi4All. This way I'll continue to
do without mixer or audio interface, till the moment I'll want to do things
more professionally. Now, they're just home made records...
As I understand it, professional digital audio recording gear includes
clock in and clock out connectors. All the devices are linked together
with cables, one device serves as the master clock, and all the other
devices are slaves.
Without hardware clock synchronization, the clocks for the various
recording devices will drift ("clock skew") and the recordings will lose
time alignment. One work-around is to record audible synchronizing
marks near the beginning of a take and near the end -- e.g. strike two
sticks together, clap your hands, use a "clicker" device, etc.. Then
during editing/ mix-down, use digital audio workstation software with
time-stretch/ time-compression/ time-alignment features to adjust the
individual recordings until all the synchronizing marks line up exactly.
David
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
Richard Hector writes: > On 05/08/17 03:56, Rodolfo Medina wrote: >> Thanks to all. The problem seems to be solved with such a cable: >> >> https://www.thomann.de/at/pro_snake_78219_yadapterkabel.htm > > Except that it's hard to tell what size those connectors are. Unless > there's something in the description that I can't read that says they're > 3.5mm, they look to me more like 6.25mm. I'm not sure what it is - I > think 3.5mm plugs are usually more rounded on the end, while the larger > ones often have that point. Also, it looks like the case comes apart, > and I think the only ones I've seen with such skinny bodies are moulded > plastic. If that's 3.5mm, I think it would be very hard to assemble by > hand, which the body designs suggest. The cable that made me possible to live record stereo from two mics, without mixer nor preamp nor external audio card nor audio interface, is a 3.5mm twin-mono-female and a 3.5mm single-stereo-male: the two mics plugged into the two mono females and the stereo male plugged into the `mic' input of my PC. This cable was solded for me by the owner of the electricity shop near my house. To add a third microphone for human voice (the former two are for piano), I plan to use a second PC as suggested by Fungi4All. This way I'll continue to do without mixer or audio interface, till the moment I'll want to do things more professionally. Now, they're just home made records... Rodolfo
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 15:37:15 +1200 Richard Hector wrote: > On 06/08/17 13:18, Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > On Sunday, 6 August 2017 11:31:29 -04 Richard Hector wrote: > >> On 05/08/17 03:56, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > >>> Thanks to all. The problem seems to be solved with such a cable: > >>> https://www.thomann.de/at/pro_snake_78219_yadapterkabel.htm > >> Except that it's hard to tell what size those connectors are. > >> Unless there's something in the description that I can't read that > >> says they're 3.5mm, they look to me more like 6.25mm. I'm not sure > >> what it is - I think 3.5mm plugs are usually more rounded on the > >> end, while the larger ones often have that point. Also, it looks > >> like the case comes apart, and I think the only ones I've seen > >> with such skinny bodies are moulded plastic. If that's 3.5mm, I > >> think it would be very hard to assemble by hand, which the body > >> designs suggest. > >> > >> Richard > > 3.5mm and 2.5mm plugs can be soldered all right but > > Yes - I was trying to suggest that the plugs in the picture, if it's a > 3.5mm plug, look a bit small in the body to be user-assembled - yet > they clearly come apart. The ones I've soldered have bigger bodies > relative to the actual connector. The really thin ones tend to be > moulded. > > I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear ... it would help if the site > actually specified what they're selling :-) > Yes, but I think the real issue in making one is that the plug is a right-angle one, and right-angled plugs are usually pigs to fit. But they are certainly 1/4" in the picture, the proportions are different for the miniature versions. No problem getting 2.5mm and 3.5mm mono or stereo rewireable plugs: https://www.maplin.co.uk/p/35mm-metal-stereo-plug-fj99h https://www.maplin.co.uk/p/25mm-plastic-stereo-plug-fj85g though as another poster said, they need fairly lightweight cable. -- Joe
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On 06/08/17 13:18, Eike Lantzsch wrote: > On Sunday, 6 August 2017 11:31:29 -04 Richard Hector wrote: >> On 05/08/17 03:56, Rodolfo Medina wrote: >>> Thanks to all. The problem seems to be solved with such a cable: >>> https://www.thomann.de/at/pro_snake_78219_yadapterkabel.htm >> Except that it's hard to tell what size those connectors are. Unless >> there's something in the description that I can't read that says they're >> 3.5mm, they look to me more like 6.25mm. I'm not sure what it is - I >> think 3.5mm plugs are usually more rounded on the end, while the larger >> ones often have that point. Also, it looks like the case comes apart, >> and I think the only ones I've seen with such skinny bodies are moulded >> plastic. If that's 3.5mm, I think it would be very hard to assemble by >> hand, which the body designs suggest. >> >> Richard > 3.5mm and 2.5mm plugs can be soldered all right but Yes - I was trying to suggest that the plugs in the picture, if it's a 3.5mm plug, look a bit small in the body to be user-assembled - yet they clearly come apart. The ones I've soldered have bigger bodies relative to the actual connector. The really thin ones tend to be moulded. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear ... it would help if the site actually specified what they're selling :-) Richard
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On 08/05/2017 08:11 PM, Eike Lantzsch wrote: On Sunday, 6 August 2017 11:31:29 -04 Richard Hector wrote: On 05/08/17 03:56, Rodolfo Medina wrote: Thanks to all. The problem seems to be solved with such a cable: https://www.thomann.de/at/pro_snake_78219_yadapterkabel.htm That's 1/4" ~ 6.35mm Stereo on one end and 2 x mono on the other end but both 6.35mm Except that it's hard to tell what size those connectors are. Unless there's something in the description that I can't read that says they're 3.5mm, they look to me more like 6.25mm. I'm not sure what it is - I think 3.5mm plugs are usually more rounded on the end, while the larger ones often have that point. Also, it looks like the case comes apart, and I think the only ones I've seen with such skinny bodies are moulded plastic. If that's 3.5mm, I think it would be very hard to assemble by hand, which the body designs suggest. Richard I have put together a number of 3.5mm connectors, which you used to be able to get in Radio Shack. I confess that they were not stereo. Also put together the power connectors for 5V and 12V. It's a little hairy, and you need a soldering iron with a fine tip, a good light, and probably magnifying lenses--which I have. --doug
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On Sunday, 6 August 2017 11:31:29 -04 Richard Hector wrote: > On 05/08/17 03:56, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > > Thanks to all. The problem seems to be solved with such a cable: > > https://www.thomann.de/at/pro_snake_78219_yadapterkabel.htm > > Except that it's hard to tell what size those connectors are. Unless > there's something in the description that I can't read that says they're > 3.5mm, they look to me more like 6.25mm. I'm not sure what it is - I > think 3.5mm plugs are usually more rounded on the end, while the larger > ones often have that point. Also, it looks like the case comes apart, > and I think the only ones I've seen with such skinny bodies are moulded > plastic. If that's 3.5mm, I think it would be very hard to assemble by > hand, which the body designs suggest. > > Richard here's a good write-up of phone connectors of all kind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_connector_(audio)
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On Sunday, 6 August 2017 11:31:29 -04 Richard Hector wrote: > On 05/08/17 03:56, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > > Thanks to all. The problem seems to be solved with such a cable: > > https://www.thomann.de/at/pro_snake_78219_yadapterkabel.htm > > Except that it's hard to tell what size those connectors are. Unless > there's something in the description that I can't read that says they're > 3.5mm, they look to me more like 6.25mm. I'm not sure what it is - I > think 3.5mm plugs are usually more rounded on the end, while the larger > ones often have that point. Also, it looks like the case comes apart, > and I think the only ones I've seen with such skinny bodies are moulded > plastic. If that's 3.5mm, I think it would be very hard to assemble by > hand, which the body designs suggest. > > Richard 3.5mm and 2.5mm plugs can be soldered all right but the problem mostly is to purchase the really fine cable with two inner conductors, both shielded. Common "Stereo Shielded Cable" is commonly too fat and its use always results in ugly and unwieldy kludges. Sometimes I resorted to reusing the cables of old earphone sets, which I had otherwise no use for anymore. Cheers Eike
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On Sunday, 6 August 2017 11:31:29 -04 Richard Hector wrote: > On 05/08/17 03:56, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > > Thanks to all. The problem seems to be solved with such a cable: > > https://www.thomann.de/at/pro_snake_78219_yadapterkabel.htm > That's 1/4" ~ 6.35mm Stereo on one end and 2 x mono on the other end but both 6.35mm > Except that it's hard to tell what size those connectors are. Unless > there's something in the description that I can't read that says they're > 3.5mm, they look to me more like 6.25mm. I'm not sure what it is - I > think 3.5mm plugs are usually more rounded on the end, while the larger > ones often have that point. Also, it looks like the case comes apart, > and I think the only ones I've seen with such skinny bodies are moulded > plastic. If that's 3.5mm, I think it would be very hard to assemble by > hand, which the body designs suggest. > > Richard
Re: [solved] Re: Live recording
On 05/08/17 03:56, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > Thanks to all. The problem seems to be solved with such a cable: > > https://www.thomann.de/at/pro_snake_78219_yadapterkabel.htm Except that it's hard to tell what size those connectors are. Unless there's something in the description that I can't read that says they're 3.5mm, they look to me more like 6.25mm. I'm not sure what it is - I think 3.5mm plugs are usually more rounded on the end, while the larger ones often have that point. Also, it looks like the case comes apart, and I think the only ones I've seen with such skinny bodies are moulded plastic. If that's 3.5mm, I think it would be very hard to assemble by hand, which the body designs suggest. Richard
[solved] Re: Live recording
Rodolfo Medina writes: > According to: > > http://www.upubuntu.com/2013/05/how-to-record-your-voice-from.html > > I record live sound via microphone just doing: > > $ sox -t alsa default output.wav > > Now I was wondering about the stereo o non-stereo character of such a home > made recording... I tried to use two microphones together, plugging them > together into the PC with a small common connection doubber. Can we say the > result is stereo...? I would doubt... and how to have - if possible - a > stereo effect with the above basic recording instruments? deloptes writes: > First of all you need to get basic knowledge of signal and audio processing > > One good way to understand things 8especially about electricity is water and > pipes. > > Now your mic is a one bucket full of water and you have to pipes (left and > right) ... where does the water flow? > > Rodolfo Medina wrote: > >> 1) the mic input on my PC is stereo. In fact, it is a laptop, nay a >> netbook, doesn't have a line in and it is reasonable that its mic input is >> also a line in; >> > > there is no stereo mic - keep in mind - one bucket full of water - not two Doug writes: > You can't get something for nothing. If you want stereo, you will have to > have two mics or a mic with two separate microphone elements aimed in two > (left and right) directions. Such a device will have a plug with three > connections on it: left, right, and ground. Your PC will not be able to > handle such a microphone! You would need a stereo preamplifier to plug that > mic into, and then you would plug the stereo output of the preamp into the > LINE IN jack of the PC. > > I would hope that this information will settle the question! Thanks to all. The problem seems to be solved with such a cable: https://www.thomann.de/at/pro_snake_78219_yadapterkabel.htm as suggested by deloptes and other listers. The cable consists in two female 3.5mm terminations, each of them mono, and a male 3.5mm stereo. One mic at one female end, the other one at the other female end, and the male end plugged into the microphone input of my netbook. All this seems to produce a perfect stereo effect: the two channels sound to be very well separated. I'll be using the above simple connection system to live piano recording: mic 1 on the basses (left), mic 2 on the high (right). My next step is trying to add human voice, say in the middle. I'll see if this is possible by slightly complicating the above solution, without preamp or mixer or multi-channel audio interface. I'll be posting here if the attempt succeeds. Thanks again, Rodolfo <
