Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] (semi)professional "field" recording work, what to use?
From: Roger Williams (raw_AT_qux.com)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 01:40:53 EEST
>>>>> Wilbert Berendsen <wilbert_AT_oswf.org> writes:
> I want to make good quality recordings with lightweight equipment and to
> further process the recordings on my Linux desktop PC.
> 1. Minidisc recording.
> 2. Harddisk/flashcard/cd-rw recorders.
> 3. A laptop with a good (external?) audio interface (M-audio USB?)
Your results are going to depend upon what you mean by "good quality"
and "further process".
As you know, MD uses lossy encoding, with resulting artifacts that
range from imperceptible to rather annoying, depending upon the type
of programme material. If you haven't used them much for recording,
however, you may not realise how quickly the (decoded into linear PCM)
audio falls apart with further processing.
You can get away with gain, as it doesn't involve much "processing";
and filtering will be acceptable if the filter is very broadband.
But mixing several coded signals, performing heavy EQ, or re-coding
will NOT result in pleasant sounds.
Even the high-rate coders that allow recoding suffer some loss, and
require higher rates. (Basically, that's what makes them allow
re-coding.)
For your budget and programme material, I would suggest a laptop with
a decent audio interface. I use the HDSP Cardbus (usually with
external converters, but the ones in the Multiface are actually pretty
decent); but folks on this list (as well as the Alsa, Ardour, and
Jamin development lists) are happily using other external interfaces.
I think you'll be pretty happy with the performance and stability of
JACK with a low-latency kernel and an external Firewire drive for your
audio.
-- Roger Williams <raw_AT_qux.com> Qux Tool & Die, Middleborough, Massachusetts // Omne tulit punctum qui misquit utile dulci //
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu May 15 2003 - 01:48:15 EEST