On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
> Bill Unruh wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> The microphones definitely do not have -90dB noise floor unless you are
>> recording stuff at 120-130dB SPL.
> [snip]
>
> The level might be 120-130dB SPL, but neither myself no
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Unruh wrote:
[snip]
> The microphones definitely do not have -90dB noise floor unless you are
> recording stuff at 120-130dB SPL.
[snip]
The level might be 120-130dB SPL, but neither myself nor my neighbors will hear
it that loud - again, I am not goi
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
> Bill Unruh wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Sorry, you are feeding the ouput into the input?
> [snip]
>
> Yes, in reality this is what I'm doing - the intent is have a whole bunch
> of analog electronics and acoustic stuf
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Unruh wrote:
[snip]
> > No, it is the same kind of fruit. When I run 'arecord', I run it sometimes
> > with
> > VU meter, so I see when relative to the stream overruns happen. They can
> > happen
> > anywhere - in the beginning, in the middle, closer
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Unruh wrote:
[snip]
> Sorry, you are feeding the ouput into the input?
[snip]
Yes, in reality this is what I'm doing - the intent is have a whole bunch
of analog electronics and acoustic stuff in between, i.e.
LineOut -> Electronics -> Transducer ->
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Unruh wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, it certainly is a bug. Thus it may also be true that there is no underrun
> either.
> (actually, It is not clear to me what an underrun means for recording. So what
> if the buffer is empty)
[snip]
There _are_ overruns (yes
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 22:34:40 -0500
> James Shatto wrote:
>
>>> Please reread my message in this thread on 'sox' - it contains the complete
>>> command line I've used.
>>
>> So apples to oranges? since your sox only does 4 seconds (trim 1 5)
>> and you
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 09:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
> Bill Unruh wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've tried to run 'arecord' as part of simultaneous playback + capture "rig"
>>> (for acoustic measurements) and noticed
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 22:34:40 -0500
James Shatto wrote:
> > Please reread my message in this thread on 'sox' - it contains the complete
> > command line I've used.
>
> So apples to oranges? since your sox only does 4 seconds (trim 1 5)
> and your arecord does 6 seconds -d 6. Statistically that's
> Please reread my message in this thread on 'sox' - it contains the complete
> command line I've used.
So apples to oranges? since your sox only does 4 seconds (trim 1 5)
and your arecord does 6 seconds -d 6. Statistically that's 50% more
opportunity for failure in arecord.
-
Did omitting
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 09:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Unruh wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've tried to run 'arecord' as part of simultaneous playback + capture "rig"
> > (for acoustic measurements) and noticed overruns.
> >
> > So, even plain single 'record' o
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 14:56:35 -0500
James Shatto wrote:
[snip]
>
> So the sox variant you're using is?
>
> rec -s -4 -L -c 2 -r 96000 recorded.wav trim 00:00:00 00:00:06
>
> Have you tried arecord without -D ? And/or with "-t wav"
>
>
> - James
>
Please reread my message in this thread on '
> No, I'm not trying to capture content from browsers; the browsers have
> no relationship to what I'm doing.
If it's running on the same computer at the same time, there is a
relationship. i.e. Fewer resources. An xrun is a lack of resources.
(or a bug)
> arecord -D hw:0,2,0 -c 2 -r 96000 -d 6
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've tried to run 'arecord' as part of simultaneous playback + capture "rig"
> (for acoustic measurements) and noticed overruns.
>
> So, even plain single 'record' occasionally produces overruns:
>
> arecord -D hw:0,2,0 -c 2 -r 96000 -d 6 -f
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 09:56:46 -0500
James Shatto wrote:
[snip]
> If you're trying to capture content from
> the browsers, there's other ways to accomplish that IMO. Without
> having to sample the output from a soundcard on a soundcard.
> Otherwise when browsers access sound, it's generally the old
Low latency kernel?
xruns are basically a resource issue. Web browsers have flash and
java and javascript scripts that loop for infinity and other things
that strip you of your resources. Basically I'd start by closing your
browsers while recording. If you're trying to capture content from
the
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 13:59:48 +0300
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've tried to run 'arecord' as part of simultaneous playback + capture "rig"
> (for acoustic measurements) and noticed overruns.
>
> So, even plain single 'record' occasionally produces overruns:
>
> arecord -D hw:0,2,0 -c
Hello,
I've tried to run 'arecord' as part of simultaneous playback + capture "rig"
(for acoustic measurements) and noticed overruns.
So, even plain single 'record' occasionally produces overruns:
arecord -D hw:0,2,0 -c 2 -r 96000 -d 6 -f S32_LE recorded.wav
Recording WAVE 'recorded.wav' : Signe
18 matches
Mail list logo
