[studiorecorder] Re: Wow! I didn't know I could do that
- From: "ROB MEREDITH" <rmeredith@xxxxxxx>
- To: <studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:18:53 -0400
I nominate you! Try away!
>>> bc.hansen23@xxxxxxxxx 06/16/06 03:10PM >>>
Instead of removing VHQ from the choices, why not test the latest
version of
the LAME encoder to see if they've possibly addressed and fixed the
problem
since the problem is within the encoder, and not SR? The huge amount
of
time that particular LAME version takes with VHQ even happens when
using
SR's version with CDEX and other programs.
Blessings,
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: "ROB MEREDITH" <rmeredith@xxxxxxx>
To: <studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: Wow! I didn't know I could do that
>I would skip Very High Quality; it really is a waist of time. I
should
> probably remove it from the choices; all it does is frustrate
people.
> Just use high quality, and you should get comparable performance.
>
>>>> David.Tanner@xxxxxxxxxxx 06/16/06 12:42PM >>>
> My guess is that for saving a WAV file the saving time will be close
> to the same. However, if you are talking about exporting to MP3 I
> would say that SR is considerably slower.
>
>
>
> David Tanner
> Rehabilitation Program Specialist 3
> Assistive Technology Specialist
> Assistive Technology Department
> MN State Services f/t Blind
> Office- 651-642-0795 Cell- 651-270-2233
> Skype name: dtat100
>
>
>>>> neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6/16/2006 11:24 AM >>>
> Rob, you said, "I wonder what else we do that people need that
> they
> don't realize they have."
>
> Well, as Brian pointed out to me yesterday and I can certainly
> verify
> it, SR opens in a mere fraction of the time it takes Sound Forge
> to
> open. I know, it's not a real big issue unless you do as much
> editing
> as I do, but it can really save some time.
>
> I'm also just about to do another speed test between SF and SR. I
> always used to save my MP3 files in SF because I could use their
> high
> quality save. Well, SR has the same thing. So, here goes the
> test. An
> hour long file sampled at 44100 and 16 bits saved in MP3 in both SF
> and
> SR. And I'll pick something whose quality is quite high and see if
> I
> can tell any difference in that as well. Of course, file size
> might
> tell me something too. I wonder if they will be the same? Sure,
> and I
> didn't have anything else to do today?
>
> Neal
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ROB
> MEREDITH
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:54 AM
> To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: Wow! I didn't know I could do that
>
>
> You know Neal, we have never disallowed undo after saves. I can't
> imagine doing it any other way. Yeah, saves take longer because of
> this
> in some situations. But with background saves, this is much less of
> an
> issue. You can work on a document all day, and as long as you
> don't
> close it, you can undo all at the end of the day, save the
> original
> somewhere else, redo all, and keep right on working!
>
> I wonder what else we do that people need that they don't realize
> they
> have.
>
> Rob Meredith
>
>>>> neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 06/16/06 10:59AM >>>
> I know, I'm breaking my rule about not properly naming the
> subject.
>
> I didn't realize until yesterday that even after I save a file, I
> can go
> back and undo changes I have made as long as the file is still
> open.
> I've been complaining that Sound Forge took this out of version 8.
> Well,
> it would appear that this is yet another reason to use SR. Can
> Direct X
> plug in support be far behind.
>
> Oh, was that just a bit too subtle?
>
> Thanks Rob.
>
>
> Neal Ewers
> Ravenswood Productions
> Local phone: 608-277-1995
> Toll Free: 888-544-8332
> Email: neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ravenswood.org <http://www.ravenswood.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
