On Friday 25 November 2005 10:28, Florian Schmidt was like: > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:09:23 +0000 > > james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Nov, 2005 at 12:34AM -0800, Kjetil S. Matheussen spake thus: > > > http://www.notam02.no/arkiv/src/ > > > > I normally use timemachine for recording like this - how does this > > differ? > > > > Oh, and the one thing that timemachine always annoys me with is it's > > aparrent inability to write files that can be read by anything except > > audacity. Does this do better? > > Which can be remedied by reading the timemachine documentation (SCNR): > > > ----snip > ~$ timemachine -h > Usage timemachine: [-h] [-i] [-c channels] [-n jack-name] > [-t buffer-length] [-p file prefix] [-f format] [port-name ...] > > -h show this help > -i interactive mode (console instead of X11) also enabled > if DISPLAY is unset > -c specify number of recording channels > -n specify the JACK name timemachine will use > -t specify the pre-recording buffer length > -p specify the saved file prefix, may include path > -f specify the saved file format > > channels must be in the range 1-8, default 2 > jack-name, default "TimeMachine" > file-prefix, default "tm-" > buffer-length, default 10 secs > format, default 'w64', options: wav, w64 > > specifying port names to connect to on the command line overrides -c > ---- snap Exactly. I rather like timemachine, precisely because I can make .wavs with it that I can drop straight into ardour without any mucking about. -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
