25 Nov
2005
25 Nov
'05
10:04 a.m.
On Friday 25 November 2005 10:28, Florian Schmidt was like:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:09:23 +0000
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
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
On Fri, 25 Nov, 2005 at 12:34AM -0800, Kjetil S.
Matheussen spake thus:
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