sfrecord alternative?
hi,
Are there any other objects like sfrecord for recording a wav or aiff to disk? I have found limitations on what symbols a file name can be composed of in sfrecord. Just happens to conflict with my whole patch and the way messages are labelled. :/
cheers
BIG problem with sfrecord.
if I compose a simple patch , two file names in a message boxes
(open D:/Testsfrecord/L12aL123a4.wav)
and
(open D:/Testsfrecord/L12aL124b7.wav)
hook them up to sfrecord with a toggle too,
then select one message box and then click the toggle to record , it works great..
then click the other messg box and click the toggle, again it works, it records.
but then click one, then the other message box, click the toggle a few times and sfrecord eventually will start firing out:
"can't make file
"start requested without proceeding 'open'
and no matter what after this point sfrecord is not excepting the message boxes and wont record with one or the other file name,and its not reset-able.
Perhaps, treat it gently, do not try to confuse it , slow down any actions. yes this works , but eventually i find maybe 10mins later it will do the same.
darn it, i thought it was a symbol '-' i was using.
: O
: (
When you need to change gear in a car, you first press the clutch pedal, then you change the gear, then you release the clutch pedal. If you don't respect those rules then you'll break the gearbox.
sfrecord~ also has rules to follow: first sending open..., then 1, then 0. If you need something more user friendly (or rather "user safe"), then add some logic around the object to make sure the rules are respected. trigger is very usefull for this!
That's probably why there are also automatic gearboxes available for cars.
p
well i did mention it should be treated with respect , but even with a sub patch to control the rate of operations I send it, it still crashes , even if i delete it and create a new sfrecord through scriopting via thispatcher it is still in the same state that it was deleted, very weird,
i am using (record~) & (buffer~) and writing to disc that way instead.
i haven't taken offence, to your suggesting that i am like poor driver. even though you meant offence.
sorry. have a good evening all the same.
I didn't mean any offence, sorry if you though I was. I just wanted to explain that in some situations, it is mandatory to respect a precise order of operation. And to make sure, for the sake of user friendliness, that the UI doesn't allow
forbidden operations.
Now you write about crashes, which shouldn't happen at all. Can't you post a patch?
p
buffer is a good option anyway, but if you are going to record several channels at once, buffer is much better than writing directly to disk.
buffer~ + record~ indeed.. easy to use with multitrack recording.. cheers