Recording multi track

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Recording multi track

Mew, Peter
Hi
The sox manual is not very forthcoming about recording, so I just want to check my assumptions are correct, and ask a couple of questions.
I'm looking to make a simple recorder that will record 24 channels of 192/24 bit PCM.
I assume I will need to write something like.  -c24 -r192 -b24 -signed-integer -pm newfile.wav
And that I will get 24 individual files called newfile01.wav, newfile02.wav etc.
Is it really as simple as that?
And to play them back
Use the remix effect.
How do you pan the individual channels with remix?
Has anyone tried to get sox to process this much data in one go, I reckon it's just under 111 megabits/second.
Can you pass this kind of data rate to a single disc, in the real world?
Any thoughts would be welcome
Thanks
-pm

Sent from my iPad

________________________________

“**Confidentiality**
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be privileged and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. Access to this e-mail by any other person is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disclose, copy, distribute, take any action or rely on it and you should please notify the sender by reply. Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company.

We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recording multi track

Erich Eckner
Hi Peter,

your question is not recording specific.
> I'm looking to make a simple recorder that will record 24 channels of 192/24 bit PCM.
> I assume I will need to write something like.  -c24 -r192 -b24 -signed-integer -pm newfile.wav
> And that I will get 24 individual files called newfile01.wav, newfile02.wav etc.

- You want "-r 192k" (or do you mean by 192/24, that you want 192
samples per second with 24 bit?
- Use "-e signed-integer" (as sox suggests).
- What do you want to achieve with "-pm"? This does nothing useful for
you (-p tells sox to take a sox-formatted pipe as input file, -m sets
combining method "mix").

So far, in your command, the channels are all written to one file. AFAIK
sox can't split multiple channels at once into different files (like the
reverse of "merge"). If it's really necessary for you to have separated
files for each channel (and not one .wav with 24 channels) and you want
to use (only) sox, you need to split the 24-channel-file afterwards as
the man-page suggests:
<quote>
Un-merging is possible using multiple invocations of SoX with the remix
effect.  For example, two mono files could be merged to form one stereo
file.  The  first  and
       second mono files would become the left and right channels of the
stereo file.
</quote>


> And to play them back
> Use the remix effect.
You invoke sox with input-combining method "merge" and then you can use
"remix" to get down to whatever number of channels you qould like (2,
probably).

> How do you pan the individual channels with remix?
What exactly do you mean by "pan"? Give each channel a different volume?
This is possible with remix, have a look at the man-page for the details.
> Has anyone tried to get sox to process this much data in one go, I reckon it's just under 111 megabits/second.
111 MBit/s doesn't sound too much.
> Can you pass this kind of data rate to a single disc, in the real world?
For a single disk (non-ssd) I get something like 30~40 MByte/s (worst
disk, my best so far has something around 100MByte/s). I have only an
encrypted raid, but this reaches approx. the same speed.

greetings,
Erich



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

signature.asc (851 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recording multi track

Jan Stary
In reply to this post by Mew, Peter
On Jan 14 22:45:53, [hidden email] wrote:
> The sox manual is not very forthcoming about recording, so I just want to check my assumptions are correct, and ask a couple of questions.
> I'm looking to make a simple recorder that will record 24 channels of 192/24 bit PCM.
> I assume I will need to write something like.
> -c24 -r192 -b24 -signed-integer -pm newfile.wav

That's not a valid rec(1) command line.
What did you intend with the "-pm"?

> And that I will get 24 individual files called newfile01.wav,
> newfile02.wav etc.

No, that will create a 24-channel file named newfile.wav

> Is it really as simple as that?
> And to play them back
> Use the remix effect.

Depends on how you want to play them back.
You most probably have to mix them down somehow,
so unless you have 24 outputs, yes, you will use remix.

> How do you pan the individual channels with remix?

This is completely described inthe manpage under the remix effect.

> Has anyone tried to get sox to process this much data in one go,
> I reckon it's just under 111 megabits/second.

The most I recorded with SoX is 2 simultaneous channels :-)
But I don;t think the large number of channels will be a problem
for SoX as such; IMHO it boils down to whether your machine can take it.

> Can you pass this kind of data rate to a single disc, in the real world?

Depends on the disc (and other things).
BTW, what exactly is the recording audio device?
have you recorded using that with other software?

        Jan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recording multi track

Jan Stary
In reply to this post by Erich Eckner
> So far, in your command, the channels are all written to one file. AFAIK
> sox can't split multiple channels at once into different files (like the
> reverse of "merge"). If it's really necessary for you to have separated
> files for each channel (and not one .wav with 24 channels) and you want
> to use (only) sox, you need to split the 24-channel-file afterwards as
> the man-page suggests.

Related: your system (which is?) might provide means to separate
the physical device (a 24 channel audio interface) into separate
virtual "subdevices", as a feature of the audio subsystem.

For example, OpenBSD's wonderful sndio ( http://www.sndio.org/ )
will let you face an 8-channel card as a 4-channel card and two
stereo cards, all recording in perfect sync, transparently.

So for example, you can cut up your 24 channels into
one single channel (click), next 6 channels (drums),
a mono bass, stereo horns, etc, and output them to
drums.wav, bass.wav, horns.wav, etc.

Not with SoX though.

        Jan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recording multi track

Mew, Peter
In reply to this post by Erich Eckner
Hi Erich
The -pm are my initials, it somehow got inserted in the text instead of at the end.
Pan is the term used when positioning a channel in a stereo sound field, ie panned left, panned centre, etc. sorry  192/24 is shorthand for 192k samples per second 24 bit depth..
As I explained in my reply to Jan, an interleaved file with 24 channels of 192/24 gives a recording time of under 5 minutes, due to the 4gig size restriction of wav files.
The effect mixer appears to

Sent from my iPad

> On 15 Jan 2015, at 06:56, Erich Eckner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> your question is not recording specific.
>> I'm looking to make a simple recorder that will record 24 channels of 192/24 bit PCM.
>> I assume I will need to write something like.  -c24 -r192 -b24 -signed-integer -pm newfile.wav
>> And that I will get 24 individual files called newfile01.wav, newfile02.wav etc.
>
> - You want "-r 192k" (or do you mean by 192/24, that you want 192
> samples per second with 24 bit?
> - Use "-e signed-integer" (as sox suggests).
> - What do you want to achieve with "-pm"? This does nothing useful for
> you (-p tells sox to take a sox-formatted pipe as input file, -m sets
> combining method "mix").
>
> So far, in your command, the channels are all written to one file. AFAIK
> sox can't split multiple channels at once into different files (like the
> reverse of "merge"). If it's really necessary for you to have separated
> files for each channel (and not one .wav with 24 channels) and you want
> to use (only) sox, you need to split the 24-channel-file afterwards as
> the man-page suggests:
> <quote>
> Un-merging is possible using multiple invocations of SoX with the remix
> effect.  For example, two mono files could be merged to form one stereo
> file.  The  first  and
>       second mono files would become the left and right channels of the
> stereo file.
> </quote>
>
>
>> And to play them back
>> Use the remix effect.
> You invoke sox with input-combining method "merge" and then you can use
> "remix" to get down to whatever number of channels you qould like (2,
> probably).
>
>> How do you pan the individual channels with remix?
> What exactly do you mean by "pan"? Give each channel a different volume?
> This is possible with remix, have a look at the man-page for the details.
>> Has anyone tried to get sox to process this much data in one go, I reckon it's just under 111 megabits/second.
> 111 MBit/s doesn't sound too much.
>> Can you pass this kind of data rate to a single disc, in the real world?
> For a single disk (non-ssd) I get something like 30~40 MByte/s (worst
> disk, my best so far has something around 100MByte/s). I have only an
> encrypted raid, but this reaches approx. the same speed.
>
> greetings,
> Erich
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
> GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
> Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
> Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
> _______________________________________________
> Sox-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

________________________________

“**Confidentiality**
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be privileged and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. Access to this e-mail by any other person is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disclose, copy, distribute, take any action or rely on it and you should please notify the sender by reply. Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company.

We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recording multi track

Mew, Peter
In reply to this post by Erich Eckner

Hi Erich
The -pm are my initials, it somehow got inserted in the text instead of at the end.
Pan is the term used when positioning a channel in a stereo sound field, ie panned left, panned centre, etc. sorry  192/24 is shorthand for 192k samples per second 24 bit depth..
As I explained in my reply to Jan, an interleaved file with 24 channels of 192/24 gives a recording time of under 5 minutes, due to the 4gig size restriction of wav files.
The effect mixer appears to support panning, but only for 8 channels, whereas remix does not, unless I've missed something.
Thanks for your input
-pm
Sent from my iPad

> On 15 Jan 2015, at 06:56, Erich Eckner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> your question is not recording specific.
>> I'm looking to make a simple recorder that will record 24 channels of 192/24 bit PCM.
>> I assume I will need to write something like.  -c24 -r192 -b24 -signed-integer -pm newfile.wav
>> And that I will get 24 individual files called newfile01.wav, newfile02.wav etc.
>
> - You want "-r 192k" (or do you mean by 192/24, that you want 192
> samples per second with 24 bit?
> - Use "-e signed-integer" (as sox suggests).
> - What do you want to achieve with "-pm"? This does nothing useful for
> you (-p tells sox to take a sox-formatted pipe as input file, -m sets
> combining method "mix").
>
> So far, in your command, the channels are all written to one file. AFAIK
> sox can't split multiple channels at once into different files (like the
> reverse of "merge"). If it's really necessary for you to have separated
> files for each channel (and not one .wav with 24 channels) and you want
> to use (only) sox, you need to split the 24-channel-file afterwards as
> the man-page suggests:
> <quote>
> Un-merging is possible using multiple invocations of SoX with the remix
> effect.  For example, two mono files could be merged to form one stereo
> file.  The  first  and
>       second mono files would become the left and right channels of the
> stereo file.
> </quote>
>
>
>> And to play them back
>> Use the remix effect.
> You invoke sox with input-combining method "merge" and then you can use
> "remix" to get down to whatever number of channels you qould like (2,
> probably).
>
>> How do you pan the individual channels with remix?
> What exactly do you mean by "pan"? Give each channel a different volume?
> This is possible with remix, have a look at the man-page for the details.
>> Has anyone tried to get sox to process this much data in one go, I reckon it's just under 111 megabits/second.
> 111 MBit/s doesn't sound too much.
>> Can you pass this kind of data rate to a single disc, in the real world?
> For a single disk (non-ssd) I get something like 30~40 MByte/s (worst
> disk, my best so far has something around 100MByte/s). I have only an
> encrypted raid, but this reaches approx. the same speed.
>
> greetings,
> Erich
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
> GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
> Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
> Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
> _______________________________________________
> Sox-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

________________________________

“**Confidentiality**
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be privileged and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. Access to this e-mail by any other person is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disclose, copy, distribute, take any action or rely on it and you should please notify the sender by reply. Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company.

We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users