Any Recorder for very long recordings

[george]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,


Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?

Preferably small.

Many thanks!

George

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George wrote:
>
> Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
> on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?
>
> Preferably small.


MP3 at 48kbits is 21.6 mbytes per hour (using 1000 = k like the HD manufacturers do.) That's a tad over 518 mbytes per day. Check out some of the Archos boxes, but you might need to find one that will run Rockbox firmware to get around the firmware limits. Creative stops after something like 3-4 hours I think, so this might be your most important item.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

What are you trying to do? If you plan on recording for two weeks but
really are only looking for a snippet of audio out of it all you should
consider using one of those digital hand held recorders that have a
setting where silience is not recorded, that would save you a lot of
space if you're going to be setting this up is a realtivly quiet area
and know what ever you want to record will be a lot louder than it's
natural ambient surroundings.

To record continuously for two weeks straight, the smallest your're
gonna get is a laptop plus mic and preamp. In other words, not that
small.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com> st_gf37@hotmail.com writes:

> Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
> on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?

All operating systems have some limit to maximum file size. I suppose
the first think to look at is how low could you go in quality. If you
record at a low sample rate and low resolution, then compress on the
fly, you might be able to squeeze two weeks worth of recording into
something that an operating system could handle. But I don't have the
knowledge or patience to run the numbers. Arny probably does. How bad
would it have to be in order to fit a say 170 hours of recording into
a gigabyte?

Is your next question going to be about some software that can
recognize certain audio events, or do you actually plan to listen to
this?

Although it wouldn't be directly loadable into a PC, you might want to
look into logging recorders. There are digital ones now, but the old
analog ones ran 1/2" tape at 15/16 IPS and automatically switched
through 16 or more tracks at the end of a pass. Quality? You know when
they play a 911 call on a crime or rescue TV show?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George wrote:


> Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
> on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?

Record what? How many channels of info? At what resolution? That
determines how much data must be stored.

> Preferably small.

If this for PI work?

--
ha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George <st_gf37@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
>on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
>which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?

Check logging recorder manufacturers like Eventide and Minicom.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com> st_gf37@hotmail.com writes:

>>Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
>>on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
>>which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?

> All operating systems have some limit to maximum file size. I suppose
> the first think to look at is how low could you go in quality. If you
> record at a low sample rate and low resolution, then compress on the
> fly, you might be able to squeeze two weeks worth of recording into
> something that an operating system could handle.

Many filesystems these days use 64-bit files. A 32-bit file can be
2 GB in size, so a 64-bit one can be about 4 billion times as big as
that, in other words about 8 million terabytes. That should be enough
space to record 32 channels of 192 kHz 24-bit for about 31,700 years.

> But I don't have the
> knowledge or patience to run the numbers. Arny probably does. How bad
> would it have to be in order to fit a say 170 hours of recording into
> a gigabyte?

It would be pretty darned bad. That's 1,209,600 seconds, and a gigabyte
is about a billion, so it leaves just under one kilobyte to record a
second's worth of audio. So, you can record 1 kHz sampling rate with
8 bit samples, 2 kHz sample rate with 4 bit samples, etc., etc.

However, I've heard stuff recorded with 56 kilobit/s MP3 at 22050 Hz,
and it wasn't atrociously bad. So 56 kilobit is only 7 kilobytes
per second, which is about one order of magnitude worse than you'd
need to fit in one gigabyte.

But, that means you should be able to fit it in 10 gigabytes if you
want relatively low quality. If you go up to 128 kilobit/s MP3, you're
still only talking about around 20 GB of storage.

So, this is something that could easily be done by a computer. All
you'd need to do is compress on the fly. That'll probably require
a relatively fast processor, but the software does exist. You could
use, for instance, Linux or Unix with lame to do the encoding and some
command line program (audiorecord on Solaris) to do the recording.

Come to think of it, though, I'm not sure if the MP3 format itself
can support files bigger than 2 GB. So, you might have to break it
up, but that's not a big deal. If you were going the command-line
Unix route, you could do something like this to automatically
break it up into 500 MB increments:

seqnum=1
audiorecord -c 1 -s 44100 -e linear |
while true
do
dd ibs=512 count=1000000 of="$seqnum".raw
touch "$sequnum".raw.done
seqnum=`expr "$seqnum" + 1`
done

Then all you've got to do is have an MP3 encoder, like LAME
for instance, come along behind that and encode every .raw
file once it sees the corresponding .raw.done file has been
created.

So, it's kind of ugly and not user-friendly, but it certainly
can be done.

- Logan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com> st_gf37@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
>>Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
>>on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
>>which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?
>
>
> All operating systems have some limit to maximum file size. I suppose
> the first think to look at is how low could you go in quality. If you
> record at a low sample rate and low resolution, then compress on the
> fly, you might be able to squeeze two weeks worth of recording into
> something that an operating system could handle. But I don't have the
> knowledge or patience to run the numbers. Arny probably does. How bad
> would it have to be in order to fit a say 170 hours of recording into
> a gigabyte?

It isn't necessary to fit all the sound into a single file. Some
recorders automatically break a long take into multiple files on the fly.

At 32K/16 bit, a two week take would require 77.4 GB. That isn't tiny,
but is certainly within the limits of readily available disk drives.

The Sound Devices 744T has a 60 GB capacity, so it almost gets there. It
also has an option (not quite ready yet) to compress to MP3 on the fly.
It may also be possible to fit it with a larger disk. That would make it
work admirably for the task. At 1.8" x 8.2" x 4.9" it is reasonably
small, but it would require external power. It also mounts as a FireWire
drive, making its recording immediately available on a PC.

Of course, the 744T isn't cheap, but the OP didn't specify any budget
limitation ;-)

>
> Is your next question going to be about some software that can
> recognize certain audio events, or do you actually plan to listen to
> this?
>
> Although it wouldn't be directly loadable into a PC, you might want to
> look into logging recorders. There are digital ones now, but the old
> analog ones ran 1/2" tape at 15/16 IPS and automatically switched
> through 16 or more tracks at the end of a pass. Quality? You know when
> they play a 911 call on a crime or rescue TV show?
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ZF5Sd.18578$cW2.6542@fe2.texas.rr.com> lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com writes:

> Many filesystems these days use 64-bit files. A 32-bit file can be
> 2 GB in size, so a 64-bit one can be about 4 billion times as big as
> that, in other words about 8 million terabytes. That should be enough
> space to record 32 channels of 192 kHz 24-bit for about 31,700 years.

See, I KNEW somebody would have the numbers at the tip of their
fingers. Now all we need is for someone to make a disk drive that
large.

> However, I've heard stuff recorded with 56 kilobit/s MP3 at 22050 Hz,
> and it wasn't atrociously bad. So 56 kilobit is only 7 kilobytes
> per second, which is about one order of magnitude worse than you'd
> need to fit in one gigabyte.

This is the sort of technique I was thinking about.

> Come to think of it, though, I'm not sure if the MP3 format itself
> can support files bigger than 2 GB. So, you might have to break it
> up, but that's not a big deal.

The Mackie HDR starts a new file every 15 minutes. That way you can
keep going as long as you have disk space. I've run out of patience
trying ot fill up a 120 GB disk with 16-bit 44.1 kHz stereo.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

just think how much fun it will be to have to listen back to two weeks
worth of recording.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"George" <st_gf37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com
> Hi,
>
>
> Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
> on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> which can record continuously for 2 weeks - non stop?
>
> Preferably small.

AFAIK the maximum length of a recording on a Nomad Jukebox 3 portable is
primarily limited by disk space - which can easily reach 60 GB. If you
record using one of the low bitrate MP3 formats, the data rate could be as
low as 0.5 megs per minute or less. 60 GB could then hold about 120,000
minutes of recorded audio. I believe the resulting recording will span
multiple files whose name is based on a time-stamp related to when the
particular segment file commenced recording. I understand that there will
be no interruptions in the concatenation of these files.

 

[george]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<ZF5Sd.18578$cW2.6542@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > In article <b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com> st_gf37@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >>Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
> >>on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> >>which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?
>
> > All operating systems have some limit to maximum file size. I suppose
> > the first think to look at is how low could you go in quality. If you
> > record at a low sample rate and low resolution, then compress on the
> > fly, you might be able to squeeze two weeks worth of recording into
> > something that an operating system could handle.
>
> Many filesystems these days use 64-bit files. A 32-bit file can be
> 2 GB in size, so a 64-bit one can be about 4 billion times as big as
> that, in other words about 8 million terabytes. That should be enough
> space to record 32 channels of 192 kHz 24-bit for about 31,700 years.
>
> > But I don't have the
> > knowledge or patience to run the numbers. Arny probably does. How bad
> > would it have to be in order to fit a say 170 hours of recording into
> > a gigabyte?
>
> It would be pretty darned bad. That's 1,209,600 seconds, and a gigabyte
> is about a billion, so it leaves just under one kilobyte to record a
> second's worth of audio. So, you can record 1 kHz sampling rate with
> 8 bit samples, 2 kHz sample rate with 4 bit samples, etc., etc.
>
> However, I've heard stuff recorded with 56 kilobit/s MP3 at 22050 Hz,
> and it wasn't atrociously bad. So 56 kilobit is only 7 kilobytes
> per second, which is about one order of magnitude worse than you'd
> need to fit in one gigabyte.
>
> But, that means you should be able to fit it in 10 gigabytes if you
> want relatively low quality. If you go up to 128 kilobit/s MP3, you're
> still only talking about around 20 GB of storage.
>
> So, this is something that could easily be done by a computer. All
> you'd need to do is compress on the fly. That'll probably require
> a relatively fast processor, but the software does exist. You could
> use, for instance, Linux or Unix with lame to do the encoding and some
> command line program (audiorecord on Solaris) to do the recording.
>
> Come to think of it, though, I'm not sure if the MP3 format itself
> can support files bigger than 2 GB. So, you might have to break it
> up, but that's not a big deal. If you were going the command-line
> Unix route, you could do something like this to automatically
> break it up into 500 MB increments:
>
> seqnum=1
> audiorecord -c 1 -s 44100 -e linear |
> while true
> do
> dd ibs=512 count=1000000 of="$seqnum".raw
> touch "$sequnum".raw.done
> seqnum=`expr "$seqnum" + 1`
> done
>
> Then all you've got to do is have an MP3 encoder, like LAME
> for instance, come along behind that and encode every .raw
> file once it sees the corresponding .raw.done file has been
> created.
>
> So, it's kind of ugly and not user-friendly, but it certainly
> can be done.
>
> - Logan


Hi,

Thanks. I know about the possibility of writing to a PC but the
problem is the size. I had a look at the Palms but they do not seem to
have a hard disk. I am not sure if I can connect one externaly.

 

[george]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<-YadnYLUkr9YrYTfRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> > In article <b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com> st_gf37@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> >>Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
> >>on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> >>which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?
> >
> >
> > All operating systems have some limit to maximum file size. I suppose
> > the first think to look at is how low could you go in quality. If you
> > record at a low sample rate and low resolution, then compress on the
> > fly, you might be able to squeeze two weeks worth of recording into
> > something that an operating system could handle. But I don't have the
> > knowledge or patience to run the numbers. Arny probably does. How bad
> > would it have to be in order to fit a say 170 hours of recording into
> > a gigabyte?
>
> It isn't necessary to fit all the sound into a single file. Some
> recorders automatically break a long take into multiple files on the fly.
>
> At 32K/16 bit, a two week take would require 77.4 GB. That isn't tiny,
> but is certainly within the limits of readily available disk drives.
>
> The Sound Devices 744T has a 60 GB capacity, so it almost gets there. It
> also has an option (not quite ready yet) to compress to MP3 on the fly.
> It may also be possible to fit it with a larger disk. That would make it
> work admirably for the task. At 1.8" x 8.2" x 4.9" it is reasonably
> small, but it would require external power. It also mounts as a FireWire
> drive, making its recording immediately available on a PC.
>
> Of course, the 744T isn't cheap, but the OP didn't specify any budget
> limitation ;-)
>
> >
> > Is your next question going to be about some software that can
> > recognize certain audio events, or do you actually plan to listen to
> > this?
> >
> > Although it wouldn't be directly loadable into a PC, you might want to
> > look into logging recorders. There are digital ones now, but the old
> > analog ones ran 1/2" tape at 15/16 IPS and automatically switched
> > through 16 or more tracks at the end of a pass. Quality? You know when
> > they play a 911 call on a crime or rescue TV show?
> >
> > --
> > I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> > However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> > lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> > you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> > and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Sound Devices 744T is really big. Any smaller one that you know, eg portable.

 

[george]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<WtednUDiqeln1ITfRVn-oA@comcast.com>...
> "George" <st_gf37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
> > on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> > which can record continuously for 2 weeks - non stop?
> >
> > Preferably small.
>
> AFAIK the maximum length of a recording on a Nomad Jukebox 3 portable is
> primarily limited by disk space - which can easily reach 60 GB. If you
> record using one of the low bitrate MP3 formats, the data rate could be as
> low as 0.5 megs per minute or less. 60 GB could then hold about 120,000
> minutes of recorded audio. I believe the resulting recording will span
> multiple files whose name is based on a time-stamp related to when the
> particular segment file commenced recording. I understand that there will
> be no interruptions in the concatenation of these files.


Hi,

This may be a solution. Have you tried it yourself when you say that
the length is limited by the hard disk. As others have mentioned, the
file size is limited by the operating system or firmware.

 

[george]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message news:<37s6uoF5huuhjU3@individual.net>...
> George wrote:
> >
> > Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
> > on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> > which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?
> >
> > Preferably small.
>
>
> MP3 at 48kbits is 21.6 mbytes per hour (using 1000 = k like the HD manufacturers do.) That's a tad over 518 mbytes per day. Check out some of the Archos boxes, but you might need to find one that will run Rockbox firmware to get around the firmware limits. Creative stops after something like 3-4 hours I think, so this might be your most important item.

Hi,

Thanks. I have posted a message on Rockbox as I am not sure if it
could start automaticaly a new recording when the file size gets 2GB.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just curious....what are you recording?

"George" <st_gf37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
>
> Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
> on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?
>
> Preferably small.
>
> Many thanks!
>
> George

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George wrote:
> Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message news:<37s6uoF5huuhjU3@individual.net>...
>
>> George wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
>>> on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
>>> which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?
>>>
>>> Preferably small.
>>
>>
>> MP3 at 48kbits is 21.6 mbytes per hour (using 1000 = k like the HD manufacturers do.) That's a tad over 518 mbytes per day. Check out some of the Archos boxes, but you might need to find one that will run Rockbox firmware to get around the firmware limits. Creative stops after something like 3-4 hours I think, so this might be your most important item.
>
>
> Thanks. I have posted a message on Rockbox as I am not sure if it
> could start automaticaly a new recording when the file size gets 2GB.

AFAIK nearly all of the portables will start a new file, most of them are adjustable as to how often that happens (1G, 2G, number of hours, etc.) What I'm not sure of is how long they will record in total--I seem to remember some limits in some of the firmware (10 hours, something like that.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"George" <st_gf37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
>
> Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that records
> on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?
>
> Preferably small.

If this is speech, the generally accepted standards for good intelligibility
are 8kb/s. This results in 288 hours/GB. Therefore a 1200MB file will hold
2 weeks of speech.

I have an iRiver IFP-799, a very small recorder that will hold 1000MB, or
288 hours of speech. Unfortunately, it's battery operated, and the battery
won't last 288 hours. You could get close by substituting a D cell for the
AA cell it normally uses, but this would double the size of the recorder,
which isn't as large as a D cell to begin with!

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George,
It's within the realm of possibility on Pocket PC's.

You could use the Core Sound PDAudio at 16 bit 32kHz. You would need a
way of powering the preamp and drive for that long a time. I assume
that you will have AC power?

I would have to provide a modified version of Live2496 to break to a
new file at a user specified interval, but this is a planned
enhancement which is on my todo list.

You could use an 3800 or 5500 series iPAQ with a dual PCMCIA expansion
chassis and an 80gb laptop drive. Addonics has a case into which you
can put an 80gb drive. The case attaches to a PCMCIA device by a cable,
and the PCMCIA inserts into both an expansion pack or a laptop.

You might have to use Win98 to format the drive as Microsoft imposed
some limits with FAT32 (32gb ?) on Win2K and XP.

Gordon
http://www.gidluckmastering.com/live2496.html

Ed Anson wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> > In article <b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com>
st_gf37@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> >>Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that
records
> >>on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on a PC),
> >>which can record continuosly for 2 weeks - non stop?
> >
> >
> > All operating systems have some limit to maximum file size. I
suppose
> > the first think to look at is how low could you go in quality. If
you
> > record at a low sample rate and low resolution, then compress on
the
> > fly, you might be able to squeeze two weeks worth of recording into
> > something that an operating system could handle. But I don't have
the
> > knowledge or patience to run the numbers. Arny probably does. How
bad
> > would it have to be in order to fit a say 170 hours of recording
into
> > a gigabyte?
>
> It isn't necessary to fit all the sound into a single file. Some
> recorders automatically break a long take into multiple files on the
fly.
>
> At 32K/16 bit, a two week take would require 77.4 GB. That isn't
tiny,
> but is certainly within the limits of readily available disk drives.
>
> The Sound Devices 744T has a 60 GB capacity, so it almost gets there.
It
> also has an option (not quite ready yet) to compress to MP3 on the
fly.
> It may also be possible to fit it with a larger disk. That would make
it
> work admirably for the task. At 1.8" x 8.2" x 4.9" it is reasonably
> small, but it would require external power. It also mounts as a
FireWire
> drive, making its recording immediately available on a PC.
>
> Of course, the 744T isn't cheap, but the OP didn't specify any budget

> limitation ;-)
>
> >
> > Is your next question going to be about some software that can
> > recognize certain audio events, or do you actually plan to listen
to
> > this?
> >
> > Although it wouldn't be directly loadable into a PC, you might want
to
> > look into logging recorders. There are digital ones now, but the
old
> > analog ones ran 1/2" tape at 15/16 IPS and automatically switched
> > through 16 or more tracks at the end of a pass. Quality? You know
when
> > they play a 911 call on a crime or rescue TV show?
> >
> > --
> > I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> > However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> > lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> > you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> > and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
>
> If this is speech, the generally accepted standards for good
> intelligibility are 8kb/s.

Using some variant of CELP perhaps, but not using MP3.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"George" <st_gf37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b49df8f8.0502210810.4257d366@posting.google.com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:<WtednUDiqeln1ITfRVn-oA@comcast.com>...
>> "George" <st_gf37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b49df8f8.0502200558.675b884b@posting.google.com
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there any digital recorder, (and by that I mean anyone that
>>> records on a hard disk or RAM memory which could be then loaded on
>>> a PC), which can record continuously for 2 weeks - non stop?
>>>
>>> Preferably small.
>>
>> AFAIK the maximum length of a recording on a Nomad Jukebox 3
>> portable is primarily limited by disk space - which can easily reach
>> 60 GB. If you record using one of the low bitrate MP3 formats, the
>> data rate could be as low as 0.5 megs per minute or less. 60 GB
>> could then hold about 120,000 minutes of recorded audio. I believe
>> the resulting recording will span multiple files whose name is based
>> on a time-stamp related to when the particular segment file
>> commenced recording. I understand that there will be no
>> interruptions in the concatenation of these files.

> This may be a solution. Have you tried it yourself when you say that
> the length is limited by the hard disk. As others have mentioned, the
> file size is limited by the operating system or firmware.

No I haven't had to record somthing long enough to cause the generation of
mulitple files.

The files are limited in size as others have said, but the NJB3
automatically creates a new file when the old one gets too large.

 

[george]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks for the info.

 

[george]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,

I am afraid this is not true. ie that all portables start a new file
when the current gets big. I had an Ipod 40GB and could only write
upto a 2GB file, then it freezes.
Thats the problem..

 

[george]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

8Kbps I have tried but gives distorted sound. The min acceptable I found is 16Kbps.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <b49df8f8.0502230442.625638e8@posting.google.com>,
George <st_gf37@hotmail.com> wrote:
>8Kbps I have tried but gives distorted sound. The min acceptable I found is 16Kbps.

It's all a matter of tradeoffs. You can get better sound or you can get
longer running time. If you're recording police calls, you may want better
fidelity in order to catch off-mike chatter, than you would want if you
were recording a competing broadcast station where all you needed to do
was identify the songs.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."