| Author |
 Topic 
|
dwiller
Posts: 29
|
 Posted - Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:47 pm
|
|
|
I'm looking into being able to use Cool Edit 2000 for cleaning up voice recordings of seminars. I currently do this with sermons and I love the capabilities Cool Edit gives me.
The difference here is I'd like to record the seminars on portable digital voice recorders and then offload the recordings into Cool Edit for trimming, cleanup, etc.
My question is: Does anyone know of a good digital voice recorder that will do the job adaquetly? I see that some of them use DSS audio and I wonder if Cool Edit can work with that.
My idea of an ideal digital voice recorder is as follows: $100 to perhaps $150. 2 - 4 hour record capability. USB 2.0 (not 1.1) interface. A driverless Windows interface (Shows up as an external drive like the Creative Labs MuVo). Some file format that Cool Edit can deal with. A rather directional microphone that picks up mostly the speaker would be nice. Does something close to this exist?
|
|
ozpeter
Location: Australia
Posts: 3200
|
|
Posted - Mon Mar 10, 2003 5:02 pm
|
|
|
I doubt it! I think most products remotely like this are intended for dictation-type applications and the speaker needs to be pretty close to get any kind of clarity. The only low cost method I can think of with adequate quality is minidisc - 160' in low speed mode I think, maybe twice that in mono (I'm getting out of touch) but no high-speed transfer to PC. For that I think you'd be looking at an audio CD recorder but then you've got to add at least a preamp for the mic, and your best running time is 80 mins of course.
- Ozpeter
|
|
dwiller
Posts: 29
|
|
Posted - Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:08 pm
|
|
|
To anyone who might be interested:
Since initially posting this topic I have indeed found a voice recorder that nicely fits the description above. It's a myvoice digital recorder by Sora (www.sorainc.com). I've got the DMR-918SU which has 8 1/2 hours recording capacity in normal mode. It has a USB (not 2.0 unfortunately but the files are small enough that it's plenty fast) connection for transferring to the PC. It comes with a lapel mic (and other accessories) and retails for around $130. The included software does a good job of converting their proprietary audio files into WAV files.
|
|
Wildduck
Posts: 466
|
|
Posted - Tue Apr 29, 2003 12:45 pm
|
|
|
I'd be interested to know what format and bit depth etc. this Sora device records in, and what format the files are saved to the PC.
Uncompressed wave files that are only 4 megs per hour must surely sound pretty rough?
|
|
zemlin
Location: USA
Posts: 1156
|
|
Posted - Tue Apr 29, 2003 2:02 pm
|
|
|
What do you plan to do with these recordings when you are finished with them? How much of a concern is audio quality?
The value of "digital" recording will be greatly diminished when the data is captured at a low sampling rate, low bit depth, and compressed to death in a little digital recorder. You might very well be better off with cheapo cassette recorders if you want something simple and compact.
|
|
dwiller
Posts: 29
|
|
Posted - Tue Apr 29, 2003 2:14 pm
|
|
|
|
They use a proprietary VWD format which their software converts it to WAV files. I don't have Cool Edit in front of me here but according to Windows XP, the WAV file has a 16 bit depth and 7 KHz sample rate. If I remember correctly, Cool Edit shows an actual sample rate of 6226. It's better quality than what comes through a telephone but you can tell it's missing some frequencies. I convert it to a 22050/16 bit mono and then do some noise reduction and hard limiting to it. I need to experiment with reverb and equalization yet. I'd be glad to send you a sample if you like.
|
|
zemlin
Location: USA
Posts: 1156
|
|
Posted - Tue Apr 29, 2003 2:18 pm
|
|
|
| zemlin wrote: |
| What do you plan to do with these recordings when you are finished with them? How much of a concern is audio quality? |
|
|
dwiller
Posts: 29
|
|
Posted - Tue Apr 29, 2003 2:24 pm
|
|
|
|
The end product will be cassette tapes of the seminars. It doesn't need to be superb audio quality, just a decent recording.
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Tue Apr 29, 2003 3:37 pm
|
|
|
| dwiller wrote: |
| They use a proprietary VWD format which their software converts it to WAV files. I don't have Cool Edit in front of me here but according to Windows XP, the WAV file has a 16 bit depth and 7 KHz sample rate. If I remember correctly, Cool Edit shows an actual sample rate of 6226. It's better quality than what comes through a telephone but you can tell it's missing some frequencies. |
We've already discussed this in the other thread, but on that basis, I'd get the cassette recorders back! 'Missing some frequencies' has to be the understatement of the decade  .
Alternatively, send it to VoodooRadio for some turd polishing.
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
|
Posted - Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:31 pm
|
|
|
All those years of study and O.J.T. and I finally made it...... "Official" Turd Polisher!!!  This is such a proud moment for me, I don't know where to begin thanking all those who made it possible!! 
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
 |
|
|
|
dwiller
Posts: 29
|
|
Posted - Tue Apr 29, 2003 8:46 pm
|
|
|
|
Here's a sample file from the voice recorder mentioned above. I'm not an audio expect but this sounds like adaquate quality for my purposes. www.chapeloaks.org/trial.mp3
|
|
zemlin
Location: USA
Posts: 1156
|
|
Posted - Tue Apr 29, 2003 9:10 pm
|
|
|
|
If it works for you, I guess that's all that counts. Based on that sample, I'd use tape.
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:40 pm
|
|
|
Given the sample has also been mangled by MP3, it's not so bad - at least as far as intelligibility is concerned. If this is sufficiently good for your purpose, then fine.
However, I don't think our 'official' turd polisher would be able to improve on the quality - that's about as good as you are ever going to get it.
|
|
Bobbsy
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 327
|
|
Posted - Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:12 pm
|
|
|
Hmmm...I'd have to be REALLY interested in the topic to listen to an hour or two of that quality. If I were you I'd still give Minidisk a try. Intelligible doesn't necessarily mean easy or pleasant to listen to.
Bob
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
|
Posted - Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:16 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't think our 'official' turd polisher would be able to improve on the quality |
Your probably right! I am a Master "turd" Polisher, but some turds are worse than others.
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:02 pm
|
|
|
| Bobbsy wrote: |
| Hmmm...I'd have to be REALLY interested in the topic to listen to an hour or two of that quality. |
I took it as a given that anyone listening to this stuff would be interested enough in the first place. Since these are seminars (of some sort or another) I assume this would be the case.
I agree the quality is apalling, but the words are clear - which may be all that is required.
|
|
| |
Topic
|
All Forums
Digital Voice Recorders
