[Sugar-devel] Advice request: XO sound recording

[Art Hunkins]

Daniel,

Thanks for the response. I see now that Record-79 (and thereabouts) does
indeed output (for audio) Vorbis rather than Speex.

I was confused because I was working with previous versions - namely 66 and
67, which do output Speex. This is because I have serious problems with 79 
on
all systems, 0.84 - 0.88 SoaS (as well as 0.84 on the XO-1.5).

My problems with v79 are these:
0.84 (SoaS and XO-1.5): a less than 2' recording is saved at the *end* of a 
2' file, with
silence to fill in up to 2' preceding the sound. Also, the substantial 
opening
record click (noise burst) is included in the recording (a concluding
burst is not). The recording fidelity is very good.

0.86-88: after pressing stop while recording, the program fails; if it is
saving, it never returns, nor records an *audio* entry to the Journal. 
Otherwise the activity exits normally.

The error log shows a plethora of the following entry:
1286135487.049402 ERROR record:glive.py: Buffer overrun in audioqueue (500 
buffers, 160000 bytes, 5000000000 time)

I'd very much like to use Record-79, with its good fidelity and its ability 
to save Vorbis files to the Journal; so I hope these issues can be dealt 
with.

Eight weeks ago I filed a ticket 2147 describing issues found with Record. 
I'll follow up with another bug report specifying the above.

Art Hunkins

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Drake" <dsd at laptop.org>
To: "Art Hunkins" <abhunkin at uncg.edu>
Cc: <sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org>
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Advice request: XO sound recording


> On 30 September 2010 23:33, Art Hunkins <abhunkin at uncg.edu> wrote:
>> The Record activity is a natural for recording audio, and I had thought
>> it
>> would be the appropriate vehicle. I've recently discovered that it only
>> produces Ogg Speex files, not the higher-quality Ogg Vorbis variety.
>
> Please double check this.
>
> I'm pretty certain that it saves as vorbis and just confirmed that
> with a glance at the code.
>
> Daniel