Convert streaming audio to .WAV? No!, It looks like it works, but .wav file is silent. |
  |
Convert streaming audio to .WAV? No!, It looks like it works, but .wav file is silent. |
 Dec 1 2006, 14:13
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 29460  |
Hi, I'm using v0.9.4 beta 3 and must say, Foobar2000 Rocks! Great work guys. ;-)
That said, I noticed a little bug. You can attempt to convert a streaming audio source to .wav, and it appears to work, but records nothing. The stream I tried this with was: http://195.225.8.195:7090/ Obviously it would be great if we had the ability to record live streams, but if that's going to be too difficult to implement then some measure should be put in place to alert the user that this won't work (or just disallow trying to convert a stream to a file.) This is important because a person could spend hours thinking they are "recording" something, when in fact nothing was recorded. Regards, Mark This post has been edited by Mr.Enigma: Dec 1 2006, 14:23 |
 |
 
|
 Dec 1 2006, 15:06
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 326 Joined: 30-September 05 From: London, Europe Member No.: 24805 |
Since the latest Foobar version is 0.9.4.2 I suggest you update first, it may be fixed already.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2006, 18:29
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 346 Joined: 21-August 02 Member No.: 3138 |
It's always better to capture a stream in it's native format rather than recording the decoded (WAV) audio. The stream you reference is 64kbps MP3 PRO. You would be wasting many bit and bytes by storing the WAV file. There are many programs that do stream captures. I use Net Transport, and recommend it highly.
BTW, does foobar handle MP3PRO ok? I looked at it years ago and decided that it had nothing to offer over Winamp. I should probably look again. -------------------- [url=http://www.domain.com]Click here![/url]
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2006, 01:18
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 565 Joined: 26-February 06 Member No.: 28077 |
QUOTE (woody_woodward @ Dec 1 2006, 09:29)  It's always better to capture a stream in it's native format rather than recording the decoded (WAV) audio. The stream you reference is 64kbps MP3 PRO. You would be wasting many bit and bytes by storing the WAV file. are you sure? wav is a lossless format meaning that there should be 0 loss when converting from one format to wav. unless the decoder/writer does something to the wav, the data should be the same bit by bit. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2006, 01:22
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Super Moderator Posts: 4336 Joined: 23-June 06 Member No.: 32180 |
I don't actually know if foobar allows stream ripping any more.
QUOTE are you sure? wav is a lossless format meaning that there should be 0 loss when converting from one format to wav. unless the decoder/writer does something to the wav, the data should be the same bit by bit. Aside from rounding errors/differences, I suppose that this is true. But this is not what the poster was saying: instead, they were asking (perfectly validly): why use more space when you could instead capture the raw ("native") stream? Save space and keep the file in the original format. A win/win! This post has been edited by dv1989: Dec 2 2006, 02:15 |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2006, 02:55
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 565 Joined: 26-February 06 Member No.: 28077 |
my mistake. i misread his post and i believed that by wasting bits and bytes , he was refering to the quality and not the filesize.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2006, 02:56
Post
#7
|
|
|
Group: Super Moderator Posts: 4336 Joined: 23-June 06 Member No.: 32180 |
No worries; we're both right, really
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th May 2013 - 20:14 |
