Hi, there,

I'm doing voice recording, and I bought the iriver h340, a high end
model with a
sony ecm-ms907 mike. I'm a prosumer/nonprofessional kind of person, but
committed to good quality.

H340 is a high end mp3 player with recording capability, plus lots of
settings for recording.

I've used the ihp-140 (an older model) and found it suitable for my
purposes. It recorded .wav files just fine. Both h340 and ihp-140 play
different bit rates for mp3's

112, 128, 160, 192, etc

in the h340 it goes up to 320 bps, which is pretty damn good high
quality.

Then, my ihp140 broke, and I needed something new.

Unfortunately, after buying h340, I didn't notice that iriver removed
the record-to-wav feature. Instead all I have is 320bps. Presumably I
would have to transcode from 320bps to .wav and then do my editing
there, and then render it however I want.

Am I losing very much here? I know transcoding is very ugly, but
someone on the iriver list said they're both high quality formats, and
that the loss is not significant (especially considering that it's to
voice).

I'm going to play around with recording tonight, but can does anyone
agree with this advice-giver for my purposes. Aside from detecting
things with my own ears, what kind of things should I look out for?

What is the biggest danger to doing this?

Robert Nagle
idiotprogrammer

"idiotprogrammer" wrote in message


Am I losing very much here? I know transcoding is very ugly, but
someone on the iriver list said they're both high quality formats, and
that the loss is not significant (especially considering that it's to
voice).

I'm going to play around with recording tonight, but can does anyone
agree with this advice-giver for my purposes. Aside from detecting
things with my own ears, what kind of things should I look out for?

What is the biggest danger to doing this?


Althopugh 320kbps is very good, and damage is already done. Simply loading
it into most editors essentially does the decoding (must be linear PCM in
order to edit....), and a WAV is a straight save from there.

Where you may start to notice degradation is a subsequent encoding to MP3,
WMA, or whatever from there....

geoff

"idiotprogrammer" wrote in message
oups.com...

I'm doing voice recording ... with a sony ecm-ms907 mike.
....
Unfortunately, after buying h340, I didn't notice that iriver removed
the record-to-wav feature. Instead all I have is 320bps. Presumably I
would have to transcode from 320bps to .wav and then do my editing
there, and then render it however I want.

Am I losing very much here? I know transcoding is very ugly, but
someone on the iriver list said they're both high quality formats, and
that the loss is not significant (especially considering that it's to
voice).

I'd guess you'd hit the limitations of the microphone before the limitations
of the recording format.

Tim

"idiotprogrammer" writes:
[...]
Presumably I would have to transcode from 320bps to .wav and then do
my editing there, and then render it however I want.

Hi idiotprogrammer,

Just a nit, but the term "transcoding" is usually reserved for
a conversion from one compressed format to another. Usually
converting from compressed data to linear data is simply
called "decoding."
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr