Re: how do i chop wav files with sox
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 04:29:34PM +0100, David Wright wrote:
> Quoting Carel Fellinger (cfelling@iae.nl):
>
> > To me a track is (in the context of burning cd's) the entity that is
> > burned on a cd in TrackAtOnce (TAO) mode. The CD-standard prescribes
> > two second pauses in between those tracks. There are some writers
> > that can produce gaps of different length (even 0), but not many.
>
> Yes, but you are supposed to be able to eliminate the gaps by
> recording in DAO mode (disc-at-once), and I think the fiddle is
> that the track indicator is put into the previous track two seconds
> before the end.
Are you talking of pre-gaps here? They are not prescribed. Bear with
me if I'm a little to verbose, and let me ramble on a little more:
When you burn in TAO-mode, the burner _itself_ adds two seconds gaps
between the blurbs it has to burn, as prescribed by the standard. But
there are some burners that allow you to specify the length of this
automatically added gap, and some of those even allow for a zero
lengthed gap.
The blurbs written in TAO may all be composed of several wav-files.
For each blurb all the wav-files it contains are concatenated and
burned as if it were one big wav-file.
DAO is quit a different beast. It writes only one big blurb to disc.
If you specify to write several wav-files (audio-tracks) then all of
those wav-files are simply concatenated and burned to disc as if it
where one big wav-file. So actually DAO resembles TAO for one track.
And for both modes the TOC (generated by the burning software) tells
were the audio-tracks are located on disc. In DAO it's quit costumary
to have several TOC entries pointing into the one blurb written, but
nothing stops you from doing the same in TAO (if the software allows
it, that is.) In the end it's up to the burning software what gets
written into the TOC; it specifies the automatically generated gaps
in TAO mode as pre-gaps, but there is no need to specify pre-gaps
otherwise.
But then, there are some old players, who misinterpreted the standard
and (try to) add silence gaps in between all TOC entries:(
All the above is as I recall to have read somewhere, so...
...
> You may be saying the same thing.
maybe, but I'm in a verbose mode today, so I rambled on:)
...
> Fair enough. I thought you were talking about the second level of
> audio index points, within the audio tracks.
Ah, second level indexes, not many a player can cope with those.
> BTW when splitting wav files, Jake, it's important to make sure they're
> broken at 2352-byte boundaries so you don't get gaps between them.
Good Advice, as some burners choke on inappropriate sized blurbs!
--
groetjes, carel
Reply to: