Hello,
I think it's a problem that in 'messy' situations you don't have
feedback from writesf~ to know/see that the recording is
happening. With 'messy' I mean situations where you aren't fully
concentrated on recording, for example: simultaneously performing
on stage and making a multichannel recording, moderating a meeting
and at the same time recording it. I have noticed that after some
of these messy situations, I didn't have a recording or a channel
was missing/silent. I tested writesf~ and here are some
observations:
A) if you send a [stop( message to writesf~ after [open( the
recording doesn't start but there is no error message (in the main
Pd window); next, if you send [start( there is an error message
and no recording.
B) if you send [start( -and thus start the recording-, next switch
off the DSP, switch it on again, the recording automatically
continues (from the moment the DSP has been switched on again). No
error message is printed.
C) if during a recording, the DSP is switched off and the patch
-with writesf~- is also closed, the recording stops of course but
no panic: the recorded file is OK and available to be read. No
error message is printed.
D) If you send a second [start( message during the recording, an
error message is printed but in fact the recording continues
without any problems.
E) If you send [open(, next [start( when the DSP is off, the
recording doesn't start but no error message is printed. Next,
when you switch on the DSP, the recording automatically starts.
F) If the signal connection going to writesf~ is broken, the recording starts without an error message, but the recorded file will be useless: it only has zeroes.
G) If no signal at all is connected to writesf~ it still records
(zeroes) if the DSP is on. No error message or warning is printed.
B) & C) & E) are great ! I think D) & A) are a bit strange and in situation F) & G) it would be better that the recording wouldn't start or at least give some kind of error or warning message).
So here is my feature request:
Hans