I agree as well that 1 writesf~ is preferable.

Also, as you may or may not know, if you need *very long* audio recording support, you can try building the branch which includes the CAF file format which uses 64 bit indices:

https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/855 https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/855

Doing basic recording or playback of files > 4 GB should work, but accessing via sample position, etc won't work unless you also build Pd with double support otherwise Pd's internal float will clip your larger sample indices.

I'm hoping for this branch to be integrated in the next Pd version, so it would be great if more people can test it. It also includes a number of bug fixes, better format handling, etc.

On Sep 29, 2020, at 12:00 PM, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote:

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:08:54 -0700 From: Josh Moore <kh405.7h30ry@gmail.com mailto:kh405.7h30ry@gmail.com> To: Fede Camara Halac <camarafede@gmail.com mailto:camarafede@gmail.com> Cc: "pd-list@lists.iem.at mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at" <pd-list@lists.iem.at mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at> Subject: Re: [PD] multichannel vs many stereo writesf objects? Message-ID: <CA+AZ=uoeLO6pYOkR+=bDhPie6ZQ9L68S42Fc66=Rm7RLGTiQWQ@mail.gmail.com mailto:CA+AZ=uoeLO6pYOkR+=bDhPie6ZQ9L68S42Fc66=Rm7RLGTiQWQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

One writesf~ is better.

If you want to extract the wavs to their own track, well they're basically broadcast wavs. I'm quite fond of BWF.

Just be aware that it's 32 bit unless they've updated it to 64 bit wav and you'll have a 4 gb size limit which for multichannel wavs uses up rather quickly.

Dan Wilcox @danomatika http://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/