And Zmixer, see my previous post.
In particular, are you able to record with mhWaveEdit? Lobster likes to record stuff, so it's a pity that recording does not seem seem to work on his hardware with ALSA 1.0.20 -- I hope that is not the common experience!
The 4.3beta3 forum feedback thread has some reports of audio problems, so we will probably need to upgrade the ALSA drivers for Puppy 4.4.
Probably stay with the same kernel version perhaps, Rerwin (and myself to a much lesser extent) has been through a long process of getting 3rd party drivers to compile with it.
Moving up to the latest in the 2.6.30.x series would be a reasonable thing to do. But then, you have to consider that there may be other 3rd party drivers compiled for 126.96.36.199, maybe by tempestuous, so there would be a big investment in staying with 188.8.131.52.
...but, this is a decision that the 4.4 coordinator would have to make.
Comments:Posted on 15 Sep 2009, 9:25 by dogone
mhWaveEdit / Sweep
I now find that both mhWaveEdit and Sweep work perfectly with my troublesome Chaintech Av710 PCI sound card. Of the two, I must say that Sweep is the far more capable and sophisticated. I'd *hate* to see Sweep dropped from 4.3. If doubt remains, let's please include both apps.
"Sweep works just fine here"
Posted on 15 Sep 2009, 9:46 by dogone
Users must understand that mwWaveEdit and Sweep recording differs fundamentally. Recording under mhWaveEdit is unlimited (dynamic). Recording under Sweep is performed "into" all or a portion of a new or pre-loaded sound file. Sweep will complain if a portion of the current file is not selected prior to recording. This has some advantages in that recordings can be "inserted" and can't grow beyond expectations/capacity. They also stop after a predefined period. This is ideal when recording LP's as recording will stop when the pre-defined time slot (20-30 min) has elapsed. Each approach has it's advantages but Sweep's great feature set makes it my preference.
Posted on 15 Sep 2009, 12:12 by joe
both worked ok for me in beta 3.
I use mhwaveedit often in puppy 412 and that is my
favorite between those two.
Posted on 15 Sep 2009, 12:48 by 01micko
Well I just tested both with a good quality dynamic mic and they both do a decent job of voice recording. Mhwaveedit is the simpler of the 2 and as such is more intuitive for someone not used to audio apps. Sweep on the other hand does have more features, good for an audiophile, (I'm with dogone! Both!). You can make a call on that assessment if you want!
Zmixer works fine and is a good inclusion for it's 10k.
Posted on 15 Sep 2009, 21:02 by eprv
Works nice for me could edit MP3 files, also zmixer works well, had no problems so far, nice theme stable as always and faster than ever
Posted on 16 Sep 2009, 3:36 by happypuppy
I also vote for Sweep - it has more / better features and feels much more like a standard wave editor.
Posted on 17 Sep 2009, 10:20 by playdayz
is Audacity that much huger than mhwavedit and sweep? Because it strikes me as a much better audio editing program.
Posted on 17 Sep 2009, 11:29 by ttuuxxx
I've compiled Audacity in the past and I can say it is a lot larger due to it use wxwidgets as a base. Sure its a much better audio editor but wx is too large by default for puppy. I would like to see one common wxwidgets base built for the repo. The problem occurs when we have like 8 different versions of wxwidgets floating around the forum and none of them are compatible with the next one, This is solely due to the fact that we don't have a main one in the repo. If it was to be compiled for the repo make sure it has unicode enabled, many newer wxwidget applications won't even compile without if you don't have it enabled during compiling.
So to answer your question playdayz Audacity would add a min of 3.5MB compressed extra :)
But on the other hand if save VLC 8.6h was recompiled again using WX+unicode and then Audacity, and you switched a few a few more other apps to wx version, it might be almost equal out.