Rejoining split files

[nmcconnell1]

This topic does not appear to have been previously discussed. Using DCart 10.62, I was recording a wav file in 96/24, and ran up against the 2 GB file size limit. The file was split into part1 and part2, but now I need to rejoin them. I thought perhaps I could use the Batch Editor and run the Concatenation Filter, adding the names of the two files, and doing Run Batch. It does something, but then I get an error message. A part3 wav file is created, but it consists of a duplicate of part 1. What am I doing wrong? Thanks!

[Craig Maier]

I think that you copy one of the files to the clipboard and then paste add (edit menu) it to the end (or beginning) of the other file. But, I could be wrong as I have not used that function lately.

Craig

[Craig Maier]

Maybe you need to reduce the files down to size first, like converting them to 44.1 kHz and then using the step that I outlined above.

[nmcconnell1]

I just tried that. I may just be out of luck. When I tried to do a paste-insert of second file to the end of the first, it told me, "Cannot perform the insert. The resulting wave file would exceed to the 2GB file size limitations of the wave file format." So, I assume that DCart 10.62 simply cannot accommodate files over 2GB. The music file was truncated at 1.99GB in part 1, leaving 951MB for part 2.

[nmcconnell1]

As far as your second suggestion, that would solve the problem, but it's a shame to have to [arguably] degrade the quality of the original recording.

[nmcconnell1]

Or, I could re-record at the 96/24 res-bitrate, but stop after each song, process and save it, then go on to the next.

[Craig Maier]

The operating system may not be able to handle file sizes greater than a certain value (2 GBytes?). But, I think it quite safe to say that 24 bit resolution does nothing for you when it has 144 dB of dynamic range (your hearing has at most around 70 dB of dynamic range) and 96 kHz yields 48 kHz in audio bandwidth (your hearing will extend at most to 20 kHz. So, what is the point of 24 bits and 96 kHz? CDs are 16 bits and 44.1 kHz and sound better than .mp3s which most people are satisfied with. For better quality than .mp3s (at 324 kBPS) just use .wav (linear pcm) 16 bit, 44.1 kHz sample rate. Nothing audible to a human being will be lost using that format.

[nmcconnell1]

Yes, that's the argument that digital music fans have wrestled with for years now. Some poor souls can't hear the difference between 128 kbps mp3 and CD, while there are a few people who, under double-blind A-B listening tests in a laboratory, can distinguish between CD-quality and higher resolution. I'm not one of either group, and am perfectly happy with CD-quality. All things being equal though, it's fun to play with the concept of "more." It's like, for example, if a particular distillery made a 15-year-old and a 20-year-old single malt Scotch, and someone offered me my pick, I would go for the 20-year-old, even though I probably couldn't tell the difference.

[Craig Maier]

I would not want to pay for the 20 year olde Scotch, since I know that I can not tell the difference. The price one pays in the audio world is storage space when one chooses anything beyond 44.1 kHz and 16 bit resolution. The facts about both Scotch and unusual audio formats can easily be proven or disproved by way of blind tests. My limit of discernment (with my wife administering the test) is 44.1 kHz, 16 bit, linear pcm. (As for Scotch, my limit of discernment is Johnny Walker Black - - - have tasted blue, but can not discern the difference between Black and Blue - - - well, except for what happens to my wallet).