No I am not. Just because you don't use the term the way I am using
it does not mean my use is incorrect. In fact it means that your use
is too rigid to embrace alterative equally valid uses.
Sorry but standard terms are not ego-centric. It doesn't
matter what you'd "like" to call something. There is not
alternative equally valid uses, this is the whole core
concept behind standardization of terms, explicitly to avoid
these kinds of issues.
I think if I have a hard drive with a WAV file on it and I feed the
WAV file into the XP mixer alongside alterative sources such as Line
Input and Mic Input then it can be fairly called a source. if it
help you then think of the hard drive being outside the PC box and
powered from an independent sopurce such as HDDs from people like
lacie. I call that a source.
The source in a generalized way might be considered the
"computer" in a general audio context since computers are
separate pieces of equipment nonessential to audio. In a
computing environment, the source is the audio device
itself, the sound card or the (motherboard) integrated audio
subsystem, hardware.
This does not change based upon what you'd "like" to call
them instead. If I "liked" to call a hard drive, a "CPU"
instead, would it be reasonable? Of course not. You just
don't yet realize the same applies.
I take my tape recorder, which is mono, and I store the audio signal
from the tape recorder on the PC on one channel of a stereo signal.
"Store" it?
It would be good to be more specific.
And this is where the problem originates .
A tape recorder with mono, one channel output, should be
connected to one input on the audio device in the PC- the
left channel. It is then recorded in mono, not stereo.
The signa was mono as seen by the tape recorder as it left the tape
recorder but when it enters the PC it is one channel of a stereo
pair.
No, the PC has two channel input. IF you record both
channels as stereo, you have a problem because you don't
have a two channel output from the source.
That is why it is not only pointless, but even in some cases
problematic to record stereo, two channels where there are
not two channels.
Do not record in stereo, it is not a stereo signal(s).
That is what I did but there is no confusion because the recording
utlity I have available will only record on one channel. Hence my
request for something which will take that recording and play it
through both the channels of the the sereo replay. See mt original
post.
No, it is recording both channels but you have signal on
only one.
Read slowly and carefully because I'm NOT going tell you
again this basic necessary fact, the entire answer to your
problem: You are recording in stereo, you are recording two
channels and that is the problem. The second channel is
being recorded without any signal from the source. The only
thing you need to do, should do, is not record in stereo.
"Record in stereo" means your CHOICE of what to do, not what
it does. So, you change the settings in the recording
software. If the software is crude, crippled and has no
such adjustment then pick one of the myriad softwares that
has this basic, common setting.
I agree but if the utlity does not permit it then I post to the
Usenet and ask "Is it possible to take an audio source which is mono
on ONE channel and play it as mono through BOTH channels".
What utility again?
When any normal audio recording (capable) software records a
mono, single channel, it creates a one channel audio file.
That is the goal. When stereo devices play back a one
channel audio file (at least common ones, like a PC), the
mono is output to both "stereo" channels, the left and
right, not only one. The only time the mono is output to
only one of the two channels on a PC is if it was not
recorded as mono but as stereo.
In short, it's not a stereo signal, don't record as stereo.
If that quotation is a struggle for you then think of it like this
"Is it possible to make an audio source which is mono (AND RECORDED
ON ONLY one channel) and play it as mono (IN THE SENSE OF THE SAME
SIGNAL COMING through BOTH channels)?
You need to just do what I told you. It's not going to make
sense to you till you do it, apparently.
[I have used capitals to make it easier to see what I have added to
help with the comprehension.]
Hope you get it now.
I'm not the clueless one here.
You have two problems:
You are choosing to record two channels when you only have
one. You are choosing to ignore standard terms and try to
argue as if you know what you are doing when clearly you do
not- as this is a very basic task.
