[ARSCLIST] .BWF implementation

To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ARSCLIST] .BWF implementation
From: Ganesh.Irelan@xxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:19:04 -0400
Comments: To: ARSCLIST@loc.gov
In-reply-to: <ARSCLIST%200608030000058972.06D4@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
List-archive: <http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ARSCLIST>
List-help: <http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ARSCLIST>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV?body=INFO ARSCLIST>
List-owner: <mailto:ARSCLIST-request@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
List-subscribe: <mailto:ARSCLIST-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ARSCLIST-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Message-id: <45C11E774798F84E8A5172DED617CB3B0EA088@sms2.sym.org>
Reply-to: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>
Thread-index: Aca2sWeL0YTt1WkVT9KQYt5cdNWajAGmLd1g
Thread-topic: ARSCLIST Digest - 1 Aug 2006 to 2 Aug 2006 (#2006-209)

Is there a concensus as to the use of .BWF files for archiving or is it institution specific?  Although IASA TC-04 recommends it, my understanding is that different audio softwares have different implemenations.  Is it true that if I populate the header of a .BWF file in Wavelab and open it in another audio software the fields might be labelled / displayed differently or not at all?

Thank you.
Kevin

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ARSCLIST] .BWF implementation
  - From: Casey, Michael T

Prev by Date: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cataloguing again--more OCLC, AACR2 bashing
Next by Date: Re: [ARSCLIST] Recall: ^ [ARSCLIST] LP RECORD STORAGE
Previous by thread: Re: [ARSCLIST] Recall: ^ [ARSCLIST] LP RECORD STORAGE
Next by thread: Re: [ARSCLIST] .BWF implementation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Table of Contents]

[ARSCLIST] .BWF implementation

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]