Re: [ARSCLIST] .BWF implementation

["Casey, Michael T" <micasey@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andy,

The .bwf extension is an incorrect adaptation by some software
manufacturers--it should not be used and software should not, and should
never have been, able to add this extension. This is from the users
guide at
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/publications/userguides/bwf_user_guide.ph
p

Is the file extension for a BWF file ".bwf"?
No, even if this is what you might expect. The extension should be
".wav" because this is mandatory for all WAVE files. The BWF is a
special WAVE file. If you use any other extension, some computers may
not be able to play out the audio. This also implies that any earlier
extensions have to be replaced 

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of andy kolovos
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 12:49 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] .BWF implementation

A related question--

Do specs define the file extension that should be used (.bwf or .wav) 
when creating BWF files?  One can create a BWF with either extension, 
and it was my understanding that the standards for WAV and BWF were 
being merged and the .bwf extension was being retired--although I heard 
this a couple of years ago and have not heard much else about it since.

andy

-- 

Andy Kolovos
Archivist/Folklorist
Vermont Folklife Center
3 Court Street ; P.O. Box 442
Middlebury, VT 05753
(802) 388-4964
akolovos @ vermontfolklifecenter.org
http://www.vermontfolklifecenter.org