[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] .BWF implementation
Kevin,
I think that you have misinterpeted the info. First, the .bwf extension is incorrect, BWF files use the .wav extension. BWF files are actually simply microsoft .wav files with an extra chunk - the broadcast extension chunk which contains all of the BWF data. If a program does not support BWF it will still play BWF files., the broadcast extension will be ignored. Any program which supports .wav will play BWF files.
There is near universal support for BWF now, mainly so a timestamp can be transferred between DAWs. Prior to BWF most DAWs used a propriatary method for storing the timestamp in a soundfile, and the timestamp would rarely transfer. BWF fixed this so now you can record in one DAW, open the file in a second and it'll drop iinto the same spot in the timeline. Pro Tools has adopted BWF as the "recommended" format for recording, though it has no way to edit the BWF header data.
Konrad
----- Original Message -----
From: Ganesh.Irelan@xxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, August 12, 2006 9:41
Subject: [ARSCLIST] .BWF implementation
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Judging from the lack of clarity about it on this list, whether
> players will play files with the .bwf extension, metadata fields
> that vary depending on the software used, etc., it sounds to me
> like .bwf is not yet ready for prime time.
>
> The fact that "it is the ONLY international standard audio file
> format" is meaningless if manufacturers don't support it.
> Although I wish it were otherwise, if we professionals are not
> completely clear about it I have to question its suitability for
> archival storage at this time.
>
> Kevin
>