[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] BWF RF64



I can say from the NARAS P&E Wing Deliverables Committee's perspective, the next revision of the document will note the progress made with multichannel BWF implementation, but it will NOT be a recommended archival format.

Until we can clearly see it in the field, supported by all platforms, then a change in wording will be considered.

Again, the document can be found here:
http://www.grammy.com/Recording_Academy/Producers_And_Engineers/ Guidelines/


John Spencer

jspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sep 4, 2007, at 10:51 PM, Parker Dinkins wrote:

on 9/4/07 9:28 PM US/Central, Konrad Strauss at konrad.strauss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:


When we did our tests, about a year ago, RF64 was supported only by Wavelab,
Cubase, Nuendo, and Pro Tools would not recognize the file as audio. We did
not test Adobe Audition and Soundforge. This may have changed since then.

While it's quite true that not all applications today support broadcast wave
files greater than 4GB, I would suggest that the above list is not complete,
and some of the limitations today may even be imposed by the operating
system itself.


It's pretty clear to me that this limitation will be history very soon, so
if your application can handle it, then it makes no sense to force edits on
future generations. IMHO, of course.


If you have to distribute files today for 100% compatibility, then certainly
it makes sense to find out what the limitations of the particular client are
today - but if I'm not mistaken, SADiE, Sequoia, and Pyramix can handle BWF
4GB now.

With multichannel sound becoming more common place, the 4GB barrier can't be
defended much longer. See http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm? elib=13092
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF64


--
Parker Dinkins
MasterDigital Corporation
Audio Restoration + CD Mastering
http://masterdigital.com



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