[Table of Contents]


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

Re: [ARSCLIST] BWF RF64



The Grammy Foundation methodology standard is not the same document as the Producers and Engineers Wing Deliverables document I referenced. The Grammy Foundation document pulls some information from the P&E Wing document (see Resources, page 5).

The P&E Wing doc is meant to be used as a guideline for commercial born-digital recordings (of which many exceed the 4GB topic raised by Eric in his initial post).

IASA TC-04 (see page 7, section 2.8) references "EBU Tech 3285", with no further mention other than page 65 (Section 6.6.2.2) which mentions stereo interleaved files.

John

jspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sep 5, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Parker Dinkins wrote:

Eric -

The current Grammy Foundation methodology standard for preservation can be
found here:


http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Foundation/Grants/08_forms/2008_A- P_Methodology
_R3.pdf


It was revised in May 2007, calls for uncompressed Broadcast Wave files as
the ideal methodology.


The methodology has been updated yearly for a while, and is based on IASA
TC-03 and TC-04. The above PDF was revised in May 2007. It would be
interesting to see what the IASA standards say about BWF > 4GB.


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





on 9/5/07 12:37 PM US/Central, Eric Jacobs at EricJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:


Thank you for that excellent Grammy reference (dated
May 27th, 2003).

The precise wording can be found at the bottom of page 6:

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording_Academy/ Producers_And_Engineers/Deliver
yRecs.pdf


and reads:

   "2 It is unclear at this time whether the specification of
   the Broadcast Wave File format can be amended to explicitly
   include multi-channel (for numbers of channels > 2) files
   in time for release of this document. Also, BWF files with
   more channels are more likely to exceed the FAT32 maximum
   file size of 2gbytes. When the BWF Standard is so amended
   it is understood that this document will be updated to
   include multichannel content in BWF files."


Although this document is over 4 years old and was written when MBWF (RF64) was still in the specification stage, now that MBWF is well defined and even supported by a few vendors (most notably Steinberg with Nuendo, Cubase and Wavelab), I still have to agree with John and the folks at the Grammy Foundation that it is still too soon to support MBWF as an archival format. My own recent experiments bear out what others have noted in this thread: MBWF support and compatibility are still poor among vendors.

Practically speaking, MBWF is a great intermediate solution
for production work with large files, but it's not supported
widely enough to be used as an archival format.



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