Re: [ARSCLIST] BWF RF64

[John Spencer <js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Parker,

I certainly did not mean to infer that you did not know the  
difference between the two documents, so sorry if that was implied in  
my post.

The work of the P&E Wing Deliverables Committee (and this document is  
also published by the AES) is relatively proactive, in that our co- 
chair George Massenburg has a very good working relationship with  
both AES and EBU, and the committee tries to stay on top of these  
types of issues as best as we possibly can.

Regarding interchange vs. audio preservation, my personal view is  
that in a digital environment, pervasiveness and open standards of  
digital preservation file formats should be the primary goal.  
Interchange between platforms is an additional side benefit.

Best,
John

jspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxx


On Sep 5, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Parker Dinkins wrote:

> on 9/5/07 4:44 PM US/Central, John Spencer at  
> js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> Well, then I misunderstood (I am quite aware of the distinction).
>
> I thought Eric's question dealt with audio preservation, not  
> interchange
> standards for commercial born-digital recordings.
>
> --
> Parker Dinkins
> MasterDigital Corporation
> Audio Restoration + CD Mastering
> http://masterdigital.com