Re: [ARSCLIST] Saving large files in Sound Forge *

["Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:49 PM 2008-05-12, Eric Jacobs wrote:
> On Monday, May 12, 2008 6:25 PM, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>
> > I think we should try and standardize on the RF64 format.
> > I have not studied where all this is standardized, but
> > EBU is a good place to start.
>
> Like Richard, I too am a proponent of RF64 BWF for archival
> work.  However, until RF64 BWF is supported more universally
> and consistently, we only use RF64 BWF as an intermediate
> format for capture, and then split the RF64 BWF into <2GB
> BWF files for archiving.

Yes, Eric, that is a good point. I only deliver RF64 files to those 
clients who specifically wish them.

We're seeing more metadata delivered separately than embedded these 
days as that is easier to copy from a TXT file that we provide 
directly into the client's asset management system than to copy from 
the BEXT chunk in the BWAV file. It is also a faster workflow for us.

As to RF64 support, it's in Samplitude 10.0.2 and WaveLab 6.1. 
Hopefully, Samplitude 10.1 will be out soon as there are some minor 
issues with BWAV support in 10.0.1 and fewer in 10.0.2, but still 
one. There appeared to be an issue with BWAV support in WaveLab 6.0 
that caused it to think some of the Samplitude 10.0.1 files were 
corrupt, while the same file would open in WaveLab 6.1 without a 
warning. All of this centres around how the various metadata chunks 
are written.

Cheers,

Richard


Richard L. Hess                   email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.