RE: [AV Media Matters] Analogue vs digital tape stock

[Jim Lindner <jim@vidipax.com>]

We have been experimenting with BWF files here - and have run into a bit
of a problem on a practical basis. We are using a system that creates
them (vendor shall remain nameless for now), and we have indeed been
trying to open them to see the "plain text" - and that is not as easy at
it sounds. Any "normal" text editor like Microsoft Word chokes at the
size of the files - essentially they won't open the file (or we gave up
waiting). We tried Wordpad and got the same result. We resorted to the
most basic of editors - some of you will remember the vestigal DOS
editor EDLIN - and that opened the file but it is really not the way one
would choose to work with any file unless they had no other options
(there was a time.....)- - --. We then looked at that header - and while
it is indeed in ascii characters - there are MANY control characters
that make up ASCII - so the file is pretty difficult to manage. While
the file is ASCII it is certainly not human friendly. For example - we
wanted to get to the header information that shows the creator - While I
am sure that it is there - somewhere - it is very hard to figure out how
you can do something with it. We are going to get a LINUX box in here
after the holidays - throw it on the network, and then try to edit the
file using some more powerful UNIX utilities - which probably will work.
We figure we can GREP the file and pipe it to a filter of some sort and
try to figure it all out - but again this is not what most people could
or would want to do.

Has anyone really tried to open a BWF file and looked inside? It it not
as easy as it would seem.

jim
ian_gilmour@screensound.gov.au wrote:
>
>Don't despair Jeff, modern technology is at hand!
>For mono or stereo, much of the world has standardised on broadcast wave
>format or BWF files which are an extension of the original riff, aiff
>and
>wave formats. They're universally re-readable without any special
>software
>or hardware, and hence eminently migratable, which is the  secret to
>digital preservation. Now that data storage media are less than US$1 per
>GB
>it's even worth converting some of the more problematic video formats.
>Remember that the data is all that matters, your drives and media only
>have
>to last for 3-5 years before they're replaced. As far as preserving
>hard-drives and PCs, this is not the easy way to a future - personally I
>would prefer to archive dead rats. BWF will support 24-bit quantising
>and
>96kHz sampling, but these won't play back in any old sound editor or
>audio
>driver. The current spec only supports 1 or 2 channel, although future
>versions should cope with multitrack. I've had to salvage DASH and PD
>which
>have not had a happy childhood - not a pretty sight [or sound].
>In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with a good 35mm mag or 2". A
>certain European manufacturer makes tapes which last for 40+ years.
>They've
>also made a few tapes which don't last as long so beware - make sure of
>the
>QC.
>Ian
>
>
>
>
>jeffkreines@mindspring.com on 19/12/2000 05:45:11
>
>Please respond to AV-Media-Matters@topica.com
>
>To:   AV Media Matters <AV-Media-Matters@topica.com>
>cc:
>Subject:  RE: [AV Media Matters] Analogue vs digital tape stock
>
>
>
>russm@idirect.com wrote:
>
>>I would never use old tape for archiving either (then again, I wouldn't
>use
>>digital tape either...but now I'm starting an arguement).
>
>So what is the best format for archiving multitrack 35mm mag recordings,
>like mixes?  Another generation of mag?  Digital multitrack?  Analog
>multitrack?
>
>And what about mono or stereo mag?  DAT? CD-R? ;-)  1/4" Analog with
>timecode or pilotone? Mag?  And if mag, who makes good mag stock these
>days?
>
>I recently duped a bunch of 1972 Nagra tapes to both TC DAT and CD-R for
>easy access (because I was losing the Nagra-T that I had).  But I know
>that the Nagra tapes will likely long outlast the digital dupes.
>
>Larry Black, who writes about sound for MIX magazine, suggests archiving
>the hard drives that contain the mix, as well as a computer with the
>appropriate software to recover this information.  It can be cheaper
>than
>maintaining mag stems for everything.  You can get 80 gig harddrives for
>under $300 these days. But it does seem a bit excessive.
>
>Jeff "wish I had an answer" Kreines
>
>

Jim Lindner - President
VidiPax - The Magnetic Media and Information Migration Full Services
Company
Telephone 212-563-1999
www.vidipax.com
Moderator of A/V Media Matters@topica.com