Re: [ARSCLIST] .wav file content information

[dave nolan <DaveNolanAudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/15/05 12:00 AM, "Automatic digest processor" <LISTSERV@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> There are 15 messages totalling 1039 lines in this issue.
>
Hello all -

I just wanted to chime in and ask if anyone had any specific software
packages that provided a decent GUI (graphical user interface) for entering
BWF metadata?

After a bit of Googling last week, I was able to find a Mac-based program
called Metacorder (designed for the film industry) that seems to have
something close to what I'm looking for - stores metadata in BEXT and IXML
formats - the url is:

http://www.gallery.co.uk/metacorder/intro.html

Anyone have any recommendations for similar packages, either Mac or PC?  Not
so worried about price at this point, just wondering what had been developed
so far to let us input the metadata easily, and to define unique in-house
chunks for the originating institution?

And similarly, are folks using anything in particular to access the metadata
and put it automatically into a database program, preferably Access or
FileMaker?

Thanks -

dave nolan
nyc


> Date:    Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:54:14 -0500
> From:    "Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: .wav file content information
>
> As usual, Scott and John make some very persuasive points.
>
> But, there is a huge leap from putting metadata in the BWF file to running a
> database. Let's name the database: it's a digital asset management system or
> media asset management system. Buzzword software that delivers less than it
> promises in many iterations, sadly. I'd love to hear good responses about MAM
> software.
>
> In reality, I think there are three levels (perhaps more)
> (1) Essence (to use the SMPTE term) and metadata in one file.
>    This is the BWF as well as the MXF and AAF approach. This was, to me
>    one of the big paradigm shifts when migrating from dBase III to Microsoft
>    Access. Separate files vs. all-in-one.
> (2) Essence and metadata in one folder
>    This is perhaps the easiest to deal with, but doesn't scale
>    all that well
> (3) Essence in a file system, indexed by a MAM system. The MAM system
>    holds all the metadata while it merely points to the essence. Typically,
>    the essence file names become totally NON human readable.
>
> (1) and (2) can be managed by mere mortals. (3) requires an IT department.
>
> But BWF begs the question. Do you insert the album jacket scans at 450 dpi in
> the file? What happens when there are multiple audio threads? Can you put 24
> tracks in one BWF? I'm not sure. If nothing else, you'll run out of space.
>
> Some of the BWF specs seem to limit it to 48ks/s. What about higher
> resolution.
> It's possible, but what about interchange?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
> --
>
> Richard L. Hess
> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
>
>
> Quoting Scott Phillips <scottp@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> One would think that the LAST thing anyone would want to do is resave a
>> complete audio archive file simply to add new text data. Why chance any
>> alteration or corruption of the original audio file ? This is
>> particularly true since the 'new' file won't byte for byte match the
>> original, how would one reasonably (I.E. quickly) verify the new file
>> against the original ? I would agree with John, a 'loose coupling'
>> allows for a proper revision history to be kept as well without any risk
>> to the most irreplaceable part of all... the audio. The adding of an ID
>> number when the file is first generated solves that.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Spencer
>>
>> Regarding the usage of MYSQL or other database applications, remember
>> that the relative size of the metadata "stack" will be MUCH smaller than
>> the resultant audio files.  We prefer to link the metadata record with a
>> unique ID in the BWF header that we also record in the metadata
>> database.  By "loosely coupling" the two, you can add/ make changes to
>> the individual metadata record without having to load the audio file
>> itself.
>>
>> I would be more concerned that the metadata that I was collecting was
>> structured in a manner that would allow for it to move into other
>> database environments without re-keying the information.
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:57:32 -0600
> From:    Scott Phillips <scottp@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: .wav file content information
>
> Has anyone had experience with any of the few really good software
> packages that are available for recording studio management? The best
> ones are very good at managing everything from inventory to tape
> libraries, including track sheets, track notes, even console and
> outboard gear setup and management. All the gory details of sample
> rates, noise reduction, etc. are a natural part of that. I'm not
> suggesting that anyone use the packages for managing very large audio
> archives, just that there may be some real lessons to be learned (for
> that matter, also learned not to use) by examining how people have
> already tried to solve this in the commercial world.
>
> I agree with Richard about option #3 personally, but it seems to me that
> it is the only way, nasty as it is, that has real long-term legs to it.
> What we really need is a program (s) that seamlessly link databases with
> the audio file / text / visual (whatever type), and doesn't require a
> database expert to operate. I can't see how that is really possible any
> other way, what with changing digital standards. While I live in fear of
> the deadly 'single database file', it at least, if planned properly,
> could be arranged so that as ASCII information it could be imported to
> any reasonable future database. Further, until everyone everywhere
> agrees to exactly what would be included in META information without
> exception, there could be no way of conforming older files to the
> 'standard' without opening and changing every file. Better to make the
> file and handle it as little as humanly possible. Databases can do
> global changes rather more easily.
>
> I know, I know, IT .... Nasty stuff just keeps getting in the way ! ...
> :>)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:54 PM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] .wav file content information
>
> As usual, Scott and John make some very persuasive points.
>
> But, there is a huge leap from putting metadata in the BWF file to
> running a database. Let's name the database: it's a digital asset
> management system or media asset management system. Buzzword software
> that delivers less than it promises in many iterations, sadly. I'd love
> to hear good responses about MAM software.
>
> In reality, I think there are three levels (perhaps more)
> (1) Essence (to use the SMPTE term) and metadata in one file.
>    This is the BWF as well as the MXF and AAF approach. This was, to
> me
>    one of the big paradigm shifts when migrating from dBase III to
> Microsoft
>    Access. Separate files vs. all-in-one.
> (2) Essence and metadata in one folder
>    This is perhaps the easiest to deal with, but doesn't scale
>    all that well
> (3) Essence in a file system, indexed by a MAM system. The MAM system
>    holds all the metadata while it merely points to the essence.
> Typically,
>    the essence file names become totally NON human readable.
>
> (1) and (2) can be managed by mere mortals. (3) requires an IT
> department.
>
> But BWF begs the question. Do you insert the album jacket scans at 450
> dpi in the file? What happens when there are multiple audio threads? Can
> you put 24 tracks in one BWF? I'm not sure. If nothing else, you'll run
> out of space.
>
> Some of the BWF specs seem to limit it to 48ks/s. What about higher
> resolution.
> It's possible, but what about interchange?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
> --
>
> Richard L. Hess
> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
>
>
> Quoting Scott Phillips <scottp@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> One would think that the LAST thing anyone would want to do is resave=20
>> a complete audio archive file simply to add new text data. Why chance=20
>> any alteration or corruption of the original audio file ? This is=20
>> particularly true since the 'new' file won't byte for byte match the=20
>> original, how would one reasonably (I.E. quickly) verify the new file=20
>> against the original ? I would agree with John, a 'loose coupling'
>> allows for a proper revision history to be kept as well without any=20
>> risk to the most irreplaceable part of all... the audio. The adding of
>
>> an ID number when the file is first generated solves that.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List=20
>> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Spencer
>>
>> Regarding the usage of MYSQL or other database applications, remember=20
>> that the relative size of the metadata "stack" will be MUCH smaller=20
>> than the resultant audio files.  We prefer to link the metadata record
>
>> with a unique ID in the BWF header that we also record in the metadata
>
>> database.  By "loosely coupling" the two, you can add/ make changes to
>
>> the individual metadata record without having to load the audio file=20
>> itself.
>>
>> I would be more concerned that the metadata that I was collecting was=20
>> structured in a manner that would allow for it to move into other=20
>> database environments without re-keying the information.