Re: [ARSCLIST] BWF RF64

[John Spencer <js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No, we haven't, we hope to in the future, but just don't see yet  
enough support to go through the motions. GM and I feel pretty  
strongly about leaving it out until we see it work on a regular  
basis. And who knows how the deck chairs will have rearranged by then  
- what's up with Logic - what will happen to Nuendo with the new owners?

I'm still afraid of the format, just as BWF mono files had their  
birthing issues as well (DAWs overwriting everything in the header,  
etc.)

John

John Spencer
BMS/ Chace LLC
1801 8th Ave. S.  Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
office (615) 385-1251
fax (615) 385-0153
cell (615) 714-1199
email: js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.bridgemediasolutions.com


On Sep 6, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Konrad Strauss wrote:

> on 9/5/07 11:32 AM, John Spencer at js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > I can say from the NARAS P&E Wing Deliverables Committee's
> > perspective, the next revision of the document will note the progress
> > made with multichannel BWF implementation, but it will NOT be a
> > recommended archival format.
>
> John,
>
> On thing that I find strange about multichannel BWF files is that  
> Pro Tools
> does not follow the Microsoft spec for channel order. So if you  
> extract a PT
> multichannel (surround) BWF into Wavelab (which does follow the  
> published
> spec) for DVD-A authoring, the channels will be in the wrong order.  
> Has
> NARAS been able to address this?
>
> --
> Konrad Strauss
> Director of Recording Arts, Professor of Music
> Indiana University Jacobs School of Music
> http://php.indiana.edu/~kstrauss
> http://www.music.indiana.edu/department/audio/
> Blog – http://munson.music.indiana.edu/audioblog/
> Podcast – http://www.music.indiana.edu/iumusiclive/authorize/ 
> podcasts.shtml