At 10:15 AM 3/28/2004, you wrote:
>Doug:
>
>I wonder if Adobe has dropped any of these useful functions in their
>Audition Software? For those who are confused about this, perhaps I should
>reiterate that Adobe bought out Syntrillium, so CoolEdit is no longer
>available. Now it is Adobe Audition.
Yes, and I don't know if Audition retains the useful features. It can be
downloaded as a trial, but my trial version has expired, or I'd check that =
out.
Doug
Doug Von Gausig
Clarkdale, Arizona, USA
Moderator
Nature Recordists e-mail group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:26:30 2005
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:50:03 -0500
From: Lang Elliott <>
Subject: Re: Files posted to group web site
Walt:
This argument tells me to stick with MTools, which interfaces with a
FileMaker Pro database. The nice thing about MTools is that it offers a
great instant playback interface and also allows for you to select a portio=
n
of a file and then download only that portion to a folder of your choice.
Thus, it is easy to browse one's collection, audition sounds, and copy
relevant material to a folder.
I agree that it is easy to customize the FileMaker interface to add
additional fields, etc. MTools allows one to type information into the
FileMaker description field and have it automatically go into the Mac Finde=
r
comment field.
Here is the web site for MTools, created by Gallery is:
http://www.gallery.co.uk/mtools/mtoolsmainframe.html
Go to that page and then choose MTools. Be forewarned, the documentation is
definitely a little confusing. MTools uses a customized FileMaker interface
with lots of special scripts to do useful things. It works in conjunction
with a piece of Gallery software called dCode, which allows for playback of
the sounds directly from FileMaker, with a nice waveform preview and the
ability to select portions of recordings for saving.
I plan to have my complete collection online for insant access. With the
price-per-gig going down rapidly, this is now feasible. My entire collectio=
n
of field recordings only occupies around 500 gigs right now. When I finish
selecting all my "important recordings" out of the field recordings, I
imagine that we're only talking a few hundred gigs, which is easy to keep
online. And probably the best backup is another firewire drive, kept at a
different location. No need for a quadzillion DVD-R's when drives are so
cheap.
Lang
From: Dan Dugan <>
> I'd prefer discussion here on the list, I think this is of interest
> to everyone. I use FWB Catalog ToolKit 5 to catalog files that I
> archive to CD-ROM. It's fast, but the searching ignores the volume
> name, which is a problem because that may contain keywords that the
> file names don't, and it doesn't have any means for auditioning or
> audio thumbnails. It's advertised for cataloging multi-media files
> but it's really designed for images.
>
> I hate the idea of committing all the effort to building a database
> in some software that may go away. I just checked http://www.fwb.com,
> and it's no longer listed as a product, so my misgivings are
> validated. I would much prefer a standardized metadata system that
> could be accessed by different software.
metadata will only be reliable in terms of being supported if it's used.
As it stands with audio metadata it's used by a microscopic proportion
of users and the proportion is dropping. That's a formula for having it
go away. At minimum I'd not have metadata as your only storage of the
info. Regular databases are much more long lived, and if replaced the
new database software nearly always will read the old formats. (unless
microsoft wrote it, then all bets are off) Oddball little slide show or
audio player software is usually not readable by anything else ever.
Stick with a widely used database format.
I use a separate database keyed to a coded filename. I could connect the
two so the file would play, but that assumes I'm going to keep all that
bulk organized on a spinning hard disk. So, I play the files separately
and find them in a separate database containing all the info. Often I
want a sonogram to look at, so play them in my regular sound editors,
it's not inconvenient if you work out a naming/organizing system for the
files that's logical.
As some may have noticed my filenames start with the year, then the disk
number, then the track number. A folder labeled with year and disk
number contains files from each disk. Those are organized in sequence in
a master folder on my hard disk working copy and in my backups.
My field data is initially recorded on field cards, and there is a
corresponding database in Filemaker format. Filemaker being something
designed as a database is very, very good at organizing, sorting or
finding things in the database. It also can sync the database with a cut
down version containing just certain fields that I keep in my Palm run
by Filemaker mobile. So I can check the database while out in the field
without having to drag a laptop along. I can place a limited number of
photos or sounds on the Palm as well. Actually a large number as it
takes SD memory cards. Filemaker is available across several OS's, has
been around for a very long time and is very reliable. It can handle
playing soundfiles, though I've not looked into doing it. Might have to
use it's scripting ability. Nothing to putting in a site photo if you
have them. The same database can even be integrated into webpages
without going outside filemaker.
I don't understand the whining about having to set up a database, it's
very easy in Filemaker, and you can revise it without losing any data.
I've added fields, changed display formats and look and all that with no
problems. You can, in fact have many different display formats and
switch between within one database. You will have to set up a database
unless you wish to open each file to read it's metadata when looking for
something. Let's see, open a thousand sound files to find something,
sounds to me like a job for a separate database. Go with a standard well
supported database for all that critical data. If you want to do the
extra work of sticking the same data in the metadata, that's fine, but
it should not be your primary data storage.
As far as I'm concerned it doubles the work to use metadata in a way
that will work. And if you don't maintain that separate database it's a
huge risk. The separate database is also a lot smaller and more portable
than some system containing lots of image and audio files.
Walt
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<=3DUnsubscribe>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|