Dan's plan is pretty much what I'd like to be able to do. I don't know any =
program that does all that easily.
I use something like Audacity to view/listen to the file, and place markers=
. These get exported as text and placed in a spreadsheet that serves as a d=
atabase.
Eventually I guess I'd like to put them into the .wav or .flac files.
But I'd be delighted to hear if anyone knows something that would do all th=
is form one program?
Cheers!
Steve p
--- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>
> Steve Pelikan, you wrote,
>
> > the question of archiving recordings so that future researchers can =
> > learn about and get access to them and get the associated data is a =
> > significant one. The current best approach I know of is to donate or =
> > make plans to donate to one of the acoustics archives associated
> > with a university or museum. Many have long-term plans to protect
> > their data. In this context of future researchers, detailed field
> > notes about the recording might be even more valuable than the 2x or =
> > 4x samples. I've often though of adopting a scheme to put data
> > =3Dpossibly large bits of text, photos, other documentation- into the =
> > sound file itself. Something like RIFF would let us do that, I guess.
>
> I agree, archiving in an institution with useful metadata is the most =
> valuable thing we can do. No one will listen to a recording unless
> they know what's on it.
>
> I'm trying to figure out how to create a workflow for efficiently
> annotating long unattended recordings. I'd like to be able to scan a =
> spectrogram of the whole file, drop markers with text labels, and then =
> automatically produce a table of contents from the markers that gives =
> the position of each marker in absolute time from the beginning of the =
> file. I think this text data could be saved back to the header of
> the .wav file so it would be self-documenting. I'd like it to be able =
> to show all channels summed or multiple channels in parallel. And do
> it on a Mac.
>
> For years I've been using markers in Pro Tools, but they have no legs; =
> they are only good in Pro Tools. Pro Tools has no spectrogram display, =
> and the markers can't be printed out, or referenced to the start of
> the file.
>
> iZotope Rx gives me a nice spectrogram of the file, and has markers,
> but the markers have to be edited in a separate step and can't be
> exported or printed.
>
> Soundtrack Pro might be able to do something like this, but when I
> loaded an hour-long stereo file and switched to spectrogram display,
> it took a long time to calculate the spectrogram and then it took
> forever to do -anything-, even to pull down the help menu! This is on =
> a Mac Pro with four processors. I had to give up.
>
> Suggestions?
>
> -Dan Dugan
>
|