Hi--
I guess an embellished finder that finds, sorts and plays new audio
and video file types and allows me to try-out plug-ins
non-destructively while exporting a modified file is worth $70 to
me,.. though much of this may be free if I wait a while. I'm not
seeing a lot of cataloging finesse even in the $800 versions.
In terms creating a library, work-flow is crucial. I need to be able
to add many kinds of information that change over time to my library
_as I log_ and create excerpts. That is when I'm in the best mind
set. I would need a completely different _sets_ of tags when I
record in the city or at a conference or for an interview or video. I
go back years later and do more logging and make more exports-- these
need to be automatically added and integrated to the library.
Tags are intermediary means best for things bringing in time stamping
and batch processing constants like date, weather, gear-used and such
for each recording foray. Batch processing can be done outside of
tagging, as with numerous designated marker types in an audio app.
The important, time-consuming work, as Vicki says, comes down to
adding particulars. We also need to be able to link photos, add
casual comments, synchronized weather data, web links, even
synchronized location data as Raimund showed with his bat recordings.
It really helps to see my additions in a timeline too. Recordists
need ways to do all of the above with basic recording gear and
inexpensive software. No Metadata embedding guideline will ever be
widely endorsed and all will be forever lacking crucial personal
needs.
Its preferable for me to think about "cataloging" in terms
flexibility, work flow and archiving so the problem gets solved for
future users too. More people are beginning to see the goal as
creating widely supported database protocol where it can be
authoritatively managed:
Page 22, Federal Agencies Audio Visual Digitization Working Group :
"Metadata Preparation:
Embedded metadata will greatly aid in the management of audio files
but is not likely
considered to be the most authoritative metadata record for the
asset. The authoritative
record will continue to be maintained in various local databases such
as MySQL, Microsoft
Access, and Filemaker, or disseminated via public catalogs or finding
aids. The databases,
metadata standards and data dictionaries will vary greatly across the
Federal Agencies. For this
reason the development of a conformance point file representing an
agreed upon set of fields,
structure and rules is recommended. This file will function as an
intermediate between the
databases of the Federal Agencies and the tool used to embed metadata
into the audio files."
http://tinyurl.com/244efgu [pdf]
Rob D.
= = =
At 8:40 AM -0700 11/5/10, martin pinsonault wrote:
>
>
>Hi,
>
>Very interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. I have been digging down my sound
>library in the last few months, working with metadatas. A lot of
>websurfing and
>programs experimentation and I am still figuring out the easiest way to go.
>Here are few discoveries and impressions I have done so far.
>
>As Rob mentionned, Tim Prebble sorted out the entire program list in the
>previous email, another one of interest is:
><http://www.musicofsound.co.nz/blog/you-and-your-metadata>http://www.musicofsound.co.nz/blog/you-and-your-metadata
>
>Soundminer V4 Pro is very interesting. The more I learn the tricks
>to play with
>batch Metadata, the more I see it being flexible, but it does not do
>everything. It can be quite dangerous if you hit the wrong keystroke. Filename
>corruption problem. It can be fix on the Finder. There are many ways to do the
>metadata changes in SM. There are few tricks I got doing it. Search engine is
>very good, fast.
>
>When you start describing a sound with words, beside writing it or pasting it
>from an other, you could have a predefined list of choices of categories,
>seasons, species, descriptions, perspective, emotions, particularities, sound
>properties that we could use in the futur searches. I recently started to list
>down all the words we commonly use in sound Description, I already have 600. I
>will eventually end up with a definition and a translation. Some sort of
>automatic category build with keywords. I read few studies very interesting
>about that (look at links at the bottom) The use of synonyms and other search
>criterias help drastically when it's time to find the right sound fast. This
>could theorically be done exporting the text file and do it outside the SM box
>but how? Many new experiments ahead...
>
>On the soundminer site, they strongly suggest to get a text editor, Text
>Wrangler I understand why, SM only accepts a specific TXT. Wave Agent is doing
>what it is suppose to, play but you don't have access to the
>Description Field.
>You can use the Notes field (here) and then copy it to Description in SM,
>another turnaround. I discovered RNAME. for batch renaming. Simple. I also
>needed some kind of Interleaver because if the soundfiles are Multiple Mono
>Files without the .L .R setting, SM does not recognise them as being a stereo
>file. In SM, You have to write every soundfile with the .L .R, it can become
>long. Once recognise as a stereo or multiple track sound, SM can easily
>Interleave in batch. I am still looking for something to batch link the files
>together without going through that process. As an alternative to SM I tried
>BWF MetaEdit, free and MAC and PC. It is working but has few bugs, nothing
>automatic, nothing batch, no player but a plain editable list, simple. A
>combination of Wave Agent and BWF MetaEdit is the cheapest way to go. There is
>AudioFinder, Snapper 2, they need OS 10.5 and up, I am still 10.4,
>grrrr. I did
>not try those.
>
>You will see that it's a lot of learning and time to properly
>catalog your sound
>library but it will eventualy payback every dime and more when you will search
>for something and find it in seconds. You take time now that will
>save you time
>everyday after.
>
>Martin Pinsonnault
>
>other links of interest:
>
>Dictionnary:
><http://www.onelook.com/?w=roar&ls=a>http://www.onelook.com/?w=roar&ls=a
>
>Tips and Tricks Soundminer V4Pro:
><http://www.soundminer.com/assets/v4pro_MetadataTips.mov>http://www.soundminer.com/assets/v4pro_MetadataTips.mov
>
>Words and Sounds research Taxonomy of Sounds:
><http://www.hindawi.com/journals/asmp/2010/654914.html#B13>http://www.hindawi.com/journals/asmp/2010/654914.html#B13
><https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/k808q52528254084/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=s4osilnkwnh2faf1yfgnw52u&sh=www.springerlink.com>https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/k808q52528254084/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=s4osilnkwnh2faf1yfgnw52u&sh=www.springerlink.com>
>
>The subject of Taxonomy of sounds is an interesting subject to explore.
>
>________________________________
>From: Rob Danielson <<type%40uwm.edu>>
>To:
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 10:29:39 AM
>Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Cataloging Sounds
>
>At 12:47 PM +0000 11/4/10, jtudor2005 wrote:
>>
>>A pity some of you don't keep an eye on 'Music of Sound'. Tim had
>>organised a discount bulk buy on Soundminer
>>
>><<http://www.musicofsound.co.nz/blog/soundminer-group-buy-closes-today>http://www.musicofsound.co.nz/blog/soundminer-group-buy-closes-today><http://www.musicofsound.co.nz/blog/soundminer-group-buy-closes-today>http://www.musicofsound.co.nz/blog/soundminer-group-buy-closes-today
>>
>>
>>Contact him to see if you can still get it even though it's a bit late.
>>
>
>Hi John--
>Seems like we need a very low cost ramp for library starters like
>Rick and most of us probably. I was looking for some database
>compatibility aspects and through your link, I found this excellent
>review of the iXML and BNext capabilities of AudioFinder; Basehead;
>Library Monkey Pro; Snapper; Soundminer; Twisted Wave apps:
><http://www.musicofsound.co.nz/blog/metadata-support-in-sound-library-apps>http://www.musicofsound.co.nz/blog/metadata-support-in-sound-library-apps
>
>Soundminer appears to be leagues ahead and its interesting to read
>about the angle they are taking.
>
>Greg, Congrats on getting a robust record sheet up and running. It
>seems like there would be a way to generate/import iXML in FileMaker?
>Rob D.
>
>--
>
>
>
>
--
|