I agree personally, although I easily understand the resistance to using IT for this. The multimedia company I work for has, as of today, 171,000 audio, text, HTML, .swf, and other files all archived. About half of the audio files have 'linked' interrelated data files of one sort or another. We make thousands more every day in 9 studios. We tried managing this manually with databases and it was hopeless. It required too many people with too much special knowledge. Finally we hired a couple of truly experienced and talented software developers. It was as you suggested here, about 4 months were spent on just planning the basic feature set, through many meetings and discussions, the developers took the time to understand business model AND the users voices and previous experiences. Then it was 'frozen' for a first version. You can't expect anyone to program for a moving target. The software itself was created rather quickly, and thoroughly QA'd before release. It works very well. While this software is not designed with the needs of the folks here in the equation at all, I bring it up only to point out that Damien is right... The hard part is trying to agree on what the databases have to do FOR us, and what raw data they need in them to do it. IMHO, the astronomical amount of audio / video to be archived makes no other approach even remotely possible. Saving all the material is little better than seeing it disintegrate if no one could ever search or find anything. After all, I doubt the average office admin using Word knows or cares how it works. Question is, how do we get there from here ? -----Original Message----- From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Damien Moody Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:36 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] .wav file content information It seems to me that what we really need is competent programmers and IT professionals to perform a thorough analysis of the needs of the a/v community to create truly usable and customizable software. IT isn't nasty stuff - but the output of IT efforts, as with anything else, can be. In IT there is a very under-utilitized, mis-utilitzed and misunderstood concept called "systems analysis and design". That is, a bit simplistically perhaps, but truly enough, all that we need. Damien J. Moody Information Technology Specialist Library of Congress >>> [log in to unmask] 03/14/05 11:57 PM >>> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:54 PM To: [log in to unmask] 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 <[log in to unmask]>: > 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:[log in to unmask]] 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. >