My apologies for coming into this topic a bit late. The question of RF64 comes up each year, and each year the wisdom of the ARSC group comes down in favor of NOT using RF64 for archiving until RF64 is more consistently and widely supported by DAWs and players. RF64 is fine as an intermediate format. But for the purposes of archiving, it is best to split those files into smaller non-RF64 chunks for maximum compatibility between DAWs and players. I'll be the first to agree that not using RF64 as an archival format is inconvenient, less efficient from an archiving process point of view, and increases the number of files that must be managed. Without a doubt, the pressure to use RF64 in archiving is ever present. That said, like many on this list, I'm anxious for the day when RF64 has sufficient support that we can archive BWF files using RF64. Has RF64 reached that long-awaited critical mass? Have there been enough new DAW software releases to justify a test of RF64 data exchange between them? I know that our good friends at Indiana University (Konrad Strauss and crew) have done such data exchange tests in the past using the software that they had available in their facilities. I'd be happy to assemble a list of popular DAWs and audio editors used among the subscribers of this list, and start mailing around DVD-R discs containing RF64 files to see who can read and not read them in each software version. Cost would be effort and postage. I'd be happy to volunteer to the lead and manage the effort, and consolidate and report results if others are willing to participate. To that end, I have in my facility: Cube-Tec Audiocube 6.10 Steinberg Wavelab 6.10 While we are at, we could embed BWF metadata and WAVE-RIFF INFO_List fields and see what happens to those as well as the files get moved around among software packages. It's good to see how well each software vendor supports the standards (ie. does any data get lost, truncated, or overwritten?). Has anyone already done this? If not, is this the right time to do this? Any takers? Eric Jacobs The Audio Archive, Inc. tel: 408.221.2128 fax: 408.549.9867 mailto:[log in to unmask] http://www.TheAudioArchive.com Disc and Tape Audio Transfer Services and Preservation Consulting -----Original Message----- From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of WIlliam McQuay Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:54 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [ARSCLIST] Archiving sound files that exceed the 4Gb limit of BWAV We increasingly find we are creating digital sound files that exceed the 4Gb limit of the BWAV format. This will only become more so as we begin to archive our multi-channel field recordings. We are considering several options for addressing this. 1.) The files, if stereo are split into two files, Left Channel and Right Channel. Since both files relate to a single asset, they should be assigned the same catalogue number. We are then faced with the problem of distinguishing the left from the right. A possible solution is to add alphanumeric character like L or R or -1, -2 etc. to the catalogue number. This diverges from our current naming convention. 2.) The stereo file is segmented in time. Again, a file naming convention needs to be used to distinguish one from the other. 3.) You implement the RF 64 wav format which allows files greater than 4Gb. Unfortunately, none of our current flavors of DAW's and related software implement the RF64 file format and we have not yet seen any that do. Has anyone else had to address the 4Gb limit of BWAV? If so, any thoughts you have based on that experience would be appreciated. Thanks, Bill William McQuay [log in to unmask] Supervising Audio Engineer Macaulay Library Cornell Lab of Ornithology Our Mission: To interpret and conserve the Earth's biological diversity through research, education, and citizen science focused on birds.