Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-q  The OP has already confirmed that the files can be read with samplitude. Others read the files fine as well. It´s not some secret pyramix-format. It´s called RF64 and it´s been stadardized as an extension to the BWAV format.
Just because ProTools doesn´t read it doesn´t mean it´s non-standard. Heck, PT doesn´t even support SMPTE track layout. Now, how "industry leading" is that?
Pyramix is also a DSD mastering workstation. With high Fs you reach the 4GB pretty quickly so using RF64 is only logical, IMO.
Of course as a user you have to know this and it makes no sense to record to RF64 or chose that as your delivery format if you want to continue your work on a DAW that doesn´t support that standard. |
I'm fully aware of what Pyramix is and is not. We've had various versions in for review here over the years. I did one of the reviews of it for Mix years ago <yawn>. I found the system to be limited at that time because the company did not seem to think that QT playback within the system was important at all and that post would forever involve synchronization with cables and various servo mechanisms. This was approximately at the same time that I would be loading a project in Nuendo on my Titanium and flying from coast to coast merrily laying FX to picture.
It also isn't just PT, it's SADiE not reading these files, apparently. If you don't think SADiE is a mastering workstation, i suggest you say that to Glenn Meadows...and then duck.
As for "continuing [my] work on a DAW that doesn't support that standard", I'll thank you not to make assumptions on how I work. In fact, I work and have worked on various platforms over the years.
My point was that the situation with the original poster never should happen if this is really a "standard". It's not fair to end users who need to transport their files across various platforms all over the world. It's obvious that it certainly isn't universally implemented, unlike the "non-extended" BWF and AIFF.
FWIW, AIFF also supported multichannel from its inception, but the order was akin to SDDS as I recall. I believe the AIFF format extends back into the 80's when the Amiga crowd and Electronic Arts were moving artistic technology along at an amazing clip...I think the audio version of IFF followed from the graphics IFF when Apple saw the cool stuff that was happening on the Amiga and decided to push a real audio standard forward. Now that's a company with the market share to develop a standard!
When the eternal "analog tape vs. digital anything" for archiving format discussions used to come up in the late 80's and early 90's, I would always suggest AIFF because it supported multichannel and people in the music biz would say, "why would we ever care about multichannel?" How amusing that now I find myself apparently being "schooled" on this subject...
So...after 25 years with a file format that supported multichannel, manufacturers still haven't gotten it together to really agree (as in call it the same name) and implement (as in no failures between DAW transfers) a standard for a freaking FILE FORMAT for multichannel. The AES has to call it their name, the EBU another and no one is really sure which workstation will communicate fully with another in this file format exchange. It's not like AIFF and WAV, not yet and not by a long shot.