FR: Add Marker Categories to Export 'Naming Scheme'

Dear Steinberg developers,

On the Subject > I’ve been scratching my head why this is not currently implemented.

I would love to be able to add Marker categories to my filenames. An example:
If I do sound effects editing (for SFX libraries) I would like to export my Cycle markers (related to events) with additional data like microphone brand, setup, location, perspective etc.
I currently have to type all this information in the Track Name and add that to the filename in the Naming scheme window.
And yes that sort of works but screams ‘typo!’ furthermore it’s not great because sometimes the perspective changes in a recording session,
I would think this is also very useful if you have to create a lot of assets for a game or an ADR project. I don’t know how other people get around this limitation, but it would be a great addition imho.

Here’s a practical example in Foley:
Screenshot 2023-02-01 at 11.06.33
What if these 3 categories would be included in the filename export? Instead of typing it in the description or the track name.
You could get a filename that is setup like this:
“CycleMarkerID_Foley Category_ShoeType_SurfaceType_Project Name”

Bonus feature: what if there would be dropdown options? So all surfaces (editable by users) in a dropdown…

I would to hear other people opinion on this or their workarounds for it.

I would welcome it as well, for completely different purposes.
We would like it if a marker category could be used as a path name. For example you can export 800 events in 50 paths.
For example:

In practice, you could export 50 digitized tapes (consisting of several events) under their catalog numbers (paths). Instead of re-entering the path 50 times when exporting.

Thanks for the response!
What do you mean but pathname ? Like a unique folder for every file or group of files? Why would you need that? Also can’t you add a ‘symbol’ to the filename that helps to filter the files that you need separated from the rest? Interested to hear your use-case!

An example would be if we digitize 500 tapes or vinyl records for a sound archive.
Then the artist / album = MarkerID is called “Doctor Umezu Band - Eight Eyes And Eight Ears”. The 5 records of the album have the event name
01 - Tourists from Japan
02 - Decoboko Yama
03 - 1970
… and so on

This 5 records must then be exported under the path “Doctor Umezu Band - Eight Eyes And Eight Ears”:
\Doctor Umezu Band - Eight Eyes And Eight Ears\01 - Tourists from Japan
… and so on

Usually we have 50 albums in one project. So it would be great if you could use the marker as a pathname. So Nuendo generates the marker as a path and stores the files there.

You probably don’t have Soundminer but this allows you to do exactly that. You create an archive and from there mirror it to a folderstructure (however you please).

Thank you, but I think we misunderstand each other.
We digitize master tapes (with a Studer A80 or EMT948) from bands which are in the publisher’s archive (analog sound carriers in physical form as tapes and vinyl).
We use Nuendo because we cut the tracks, restore, remove noise and rework analog recordings or remaster for this publishers.
The digital data then goes back to the publisher.
This is only done with a DAW like Nuendo.

Yes I understand, I have digitization experience on similar projects.
I’ll explain: What I propose is that you export from Nuendo to 1 folder. Every file with it’s unique name. Import that into Soundminer. A rule based workflow (you set it up) in soundminer takes care of the mirroring destination.
I could show you how it works, but it’s very simple. If you keep a consistent filename structure (and it looks like you are on top of that) it is a matter of drag and drop and export.
The only downside, you duplicate the files. But you can easily delete what you imported into Soundminer and only keep the files in the folder structure you want.

Although on such a scale a solution like Cubetec Quadriga with Dobbin could be faster and easier. More expensive though.

Actually you could also have someone write a script to transfer on a set of rules. But yes all options cost money and Nuendo could potentially help by implementing more control over how and where files go.

But a duplicate in Soundminer doesn’t make any real sense. Just one day after exporting, the data is unimportant to us. The hard drive goes to the publisher/university.
We also have to provide the files with BWF metadata afterwards (WaveLab batch scripts).

I would just like it if Steinberg included the markers for naming files. You could also export as
Then a simple script using the @ separator can do the sorting work in different folders.

Yeah I think i’m not explaining it in a way that makes sense to a non-user of soundminer.
But the duplicate is not an issue. And soundminer excels at Metadata (Bwf and more).
Im really tempted to make a video to show it.
But i think you have made up your mind. :slight_smile:

I think I understand the confusion: I don not advice to use Soundminer as a recording app. You can do that in Nuendo and then export your files. Soundminer then helps you get the files in the right directory.
But yes a simple script can use the separator… why are you not adding that yourself in the Naming scheme? I think it is already possible if you set up the right scheme.