RF64 vs BWF ?

I created some 192k files which had almost all the Metadata sections populated (RIFF, BWF, XML, ID3). These files are all over 2GB.

The person who received these files could not load them into SoundBlade/Mac OSX. I could play them in Quicktime, ProTools & WavelLab without issue. He inquired with SoundBlade who told him that the files I provided are RF64 wavs which were never intended to contain metadata. He says they need to be BWF only.

I don’t follow the rational behind this explanation. First, don’t these files have to be RF64 to be greater than 2GB? Second, I don’t see a way to align WL9 to make BWF only/specifically.

A work around was to strip the metadata and provide “empty” wavs. This allowed importing into SoundBlade. I’m curious to know what the truth of this matter is.

RF64 is a BWF extension! IOW, a RF64 file is a BWF file and of course can contain meta data.
Maybe SoundBlade is not capable of reading such files, but then this is another problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Wave_Format

And don’t missunderstand RF64 and RIFF64.
RF64 is a BWF extension, while RIFF64 is an old proposal done by SonicFoundry, still in use, but obsolete and deprecated, I would say.

Thanks for the input PG. I enjoyed your use of the term “deprecated”! :smiley:
Your explanation agrees with my understanding. I also suspect that this is a SoundBlade compatibility issue but I don’t want to guess.

Here is a WL specific question:

  1. Audio File Pref = Support RF64 engaged. BWF support engaged.

  2. Batch process files with “Inherit Metadata from Source” engaged.
    => Resulting file contains metadata

  3. Audio File Pref = Support RF64 NOT engaged. BWF support engaged.

  4. Batch process files with “Inherit Metadata from Source” engaged.
    => Resulting file contains NO metadata.

I am not sure how to interpret these results. I don’t believe this means there is no such thing as a Non-RF64 BWF? How would this result be explained? Thanks.

Are the .wav files 32 bit fp? Does soundBlade support that or mixed sample rates within a project these days (meaning, if the session has 24 bit 48 kHz can you drag and drop a 32 bit fp wave file?).

The files I delivered were 24bit, 192k stereo interleaved. All greater than 2GB in size.

There is still unpredictable import success into sB with the “stripped” RF64 files. However, non-rf64 waves which I batch converted worked reliably.

It seems that sB is not ready for prime time but further investigations are needed. I can’t answer your other sB questions as I am not a user, myself.

The files I delivered were 24bit, 192k stereo interleaved. All greater than 2GB in size.

There is still unpredictable import success into sB with the “stripped” RF64 files. However, non-rf64 waves which I batch converted worked reliably.

It seems that sB is not ready for prime time but further investigations are needed. I can’t answer your other sB questions as I am not a user, myself.

Ha ha … and neither am I! I was really just hoping to assist resolve the impasse which is clearly at the Sonic end. Good luck!

Here is a WL specific question:

  1. Audio File Pref = Support RF64 engaged. BWF support engaged.

  2. Batch process files with “Inherit Metadata from Source” engaged.
    => Resulting file contains metadata

  3. Audio File Pref = Support RF64 NOT engaged. BWF support engaged.

  4. Batch process files with “Inherit Metadata from Source” engaged.
    => Resulting file contains NO metadata.

“Resulting file contains NO metadata”… Hmm, I don’t see how this could be possible. I did a test and every is working fine. Please test again. If you confirm, I would need your files for further analysis.

Philippe

I might be completely wrong here but if you use a batch process and set metadata to inherit from source, then the source is batch processor not the file itself.

On the batch tab “Format”, do you have “Batch Meta Data” to “Ignore”?

Yes, “Ignore”. I retested and got the same results: If “RF64 Support” is off then the resulting batch files do not inherit metadata from the source files. If RF64 Support is engaged, then the source file metadata is populated in the new files. If it matters, these are 192k, 24b stereo files >2GB in size.

I can’t send you these specific files because they are sensitive masters. Instead, I will create a mock set of files and send them your way for analysis.

I have another WL question. Using the BWF MetaEdit app, I inspected my original files which were recorded in WL with metadata pre-defined. I noticed that the 192k files which were all >2GB are identified as “RF64” format. However, 44.1k files that I recorded with the same metadata structure and under 2GB in size are identified simply as a “Wave” format. RF64 support was engaged for all WL recording. Does WL only add the RF64 extension after a certain file size? Or is there some other determining factor? Or maybe this is some BWF MetaEdit behavior? Curious to know what technical aspects may be at play here.

Thanks for your help so far.

I can’t send you these specific files because they are sensitive masters. Instead, I will create a mock set of files and send them your way for analysis.

A single wav file, together with the batch file you use, should be enough. Thanks.

Does WL only add the RF64 extension after a certain file size?

Yes, the RF64 mark is only applied when a file >= 2 GB is created.

Philippe