Hello! I’ve a question about saving marker data in the header of a BWF file that is 3GB. I’m working with “genaric” markers to show where different audio programs begin and end. I am able to “save” the file but when I open the file in Wavelab again, that data is not retained. I understand RF64 formatted files can do this? However, the client will not accept RF64’s.
Has anybody else experienced this and had any success saving markers?
Thank you!
Cheers,
Karl
You are not able to save such a big file in WaveLab if the RF64 option is not set (at least, this is how it is meant to work).
And if you do, then the markers are loaded back if either of these options is set.
Why? This is the standard for big files.
Hello! Thanks for your help!
I was able to render this 3GB file as a standard BWF when I unchecked the “Support RF64 File Format” option. My understanding is that standard BWF should be able to function up to 4GB(?). And, yeah, I had those both checked when I saved the file and that didn’t work. D’oh! So it sounds like Wavelab isn’t equipped to work with standard BWF files larger than 2GB, since it prefers to work with RF64 files when they’re that large?
I reached out to a friend and he said that the file could have a signed 32 bit value, rather than unsigned. (I’m not a computer guy so this is a bit over my head but might offer some help to those who understand.)
(The client doesn’t accept RF64 files because they’re not the standard/best practice for archival use.)
I was able to figure out a workaround using a different program so I think I’m all set.
Thanks, again, for your help!
You can inform your client that, on the contrary, RF64 has been standardized by the European Broadcasting Union for several years (you can find more information here: RF64 - Wikipedia). It’s worth noting that it is the same organization that established the BWF standard. Therefore saying you want BWF on one hand and not RF64 is weird.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that, for archival purposes, it can be riskier to store 3 GB files without RF64 than with it. While I haven’t conducted a recent check, in the past, it was common to encounter audio applications that couldn’t open RIFF files larger than 2 GB. Therefore, for the sake of data integrity and safety, using RF64 is recommended.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I was wrong about the standard/best practice comment.
They’re structured differently, then? The Format section on the wikipedia mentions how an additional chunk is added and bytes are changed from RIFF to RF64. Could that affect how metadata is embedded/used if there are normal WAV’s and RF64’s are in the same collection?
What do you mean with this?
