[ProAudio] Adding Meta Data
CBAUDIO
proaudio at baileyzone.net
Fri Nov 5 11:31:02 PDT 2021
I use Metadata Touch:
https://www.digitalconfidence.com/MetadataTouch.html
That said, when the client wants extra services that require extra time,
I will charge for it on a 'time involved' basis, because this usually
comes up after a firm estimate is given.
Cheers!
Corey Bailey
------ Original Message ------
From: "Eric Seaberg via ProAudio" <proaudio at bach.pgm.com>
To: "mark whitehouse" <mark at procopy.com.au>; "Eric Seaberg via ProAudio"
<proaudio at bach.pgm.com>
Sent: 11/5/2021 11:12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [ProAudio] Adding Meta Data
>I use an app called YATE which allows all kinds of meta data, including
>engineering notes, etc.
>
>https://2manyrobots.com/yate/
>
>
>_____________________
>Eric Seaberg • San Diego
> Eric at Seaberg.com
>
>
>
>>On Nov 05, 2021, at 4:11 AM, mark whitehouse via ProAudio
>><proaudio at bach.pgm.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi brains trust!
>>I have another customer asking for more metadata to be added to his
>>audio files as his company requires it for the streaming service (not
>>sure about that?)
>> I'm aware of the limitations and restrictions of various formats but
>>wondering what software people are using these days to include as much
>>data as possible
>>
>> He has supplied WAV files and wants Aif, Mp3 and WAV
>>
>> I've told him about the limitations and that some info may have to be
>>added manually. but this is what the company has asked for to be
>>included "in the file"
>>
>>>>>>>composer -
>>>>>>>song titles
>>>>>>>title of the album on which it was released -
>>>>>>>year released- 2021
>>>>>>>track number 1-10
>>>>>>>album art - attached
>>>>>>>producer-
>>
>>By converting to AIF I've been able to include a fair amount but cant
>>find a way to add the cover art for example.
>>
>>any advice would be helpful
>>
>>regards
>>Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>To upload files to our server, Please click the following link and
>>follow the steps on the Hightail page.
>>https://spaces.hightail.com/uplink/ProCopy-Data
>>
>>Pro-Copy - Promote Media Group
>>Unit 2 39 Enterprise Crescent
>>Malaga
>>WA 6090
>>
>>PH +61 (08) 9375 3902
>>AustWide: 1300 4 PROCOPY
>>For general enquiries email - info at procopy.com.au
>>www.procopy.com.au
>>
>>
>>This transmission is confidential. This e-mail including any
>>attachments, is for the original addressee only. Virus detection
>>software has been used to detect the presence of any computer viruses,
>>however, we cannot guarantee that this e-mail and any attached files
>>are virus free.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:01 AM Dan Lavry via ProAudio
>><proaudio at bach.pgm.com> wrote:
>>>Hi Bob,
>>>I am not designing a mic pre right now, and my interest is not about
>>>specific micpre. I am interested in noise and distortion of the gear
>>>that people connect to my converters. My older Lavry Gold was mostly
>>>for mastering, not tracking. The new Gold (Lavry Savitr) offers very
>>>low latency and can be used with micpres.
>>>
>>>It would be good to to get a sense from ear people, such as
>>>yourself, about what is needed in terms of noise, for the most
>>>extreme cases (highest gain), because that is the bottle neck of the
>>>noise floor.
>>>
>>>I am told here that any fool can come up with 128dBu ein. Some
>>>engineers I respect would take offense to such comment. I agree that
>>>at low gain it matters less. But it would be good to know if the
>>>128-130dBu (or whatever the state of the art) is limited because we
>>>can't do better, or because it is good enough for all practical
>>>cases. If it is limited by technology, a mic designer can look
>>>forward to pushing the state of the art. If it is good enough, there
>>>is no point in improving...
>>>
>>>If I get convinced that there is a market for -135dBu, I would
>>>consider doing so, right after all the other stuff I want to do. My
>>>last project took me 3 years. Doing a -135dBu will take a year or
>>>more. I have other things on my plate.
>>>
>>>I see the new developments regarding digital microphones, based on
>>>one bit modulator. The cable carries one bit digital, and some very
>>>new IC's provide decimation via 4 or 5 pole filter. I saw the data
>>>and specs. So far it is far from state of the art, and aimed mostly
>>>at mass production lower cost stuff.
>>>
>>>I can't comment about the mic quality, but i see much data related to
>>>the IC's involved. one bit (at the present day upsampling rate) and
>>>5th order is 90's technology. It may be fine for many uses, but the
>>>results are not state of the art...
>>>
>>>I do expect the digital mics IC's to improve in the future. The
>>>concepts are there, such as multibit and faster clock. And it may be
>>>that sigma delta will be surpassed. I can't predict...
>>>
>>>Did you try to use digital mics? If so, what do you think?
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>Dan Lavry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sent from Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>>>
>>>
>>>-------- Original message --------
>>>From: Bob Katz via ProAudio <proaudio at bach.pgm.com>
>>>Date: 6/14/21 7:42 AM (GMT-08:00)
>>>To: proaudio at bach.pgm.com
>>>Subject: Re: [ProAudio] Microphones question
>>>
>>>Dan: As you can see, there are so many variables, that all we can do
>>>is an approximation using 150 ohms, in order to come up with an EIN
>>>value for the preamp, which will be an approximation. Feel free to
>>>specify alternate EIN values in the preamp spec sheet in addition to
>>>the widely-accepted 150 ohms, for example, with 50 ohm source at 40
>>>dB gain. Maybe it will help characterize your preamp better to the
>>>reader. Maybe someone will discover that all microphones should have
>>>a lower output impedance to get better performance.
>>>
>>>But as Scott pointed out, why not eliminate the issues and go with a
>>>digital output microphone. My concerns there are jitter. But there
>>>are ways around that with a superior PLL at the receiving end.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Best wishes,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 6/11/21 10:49 PM, Dan Lavry via ProAudio wrote:
>>>>Hi Bill,
>>>>
>>>>I am not trying to change the standard. Certainly not before I have
>>>>the understanding of what is going on. Of course in an ideal world,
>>>>each mic would come with an impedance information. In a somewhat
>>>>less ideal world, each mic would come with, at least, the best
>>>>resistor value. But here we are stuck to the "typical" old dynamic
>>>>mic.
>>>>
>>>>I know that most people don't understand technical details, and it
>>>>will confuse customers. But I am not talking to customers here, or
>>>>level playing field. I asked the opinion of mic experts. I want to
>>>>know what real impedance levels are. That is really all I want to
>>>>know. So far, I learned about the 150 Ohm relation to the old
>>>>dynamic. There must be more information, I thought I would start
>>>>here.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for all the comments
>>>>
>>>>Dan Lavry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 6/11/2021 6:47 PM, Bill Whitlock via ProAudio wrote:
>>>>>How would you propose testing and specifying equivalent input noise
>>>>>for mic preamps?
>>>>>
>>>>>Using the 150 Ω dummy source at least levels the playing field,
>>>>>even though it's not accurately predictive for all mics.
>>>>>Specifying e and i noise separately (and their own spectrum, if
>>>>>you're going to be rigorous) will further confuse buyers - most of
>>>>>whom can barely understand why a shorted input is unrealistic.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I recall from my tests of the SM57, its impedance varied from
>>>>>under 150 Ω at very low frequencies to over 300 Ω at resonance -
>>>>>and continued to rise at higher frequencies. I'll try to find the
>>>>>data - I did the tests as research before writing Jensen AN-005
>>>>>about mic splitters.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you want to change this, I'd encourage you to join an AES
>>>>>standards committee and make your case. Membership in working
>>>>>groups is open to all. Working group SC-05-05 is currently trying
>>>>>to change the ways equipment manufacturers describe inputs and
>>>>>outputs - in the interests of avoiding interoperability issues and
>>>>>unexpected results.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill Whitlock
>>>>>AES Life Fellow
>>>>>Ventura, CA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Dan Lavry via ProAudio <proaudio at bach.pgm.com>
>>>>><mailto:proaudio at bach.pgm.com>
>>>>>To: crispin at crookwood.com; proaudio at bach.pgm.com
>>>>>Sent: Fri, Jun 11, 2021 6:24 pm
>>>>>Subject: Re: [ProAudio] Microphones question
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes of course the input noise has to be taken into account AFTER
>>>>>amplification. So say a micpre has 120dBu noise (referenced to the
>>>>>input), with say 60dB gain the noise is at 60dBu. That is easy to
>>>>>measure and hear...
>>>>>
>>>>>My point of interest was not about measuring microphones. But we
>>>>>have
>>>>>dynamic, ribbon and condenser with phantom, and a wide range of
>>>>>implementations in each category. So the use of one value resistor
>>>>>seems
>>>>>to be arbitrary. I mentioned earlier that the input noise is made
>>>>>of
>>>>>both noise voltage and noise current components. The noise current
>>>>>(today's technology) will have low impact for 150 Ohms resistor. So
>>>>>why
>>>>>is the resistor there? The answer is to give us a better idea of
>>>>>how the
>>>>>micpre works with a mic instead of a short. And so we lump all mics
>>>>>into
>>>>>a simple model. A 150 Ohm resistor.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think we should remove that 150 Ohm resistor. The resistor noise
>>>>>is
>>>>>-130.9dBu (room T). If future technology will enable a shorted
>>>>>input
>>>>>micpre to reach 130dBu noise (referenced to input with acceptable
>>>>>gain),
>>>>>the outcome with 150 Ohm is -127.4dBu. Further down the line,135dBu
>>>>>noise (referenced to input) only improves the outcome to -129.5dBu.
>>>>>
>>>>>I just wonder if there is some information about the real impedance
>>>>>of
>>>>>real mics including different types relative to that 150 Ohm. It
>>>>>would
>>>>>be good to have some better detail...
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>Dan Lavry
>>>>>
>>>>>On 6/11/2021 1:32 PM, Crispin HT wrote:
>>>>> > I'm not a mic expert, but in designing preamps over the years,
>>>>>we’ve found that the EIN of most mics sits around the -118 to
>>>>>-122dB mark.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The relevance of this, is that you need to amplify a mic, and
>>>>>it's noise to use it. Often quiet mics have low outputs, so need
>>>>>to be amplified more, and the real test of a mic pre's EIN is not
>>>>>at 60dB gain, getting an EIN of better than -124dB at gains around
>>>>>the 20-40dB.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hope this helps.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Kind Regards
>>>>> > Crispin Herrod-Taylor
>>>>> > Managing Director, Crookwood
>>>>> > www.crookwood.com
>>>>> > Tel: +44 (0)1672 811 649
>>>>> > Mobile:+44(0)7910 637 634
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Sign up for our great newsletter here! and keep up to date with
>>>>>the audio world
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> > From: ProAudio <proaudio-bounces at bach.pgm.com> On Behalf Of Dan
>>>>>Lavry via ProAudio
>>>>> > Sent: 11 June 2021 20:44
>>>>> > To: proaudio at bach.pgm.com
>>>>> > Subject: Re: [ProAudio] Microphones question
>>>>> >
>>>>> > My question is about mic output impedance, in relation to noise:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Both the mic and the micpre contribute to noise. The micpre
>>>>>generates some noise voltage which can be measured by replacing the
>>>>>mic with a short (0 Ohm). But there is also mipre generated noise
>>>>>current, which is no problem for 0 Ohm, but real mics have some
>>>>>impedance...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > At some point, it was decided to model a mic noise with replacing
>>>>>the mic with 150 Ohm resistor. I am not proposing to change it,
>>>>>just trying to understand why 150 Ohm.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The value 150 Ohm makes 1.568nV/sqrtHz (at room temp), so for
>>>>>20H-20KHz noise voltage of .225uV. Given that we are interested in
>>>>>noise power, we can use the dBu scale to realize that the resistor
>>>>>itself sets a limit on the noise floor at -130.9dBu. But say the
>>>>>impedance is 1K, then we have -122.8dBu.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I assume that the resistor modeling is a simplification. I would
>>>>>be interested in comments from the mic experts here.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thank You
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Dan Lavry
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>>>software.
>>>>> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > ProAudio mailing list
>>>>> > ProAudio at bach.pgm.com
>>>>> > http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>>>software.
>>>>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>ProAudio mailing list
>>>>>ProAudio at bach.pgm.com
>>>>>http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>ProAudio mailing list
>>>>>ProAudio at bach.pgm.comhttp://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Avast logo
>>>><https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><x-msg://4/#m_-2305566820858394568_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>ProAudio mailing list
>>>>ProAudio at bach.pgm.comhttp://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>>If you want good sound on your album, come to
>>>Bob Katz 407-831-0233 DIGITAL DOMAIN MASTERING STUDIO
>>>Author: Mastering AudioDigital Domain Website <https://www.digido.com/>
>>>
>>>No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number
>>>of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>ProAudio mailing list
>>>ProAudio at bach.pgm.com
>>>http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>>_______________________________________________
>>ProAudio mailing list
>>ProAudio at bach.pgm.com
>>http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bach.pgm.com/pipermail/proaudio/attachments/20211105/db6b10ba/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the ProAudio
mailing list