PT 7.2 field recorder functionality.

[IO Composer]

Hi.
I think it's finally time for me to jump into the flash recorder realm and I'm struggling with the decision of which one to buy. I'm leaning toward the SoundDevices 702, but I can't decide if I should get the timecode version or not.

Has anybody used the new field recorder functionality in PT7.2? How does it interact with the recorder? is it via timecode?

Thanks,
Jamey

[Frank Kruse]

There´s a whole section on that very topic in the "what´s new in 7.2 pdf".

PT connects the tracks either my TC, Name, slate etc. But the SD-recorders don´t offer all those other fields anyway there´s no way to enter them on the recorder. You will find those only on machines like the deva, Cantar, HHB, PD6 etc.

But the 702 is stereo-only so you won´t´need that complex track-management anyway.

frank.

[Ray JB]

I've been working over the new features in PT 7.2 in regards the naming conventions for the new field recorder additions.

Importing BWF poly files directly into a session in ProTools 7.2 often gives each resultant ProTools generated mono file a channel suffix that annoys a dialog editor.... ie: if it's a 4 track poly the channels will still be labelled .L, .R, .C, .S etc rather than a simple track number suffix ie: .A1, A2 etc. We tried to find out why.

With the help of Justin Webster from Maggot software .....We sorted out the location audio multi-channel suffix stuff. We were using files recorded on an HHB portadrive but then tried comparing them to files recorded on a Fostex PD-6.

It appears that if the field recorder includes the track name metadata (like the Fostex PD-6 does ... and the HHB portadrive doesn't) then ProTools will name the resultant mono files that it creates from the original poly file with a "A1,A2 etc " suffix. If this info is not included then ProTools will simply label the mono files with a ".L, .R, .C etc" suffix which is not handy.

For instance:

A Fostex PD-6 Poly file's BWF metadata might look like this:-

fUBITS=$
fSCENE=X157A
fTAKE=001
fTAPE=X51
fEVENT=01532
fTRK1=BOOM LOW
fTRK2=BOOM HIGH
FALL INTO RIVER
2 CAMS TS

(It's a 2 channel poly file)

The ProTools mono filenames will look like this

X157A_001.A1.wav
X157A_001.A2.wav


The HHB Poly file's BWF metadata looked like this

dUBITS=$00000000
dSCENE=k143AK
dTAKE=002
dNOTE=

(It's a 6 channel poly file)

The ProTools generated mono files will be named like this

k143AK_T002_1P6.Lf.wav
k143AK_T002_1P6.L.wav
k143AK_T002_1P6.Ls.wav
k143AK_T002_1P6.C.wav
k143AK_T002_1P6.Rs.wav
k143AK_T002_1P6.R.wav

When we tried appending the following metadata into the same HHB BWF soundfile with Justin's Remetacator program...

dTRK1=1
dTRK2=2
dTRK3=3
dTRK4=4
dTRK5=5
dTRK6=6

Then ProTools labelled the soundfiles with .A1, .A2 suffixes and the matches dialog box in PT7.2 showed the channel numbers ( or whatever text is listed after the "dTRK#=" string)

The ProTools mono filenames will now look like this

k143AK_T002_1P6.A1.wav
k143AK_T002_1P6.A2.wav
k143AK_T002_1P6.A3.wav
k143AK_T002_1P6.A4.wav
k143AK_T002_1P6.A5.wav
k143AK_T002_1P6.A6.wav

Which is how we want it.

So it seems that ProTools is dependent on the field recorder to stamp this info with the files.

So it would be really cool if ProTools could offer a few options for importing Poly files in regards to naming them. I sure know that a .A6 suffix is better than thinking of track 6 of a multichannel field audio group as .Lf!

Ray

[Frank Kruse]

Nice catch Ray,

I´ve asked the SoundDevices people if they could implement a default trackname-tag to prevent PT from naming the recordings L,C,R,Ls,Rs.

The 7xx machines don´t allow tracknaming but could simply name the tracks with a number instead of leaving those tags blank.

frank.

[Ray JB]

Exactly Frank

That's all that's needed. It's not really a fault of PT 7.2 per se but as I said, it would be nice to have the ability to have some control at the PT End for the resultant mono filenaming.

Digi?

[philper]

Has anyone tried importing Metacorder files into 7.2? How did it go?

Philip Perkins

[IO Composer]

Thanks for the responses, folks.
-Jamey

[David McRell]

The so-called "Field Recorder" features have a little work ahead -- based on importing files recorded at 48048 on a DEVA. We have not encountered the surround (L, C, R, S...) auto-naming in this version, so I assume based upon the information in this thread we have the proper metadata. The files do import with A1, A2, A3, etc. which is what we want. Here are the issues:

1. When importing/splitting poly BWF, we need an option to import 48048 without sample rate conversion, or to simply ignore the tagged sample rate; something akin to the "Add" method of importing audio. Modifying the metadata (manaully typing 48000 in DigiBase browser) is a workaround, but as you might guess, it alters the original file.

2. Once we have files (i.e. file.A1, file.A2, file.A3, file.A4) in the region list, the usual method of renaming nested multichannel audio files (i.e. file.L, file.C, file.R, file.S) doesn't work, and you would be forced to rename channel-by-channel.

Regards

[Ray JB]

The so-called "Field Recorder" features have a little work ahead -- based on importing files recorded at 48048 on a DEVA. We have not encountered the surround (L, C, R, S...) auto-naming in this version, so I assume based upon the information in this thread we have the proper metadata. The files do import with A1, A2, A3, etc. which is what we want. Here are the issues:

1. When importing/splitting poly BWF, we need an option to import 48048 without sample rate conversion, or to simply ignore the tagged sample rate; something akin to the "Add" method of importing audio. Modifying the metadata (manaully typing 48000 in DigiBase browser) is a workaround, but as you might guess, it alters the original file.

Which method are you using as far as the recording technique on the DEVA? The "Deva method" or the "faux Fostex (-F)" method?

From the metacorder group....

Stamping a 48.048K file as 48K is becoming known in some circles as the "Fostex Method", while stamping a 48.048K file as 48.048 is sometimes referred to as the "Deva Method".

[David McRell]

Which method are you using as far as the recording technique on the DEVA? The "Deva method" or the "faux Fostex (-F)" method?

We're in post-production, so we need to deal with the material as it is.

A project just before this shot on Fostex PD-6 and it was no problem because the files were tagged plain 48000, but this show comes in from DEVA tagged 48084.