How does one abstractly describe a mix?
April 19, 2009 3:41 PM Subscribe
Is there a standard file format for abstractly describing audio or video mixes so that listeners have both the original audio files and the resulting remix and ideally can edit the remix directly?
I'm interesting in moving large numbers of remixes over the internet between people who already have the underlying music. I'm also interested in automatic transformations of the mixes. So encoding & transferring each mix separately is not interesting.
I am most interested in open standards, but it's good to know if some closed standard rules currently.
I'm interesting in moving large numbers of remixes over the internet between people who already have the underlying music. I'm also interested in automatic transformations of the mixes. So encoding & transferring each mix separately is not interesting.
I am most interested in open standards, but it's good to know if some closed standard rules currently.
I'm not entirely sure if this is what you're looking for, but the OMF file format has been pretty useful to my friends and I, all of whom use different programs for multitracking. There is apparently also a video version of it, too.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 4:30 PM on April 19, 2009
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 4:30 PM on April 19, 2009
(Actually, it sounds like the OMF format is very close to what you're looking for.)
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 4:31 PM on April 19, 2009
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 4:31 PM on April 19, 2009
Best answer: There's OMF and OpenTL and AAF.
Logic Pro can read and write all of these, and the cursory looking I did indicates that many of the other professional editing systems do as well.
posted by tomierna at 4:37 PM on April 19, 2009
Logic Pro can read and write all of these, and the cursory looking I did indicates that many of the other professional editing systems do as well.
posted by tomierna at 4:37 PM on April 19, 2009
Trent Reznor has been using GarageBand to distribute his stems for remix.nin.com. The magic of what he's done is that you get the GB project, load it up, and you get the mix of the song and all the tracks, and you can immediately start playing with them.
I don't know if he's improved the offerings for the his non-GarageBand using audience. Last I heard, those files arrive just as stems, and there is no constructed track from which to start. That may have improved.
It sounds like that's what you want to do, but it's not an open standard.
posted by hippybear at 4:39 PM on April 19, 2009
I don't know if he's improved the offerings for the his non-GarageBand using audience. Last I heard, those files arrive just as stems, and there is no constructed track from which to start. That may have improved.
It sounds like that's what you want to do, but it's not an open standard.
posted by hippybear at 4:39 PM on April 19, 2009
Inspector.Gadget - Audacity renders all effects, meaning all the intermediate versions take up disk space & bandwidth.
posted by Pronoiac at 4:54 PM on April 19, 2009
posted by Pronoiac at 4:54 PM on April 19, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
The only downsides I can see so far are:
1. Everyone must have the same files in the same folder with all the same names.
2. Limits your editing/mixing software to Audacity, at least until each mix is initially reconstructed.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 4:13 PM on April 19, 2009