Dennis Brunnenmeyer
2013-01-31 06:29:50 UTC
Hello...
For the last three years, several of us have been developing a
FLAC-based digital music library for use at our radio station here in
northern California. This was started first as an experimentwith the
goal of understanding what it takes to make a useful library on a
central network file server. In the process, we developed an improved
and far more useful schema for tagging the resulting FLAC files. For
reasons you surely understand, creating alossy libraryor any library
based on a proprietary format was deemed absurd. FLAC was our starting
point and still seems to be the logical choice for the next generation
of music distribution file formats....including high-resolution files
for those that care even more about audioquality.
One of theprimary underlying assumptions comprising the foundation of
this project was that future music distributions will inevitably be
file-based and free of the encumbrance of optical discs in any format.
Discs don't make sense, but compatible, searchable libraries do. Users
need to search their libraries for more important reasons than just to
locate an artist or song by name. The current (formalized) set of
VorbisComments is inadequate for this purpose. [For example, who is the
vocalist on that track, or whois playing the violin on this track?] In
this scenario, FLAC is the obvious choice for a server-based music
libraryin both consumer and professional applications. We would like to
see artists and labels make their offerings available in both "standard"
and high-resolution formats in the form of "lossless" FLAC files,
already tagged correctly and accurately.
Having said this, the minimal set of VorbisComments listed as part of
the FLAC specification is justifiably inadequate for the purpose. A new
set of recommendations for FLAC tags (in the VorbisComments format) is
more than just desirable---it's essential for the future adaptation of
FLAC for music distribution. A revised codified standard for
VorbisComments or their equivalent is required.
Since our project began three years ago, we have developed and are still
working on the best means for tagging our files. We think we're just
about there. We're in the process of finalizing our recommendations (in
the form of a proposal) for an updatedand consistent, codified standard
for FLAC tags. Rather than just create havoc by going off on our own, we
would like to seek input and acceptance of this revision by the xiph.org
community.
What is the best way to go about this?
Dennis Brunnenmeyer
Full Fidelity Music
KVMR-FM Radio
Nevada City, CA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20130131/e0485506/attachment.htm
For the last three years, several of us have been developing a
FLAC-based digital music library for use at our radio station here in
northern California. This was started first as an experimentwith the
goal of understanding what it takes to make a useful library on a
central network file server. In the process, we developed an improved
and far more useful schema for tagging the resulting FLAC files. For
reasons you surely understand, creating alossy libraryor any library
based on a proprietary format was deemed absurd. FLAC was our starting
point and still seems to be the logical choice for the next generation
of music distribution file formats....including high-resolution files
for those that care even more about audioquality.
One of theprimary underlying assumptions comprising the foundation of
this project was that future music distributions will inevitably be
file-based and free of the encumbrance of optical discs in any format.
Discs don't make sense, but compatible, searchable libraries do. Users
need to search their libraries for more important reasons than just to
locate an artist or song by name. The current (formalized) set of
VorbisComments is inadequate for this purpose. [For example, who is the
vocalist on that track, or whois playing the violin on this track?] In
this scenario, FLAC is the obvious choice for a server-based music
libraryin both consumer and professional applications. We would like to
see artists and labels make their offerings available in both "standard"
and high-resolution formats in the form of "lossless" FLAC files,
already tagged correctly and accurately.
Having said this, the minimal set of VorbisComments listed as part of
the FLAC specification is justifiably inadequate for the purpose. A new
set of recommendations for FLAC tags (in the VorbisComments format) is
more than just desirable---it's essential for the future adaptation of
FLAC for music distribution. A revised codified standard for
VorbisComments or their equivalent is required.
Since our project began three years ago, we have developed and are still
working on the best means for tagging our files. We think we're just
about there. We're in the process of finalizing our recommendations (in
the form of a proposal) for an updatedand consistent, codified standard
for FLAC tags. Rather than just create havoc by going off on our own, we
would like to seek input and acceptance of this revision by the xiph.org
community.
What is the best way to go about this?
Dennis Brunnenmeyer
Full Fidelity Music
KVMR-FM Radio
Nevada City, CA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20130131/e0485506/attachment.htm