Metadata Panel/Editing Suggestions

[david]

I'm really looking forward to the metadata editing features. Here's a couple of humble suggestions, based on the current (Resonic Pro 0.9.2b) metadata panel:

1. Offer users the option of displaying a user-defined configuration of metadata tags, similar to how columns are chosen for display already.
2. Offer users the option of storing and recalling such configurations (columns and metadata panel). This would facilitate switching between workflows for managing sample libraries, tagging MP3s vs. WAV files for distribution, etc.
3. Offer users the option of displaying tag fields with empty values. As is, empty fields disappear from the panel, making the display a bit herky-jerky when flipping between audio files. Adobe Bridge (media manager) offers a good example - all chosen metadata is displayed, whether it contains values or not.
4. Offer users the option of a "dense" metadata display, with one tag name and value per line (in two columns). As is, each tag consumes at least two lines - one for the tag name and another for the value(s).
5. When multiple files are selected, metadata tags with disparate values should display "multiple values" or similar. As is, values for one of the selected files is shown, and suggests that all of the selected files share the same tag value, when in fact, they do not.
6. Non-editable metadata tags (e.g., bitrate) should be denoted as such, either by typeface or color, so that those of us who've started our weekends early - don't ask - aren't dumbfounded by the fact that we can't select those fields for editing with our mouse pointers.
7. When multiple files are selected, editing metadata tag values should update those tags in all selected files, but with a warning, "You are about to modify X files. Are you sure?"
8. Being that the aforementioned operation can be very destructive, many levels of undo would be very nice, if not critical. This feature is available in Mp3tag, for example, and has saved my bacon on numerous occasions.
9. Offer users the option of searching metadata tag values when filtering. As is, filtering appears to work only on file names.
10. Offer additional filtering operators, such as "kbps:>=6144" or "comments:=''" (is empty) or "chn:=1" etc. This way, users can filter for audio files that are at least 24 bits, 5.1 surround, missing critical tag values, etc.
11. Offer users a filter history or the option of remembering or "favoriting" certain filter strings. This way, one can simply choose "Broadcast Surround" from a list, instead of typing "Path:masters bits:>=24 Hz:>=48 chn:>=4," for example.

I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if there are any features I can beta test for you.

[Tom]

Good stuff, David! All read, absorbed, and put into the idea list. Thanks for this!

I have to add, the Resonic meta core (the engine behind gathering the info from the files) is proprietary and when Resonic started as a pure "auditioning tool" or "audio browser" the focus was mainly reading and displaying the data. Since then the engine was constantly improved. Of course, we're in the process of leaving that idea behind to move forward to more powerful features, which here specifically means developing write capabilities from scratch.

[Tom]

re: filtering by metadata. Did you try this?

[david]

Hi Tom,

I tried the Configure Filter option - didn't notice that before, thank you - but can't find the RIFF tags I'd like to search on (e.g., Keywords, Subject) in the list. I discovered the iXML Metadata Implementation chart in your documentation, so should I assume from this that RIFF tags aren't supported yet?

Thank you.

[Tom]

While we have reserved metas for subject and keywords they are not in use so far, simply because there is no meaningful content (there are no "keyword" or "subject" metas, except in niche content like BSI waves) to be mapped to them yet. Also, neither iXML nor BWF define keywords or subject fields. What is there, is already exposed in the interface.

Typically what you can see is that content producers store their keywords in either the "Description" or the "Comment" meta. They also employ very random formatting schemes that make it very hard to dissect the information. This ranges from separating keywords with commas, forward slashes and backslashes, semicolons, tabs, or marking keywords with single and double quotes, to no markings or separations at all.

Soundminer keywords are read and could be exposed in the next update. But also, the formatting issue applies here as well.

What exactly are you after (please list all metas), and how do you use these metas?

[david]

What exactly are you after (please list all metas), and how do you use these metas?

My sample library is pretty young, so some of this is theoretical (some is not) - that is, I'm not tied to a particular set of metas, but here's what I want to do (or already do):

Sample Organization
Right now, I organize my sample libraries into a category / subcategory hierarchy, using the computer's file system. [Resonic Pro's browser works nicely for this.] The only downside to this is that the sample organization is volatile. Storing the Category and Subcategory info in metas might be helpful here.

For locating samples, I frequently search the File Name, File Path, Creation Date, Subject, Description, and Keywords.

Being that I work in hi-def surround, I often end up with a lot of downmixed and downsampled versions and stems, and it becomes too easy to grab the wrong file. Consequently, it's nice to be able to filter by Sample Rate, Bit Depth, and Channel Count. At present, I incorporate this info into my file names.

I haven't gotten too deeply into mapping velocity-layered samples across the keyboard but when I do, I suspect these metas could be useful: High Note, Low Note, High Velocity, Low Velocity. Right now, I record this information in the file name.

One of my common organizational tasks is cleaning up meta values. For example, after a week of recording and trimming 'Prepared Piano' samples, I might notice that some didn't get 'piano' or 'Samick' in the keywords. I need to append the missing keywords without necessarily overwriting the existing values.

For comparison, Adobe Bridge offers a nice interface for managing a hierarchy of keywords, but it doesn't synchronize changes made to the hierarchy with your images, so it's really just a nice pick list. Ideally, when you misspell a keyword in your hierarchy and go to correct it, all photos that use the keyword would (optionally) receive the correction. Likewise, I might want to replace 'piano' with 'player piano' in a group of samples.

Of course, if certain metas are preferred or better supported in Resonic Pro than others, then I would want a way to easily move values from existing meta tags (e.g., Keywords) to the preferred ones (e.g., Comments).

I hope this is helpful.

[Tom]

I hope this is helpful.

It sure is. There are as many workflows as there are users and I'm always trying to see common patterns that help focus development better. Thanks for the insights!

[david]

Oh, and I use Rating (1 - 5 stars) quite a bit too. In fact, a lot. Typically, I'll use the field to sort my search/filter results in descending order.

For example, if my search results produce three dozen 'saws' under the 'power tools' category/folder, I'll sort them by Rating (descending) and audition them, one-by-one, starting from the top. By the time I reach the 3-star samples, if I've already found something that fits the bill, I'll feel confident that it's not worth pouring through the rest, looking for something better. It's a real time-saver (minus the time it takes to assign the star ratings to each sample in the first place - a necessary evil).

Another good example is mix versions. If I've produced a lot of rough mixes, remixes, or downmixes of a particular musical project, some will turn out better than others. Perhaps the stereo version of the 'Schizo Mix v3' has that 'secret sauce,' whereas the mono version has bass problems and the 5.1 mix is 'weak in the rear.' Of course, we don't delete anything, and this makes for a lot of files and a lot of confusion. Sorting the results by Rating makes it easier to remember what worked vs. what didn't, and which files to share.

Glad to help!

[Tom]

'weak in the rear'

That made my first morning sip of coffee land on the desk

The sound is weak in the rear.

[david]

That made my first morning sip of coffee land on the desk

My work is done.