Jamie McDonald

I am currently working on a uni project on Protools which has to be done is SD2 format. this is kinda of a kick in the face for all us windows users. Is there any way of converting sd2 into wav/aiff on windows. or even better, actully being able to use sd2 format on protools and/or max on windows. I feel that i shouldn't have to use a mac when i actully don't need to. Plus i have my own pluggo stuff to use on my windows machine which i can't install onto the uni macs.

Any help will be thankfully recived. Even if i have to convert each file separatly then convert back again im fairly happy.

I am currently working on a uni project on Protools which has to be  done is SD2 format. this is kinda of a kick in the face for all us windows users. Is there any way of converting sd2 into wav/aiff on windows. or even better, actully being able to use sd2 format on protools and/or max on windows. I feel that i shouldn't have to use  a mac when i actully don't need to. Plus i have my own pluggo stuff to use on my windows machine which i can't install onto the uni macs. 

sd-ii-file-format-questions

> Is there any way of converting sd2 into wav/aiff on windows. or 

> even better, actully being able to use sd2 format on protools and/ 

As I recall, SDII actually uses the file resource fork for some of 

the data, so punting files to a PC would be problematic.

Anyway: since you're on the Max list, you presumably have Max, so it 

wouldn't take too long to whip up a little file-bouncer patcher to do 

> Is there any way of converting sd2 into wav/aiff on windows. or  
> even better, actully being able to use sd2 format on protools and/ 
> or max on windows.

As I recall, SDII actually uses the file resource fork for some of  
the data, so punting files to a PC would be problematic.

Anyway: since you're on the Max list, you presumably have Max, so it  
wouldn't take too long to whip up a little file-bouncer patcher to do  
the conversion...

Nick Rothwell / Cassiel.com Limited
www.cassiel.com
www.myspace.com/cassieldotcom
www.loadbang.net


> As I recall, SDII actually uses the file resource fork for some of the 

> data, so punting files to a PC would be problematic.

Not really, as ProTools is ignoring that part anyway.

I think its a very stupid idea to force ProTools sessions to SD II. 

Nowadays it does not have a single advantage. Even the old Sounddesigner 

The best is to encourage the usage of aiff on the ProTools side. If 

thats a decided useless punsihment just do all the conversion with 

This would be to take the existing ProTools session do a "save session 

in" with ProTools and choose a crossplatform format (including "force PC 

compatibility). This will copy all sound files into the proper format 

and then if you go back, let ProTools do the conversin again...

Nick Rothwell schrieb:
> As I recall, SDII actually uses the file resource fork for some of the 
> data, so punting files to a PC would be problematic.

I think its a very stupid idea to force ProTools sessions to SD II. 
Nowadays it does not have a single advantage. Even the old Sounddesigner 
could open aiff files...

The best is to encourage the usage of aiff on the ProTools side. If 
thats a decided useless punsihment just do all the conversion with 
ProTools itself
This would be to take the existing ProTools session do a "save session 
in" with ProTools and choose a crossplatform format (including "force PC 
compatibility). This will copy all sound files into the proper format 
and then if you go back, let ProTools do the conversin again...

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


On 2 mai 07, at 12:37, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

>> As I recall, SDII actually uses the file resource fork for some of 

>> the data, so punting files to a PC would be problematic.

> Not really, as ProTools is ignoring that part anyway.

All datas (SR, resolution, etc) but the sound itself it stored in the 

resource fork. I think on PC there is a second file which contains the 

> I think its a very stupid idea to force ProTools sessions to SD II. 

> Nowadays it does not have a single advantage. Even the old 

If you change some metadatas (like markers) on a SDII file, you only 

need to save the resource fork, not the data fork. With a WAVE or AIFF 

file, you need to modify and save the whole file, which can take a lot 

SDII was a nice format, as was the resource fork technique on MacOS.

Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl

> Nick Rothwell schrieb:
>> As I recall, SDII actually uses the file resource fork for some of 
>> the data, so punting files to a PC would be problematic.
>
> Not really, as ProTools is ignoring that part anyway.

All datas (SR, resolution, etc) but the sound itself it stored in the 
resource fork. I think on PC there is a second  file which contains the 
resource fork.

> I think its a very stupid idea to force ProTools sessions to SD II. 
> Nowadays it does not have a single advantage. Even the old 
> Sounddesigner could open aiff files...

If you change some metadatas (like markers) on a SDII file, you only 
need to save the resource fork, not the data fork. With a WAVE or AIFF 
file, you need to modify and save the whole file, which can take a lot 
of time.

_____________________________
Patrick Delges

Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl
http://users.skynet.be/crfmw/max


> If you change some metadatas (like markers) on a SDII file, you only 

> need to save the resource fork, not the data fork. With a WAVE or AIFF 

> file, you need to modify and save the whole file, which can take a lot 

> SDII was a nice format, as was the resource fork technique on MacOS.

I totally agree, but ProTools is not using any meta data, its annoyingly 

ignoring it for ages, though they designed that format themself 

Patrick Delges schrieb:
> If you change some metadatas (like markers) on a SDII file, you only 
> need to save the resource fork, not the data fork. With a WAVE or AIFF 
> file, you need to modify and save the whole file, which can take a lot 
> of time.
>
> SDII was a nice format, as was the resource fork technique on MacOS.

I totally agree, but ProTools is not using any meta data, its annoyingly 
ignoring it for ages, though they designed that format themself 
milleniums ago...

On 3 mai 07, at 10:51, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

>> If you change some metadatas (like markers) on a SDII file, you only 

>> need to save the resource fork, not the data fork. With a WAVE or 

>> AIFF file, you need to modify and save the whole file, which can take 

>> SDII was a nice format, as was the resource fork technique on MacOS.

> I totally agree, but ProTools is not using any meta data, its 

> annoyingly ignoring it for ages, though they designed that format 

I don't know for PT, But Digital Performer does: time code, audio 

chunks positions, maybe even the waveform, etc.

But I must admit I ask my students to avoid using SDII when possible.

> Patrick Delges schrieb:
>> If you change some metadatas (like markers) on a SDII file, you only 
>> need to save the resource fork, not the data fork. With a WAVE or 
>> AIFF file, you need to modify and save the whole file, which can take 
>> a lot of time.
>> SDII was a nice format, as was the resource fork technique on MacOS.
>
> I totally agree, but ProTools is not using any meta data, its 
> annoyingly ignoring it for ages, though they designed that format 
> themself milleniums ago...

I don't know for PT, But Digital Performer does: time code, audio 
chunks positions, maybe even the waveform, etc.
But I must admit I ask my students to avoid using SDII when possible.

> But I must admit I ask my students to avoid using SDII when possible.

one could also advice the world to avoid windows OS.

> But I must admit I ask my students to avoid using SDII when possible.
>

On 4 mai 07, at 00:24, Roman Thilenius wrote:

>> But I must admit I ask my students to avoid using SDII when possible.

> one could also advice the world to avoid windows OS.

But I didn't want to start a new win vs mac thread. I'm in the middle 

of such discussions since I bought my first mac, a long time ago, and 

Speaking about resources, they are problematic not only because of Win, 

but because of almost all file systems. And transfering a SDII file 

over a network wasn't always straighforward neither.

>> But I must admit I ask my students to avoid using SDII when possible.
>
> one could also advice the world to avoid windows OS.

But I didn't want to start a new win vs mac thread. I'm in the middle 
of such discussions since I bought my first mac, a long time ago, and 
always found them totally useless.
Speaking about resources, they are problematic not only because of Win, 
but because of almost all file systems. And transfering a SDII file 
over a network wasn't always straighforward neither.

SD II File Format questions