Re: [Lmuse-developer] wave naming convention

[Robert J. <spa...@gm...>]

2012/7/9 Tim E. Real <ter...@ro...>:
> On July 9, 2012 12:06:17 AM Robert Jonsson wrote:
>> 2012/7/8 Tim E. Real <ter...@ro...>:
>> > On July 8, 2012 12:31:04 PM Robert Jonsson wrote:
>> >> 2012/7/8 Geoff Beasley <ge...@la...>:
>> >> > how do you guys cope with just a rec_n.wav convention for audio files
>> >> > in
>> >> > sessions? now that I have to try to find the Bass track waves' to
>> >> > rebuild after that delete incident  it's looming as a real problem.
>> >>
>> >> I've changed it so the files have track names and increment their take
>> >> number individually.
>> >
>> > Very nice thank you.
>> >
>> > On a parallel note, while recording and editing parts for a song recently
>> >
>> >  I was reminded of how nice it might be if the /part/ names were auto-
>> >  incremented, switchable if user desires.
>> >
>> > Taken further, some kind of global renaming function, since after moving
>> >
>> >  parts around from track to track until satisfied with the results, it may
>> >  be desirable to rename the parts to fit the actual tracks they're on now.
>
> Actually I've just inadvertently pointed out a problem with the new naming.
> If you move a part to another track, the 'track' section of the new wave file
>  name is not correct.
>
> Perhaps this is why the names were kept as simple recXX.wav, so that
>  moving the parts around would not matter.

True, but it's just meta data and information is good. I recorded a
bit with Reaper last year and I think it too embedded the track name
in the file names, very likely with the same type of drawback.
When you get to the point that you wish to find the actual wave file
(as Geoff just did) any clues to where to look would be positive I
think.
I guess one option is to change the TRACK pretext to ORIGTRACK or
something, to give a hint that the file might not have been used
there.

Regards,
Robert