A couple of months ago I mixed a project into ProTools
using 24bit/44.1 Sound Designer files. I burned a data
CD for him to bring to the mastering engineer assuming
that this is a proper and common delivery format.

I get a call today from the client saying that the
company doing the mastering and replication (Diskmakers)
can't use this format. He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.

A conversation with a sales rep left me with no
confidence in this company. He said "just use the 16 bit
reference CD to master from". There were no engineers
available to talk to me as they had "all gone home" This
was at 4:40 pm.

It seems half-assed to me that a "pro" replication
facility cannot open ProTools files.

Anybody want a mastering job?

John Noll

A couple of months ago I mixed a project into ProTools
using 24bit/44.1 Sound Designer files. I burned a data
CD for him to bring to the mastering engineer assuming
that this is a proper and common delivery format.
I get a call today from the client saying that the
company doing the mastering and replication (Diskmakers)
can't use this format. He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.

Lame. Why can't they convert SDII to WAV files?

A conversation with a sales rep left me with no
confidence in this company. He said "just use the 16 bit
reference CD to master from".

Wrong answer.

It seems half-assed to me that a "pro" replication
facility cannot open ProTools files.

If they really are sure they can't open an SDII to convert it, you could
re-save your mixes as WAV files & send them in again. Or is the problem that
the data CD was burned in Mac format, instead of hybrid Mac & PC?

Scott Fraser

John Noll
I get a call today from the client saying that the
company doing the mastering and replication (Diskmakers)
can't use this format. He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.

Ummm - what about a Redbook CDR burned using SDII files in Masterlist CD or
Jam? Are those files in a different format after you burn the disk?

For a service company like Discmakers to be unable to deal with SDII files
with all the Protools/Masterdisk CD people out in the marketplace seems kinda
hinky to me.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Hi John,

while I'd love the gig, I'm sure you can find someone locally who can do
the work and grok your files. SDII is a Mac format, SaDiE is a PC based
system, but I'm surprised (really surprised!) that it doesn't accept
every audio format known to man. At the very least the facility should
have a program that will convert between common formats (although SDII
format is an old one, it's still used quite often).

At very least I'm sure someone can simply convert your files to
something Sadie can understand (Wav, I expect). Shouldn't be a problem.

It might also be that the problem is that you're at a replicator, as I
cannot imagine a dedicated mastering facility not accepting all common
formats (and many prefer a data CD-R - as you note - over an audio CD-R
of the mixes).

Regards,
Thor
--
Sonovo Mastering & Sound Design
www.smsd.no



In article ,
John Noll wrote:

A couple of months ago I mixed a project into ProTools
using 24bit/44.1 Sound Designer files. I burned a data
CD for him to bring to the mastering engineer assuming
that this is a proper and common delivery format.

I get a call today from the client saying that the
company doing the mastering and replication (Diskmakers)
can't use this format. He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.

A conversation with a sales rep left me with no
confidence in this company. He said "just use the 16 bit
reference CD to master from". There were no engineers
available to talk to me as they had "all gone home" This
was at 4:40 pm.

It seems half-assed to me that a "pro" replication
facility cannot open ProTools files.

Anybody want a mastering job?

John Noll

Why don't you convert them to 24 bit .wav files... Pro Tools can do this
quite easily. The ME with a SADiE shouldn't have any problems opening them.

And BTW, because SDII is a Mac-only format and can't handle high sampling
rates, it isn't that big of a surprise that a DAW doesn't support them.

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

"John Noll" wrote in message
...
A couple of months ago I mixed a project into ProTools
using 24bit/44.1 Sound Designer files. I burned a data
CD for him to bring to the mastering engineer assuming
that this is a proper and common delivery format.

I get a call today from the client saying that the
company doing the mastering and replication (Diskmakers)
can't use this format. He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.

A conversation with a sales rep left me with no
confidence in this company. He said "just use the 16 bit
reference CD to master from". There were no engineers
available to talk to me as they had "all gone home" This
was at 4:40 pm.

It seems half-assed to me that a "pro" replication
facility cannot open ProTools files.

Anybody want a mastering job?

John Noll

Benjamin Maas wrote:
Why don't you convert them to 24 bit .wav files... Pro Tools can do this
quite easily. The ME with a SADiE shouldn't have any problems opening them.

And BTW, because SDII is a Mac-only format and can't handle high sampling
rates, it isn't that big of a surprise that a DAW doesn't support them.

--Ben



Thanks for all of the responses.

I could have easily converted the files when I had the
project in house, but it was completed a couple of
months ago. I could have also recorded the original
mixes as wavs in PT, but I assumed that SDII was a
standard, prefered format.

The client has the files. I deleted them from my system.
I actually thought he mastered this album and released
it by now. He would have to come back again, book some
time and have me convert them. He lives in Philadelphia
and I'm in Central NJ. Basically it's a pain in the ass
for him.

Because he's in Philly (where Diskmakers is) we came to
the conclusion that it would be simple and affordable to
let them do the mastering and replication. They have
been heavily promoting their mastering capabilities.

My beef is the lameness of not being able to at least
have a PT rig to import and/or convert what I believed
to be a very common delivery format. He went there for a
meeting, came back dissappointed, called me, I call
Diskmakers, etc. Now I have to help him find someone
else, make more calls, etc.

Any good mastering guys in Philadelphia?

JN

I could have easily converted the files when I had the
project in house, but it was completed a couple of
months ago. I could have also recorded the original
mixes as wavs in PT, but I assumed that SDII was a
standard, prefered format.



Probably a stupid question, but if it was your decision to format the finished
product in SDII files, why is the client having to pay for your error?


--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-

I think this is a great litmus test to see if you're dealing with
people who know their ass from a hole in the ground. If they don't
know how to use a canopener, don't hire them to cook your soup.

ulysses


In article , John Noll
wrote:

A couple of months ago I mixed a project into ProTools
using 24bit/44.1 Sound Designer files. I burned a data
CD for him to bring to the mastering engineer assuming
that this is a proper and common delivery format.

I get a call today from the client saying that the
company doing the mastering and replication (Diskmakers)
can't use this format. He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.

A conversation with a sales rep left me with no
confidence in this company. He said "just use the 16 bit
reference CD to master from". There were no engineers
available to talk to me as they had "all gone home" This
was at 4:40 pm.

It seems half-assed to me that a "pro" replication
facility cannot open ProTools files.

Anybody want a mastering job?

John Noll

Probably a stupid question, but if it was your decision to format the
finished
product in SDII files, why is the client having to pay for your error?

I have not had a problem sending SDII files to anyone.





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Probably a stupid question, but if it was your decision to format the
finished
product in SDII files, why is the client having to pay for your error?

I have not had a problem sending SDII files to anyone.




The client should not have to pay me or anyone for this
"error". My point is that SDII files are a commonly used
format for the delivery of mastered material. As it has
been suggested by others here, it is lame that someone
would not be able to handle this medium, particularly
because ProTools has become such a uniformly accepted
standard format.
JN

Probably a stupid question, but if it was your decision to format the
finished
product in SDII files, why is the client having to pay for your error?

It's not an error. SDII is a standard file format. Unless the client said "I'm
mastering at XYZ. Find out what format they need," then John is perfectly
correct to deliver SDII's. I say DiskMakers, a supposedly legit operation, is
totally lame not to be able to handle the files.

Scott Fraser

And BTW, because SDII is a Mac-only format and can't handle high sampling
rates, it isn't that big of a surprise that a DAW doesn't support them.

SDII can in fact support 24/96 sampling. Mac software can import WAV files.
SADIE SHOULD be able to open & convert an SDII.


Scott Fraser

In article ,
WillStG wrote:
John Noll
I get a call today from the client saying that the
company doing the mastering and replication (Diskmakers)
can't use this format. He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.

Ummm - what about a Redbook CDR burned using SDII files in Masterlist CD or
Jam? Are those files in a different format after you burn the disk?

Redbook would be 16 bit... and there'd be no files, just audio. It'd
work, but if they were to actually master the music, it'd be nice to
have the real 24 bit source.

For a service company like Discmakers to be unable to deal with SDII files
with all the Protools/Masterdisk CD people out in the marketplace seems kinda
hinky to me.

Indeed! 5-6 years ago, I ran into this problem, but these days,
everyone 'real' has simply had to deal with 24 bit SDII as a delivery
medium. If you want to be kinder, 24 bit WAV or AIFF is probably a
little more universal and if you're not embedding index information
into the file, there's no downside.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

Tell them to open the sd2 files as RAW audio data files and to specify the
sample rate, the bit resolution and to flip the bytes.. then save the files
as WAV files.

This should be no problem on a PC with something like Sound Forge.

In the future, you should always supply WAV files.. they're much more robust
and standardized.

Rail
------------------------------------------------------------
Recording Engineer/Software Developer
Rail Jon Rogut Software
http://home.earthlink.net/~railro


"John Noll" wrote in message
...
A couple of months ago I mixed a project into ProTools
using 24bit/44.1 Sound Designer files. I burned a data
CD for him to bring to the mastering engineer assuming
that this is a proper and common delivery format.

I get a call today from the client saying that the
company doing the mastering and replication (Diskmakers)
can't use this format. He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.

A conversation with a sales rep left me with no
confidence in this company. He said "just use the 16 bit
reference CD to master from". There were no engineers
available to talk to me as they had "all gone home" This
was at 4:40 pm.

It seems half-assed to me that a "pro" replication
facility cannot open ProTools files.

Anybody want a mastering job?

John Noll

No, sd2 files only support up to 96kHz 24 bit... that's why Pro Tools now
creates WAV or AIFF files at the higher sample rates.

Rail
------------------------------------------------------------
Recording Engineer/Software Developer
Rail Jon Rogut Software
http://home.earthlink.net/~railro


"ScotFraser" wrote in message
...
And BTW, because SDII is a Mac-only format and can't handle high
sampling
rates, it isn't that big of a surprise that a DAW doesn't support them.

SDII can in fact support 24/96 sampling. Mac software can import WAV
files.
SADIE SHOULD be able to open & convert an SDII.


Scott Fraser

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:53:30 GMT, John Noll wrote:

A couple of months ago I mixed a project into ProTools
using 24bit/44.1 Sound Designer files. I burned a data
CD for him to bring to the mastering engineer assuming
that this is a proper and common delivery format.

I get a call today from the client saying that the
company doing the mastering and replication (Diskmakers)
can't use this format. He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.


I use Discmakers all the time, but not for mastering. They're a good
company (we'll see what the west coast changes do to them) and do
pretty much what they'll say they can do, usually on time and
on-budget. If they have any inkling that something in a project will
**** Up, they alert you. That alone may be the reason they won't work
with the files, could be there is something bad in the transfer that
the audio guys didn't articulate to the rep.

They always specify that they want a 16 bit master to replicate. Did
your client pay for "Mastering?" or just for prep?

Premaster somewhere else, use them for replication. . .



Kurt Riemann

On 04 Dec 2003 04:19:54 GMT, (ScotFraser) wrote:

And BTW, because SDII is a Mac-only format and can't handle high sampling
rates, it isn't that big of a surprise that a DAW doesn't support them.

SDII can in fact support 24/96 sampling. Mac software can import WAV files.
SADIE SHOULD be able to open & convert an SDII.

You're right - it should.

http://www.cuibono-soft.com/Products...E4/sadie4.html

They call it sd2, but there it is, sample rate and all . . .




Kurt Riemann

In article , wrote:

It seems half-assed to me that a "pro" replication
facility cannot open ProTools files.

Anybody want a mastering job?

The better facilities will be able to at least convert them if they
don't have digi hardware in house. An Mbox is like a $400 answer to
their problem, and any pro house can afford that. Alternately, a batch
processor like Barbabatch will make SDIIs into anything they want them
to be. This should not be something to worry the client about.

Even though I'm a Sonic HD mastering room, I have a PT24 TDM rig in the
studio just to play back pro tools files and sessions as they are a such
a common delivery format. Sure, aiff or wav may offer wider
compatability, but SDII isn't exactly esoteric. It's pretty lame that
they couldn't make it work.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

AES delivery recommendations are for waves.

I have tried different ways to convert sd2 to wave (on a PC) and have
never been happy with the results. One program called GUI2WAV adds noise
to the converted wave.

I would have just converted the project in a few minutes and made my
client happy and at the same time assured that the "mastering" house
doesn't have to mess around converting my mixes. When people buy the CD
they don't usually blame the mastering house for crappy sounding mixes.
Some of my clients have "mastered" with Discmakers and it seems like
they have problems frequently.

I just make sure all my mixes are delivered as waves. It seems that
nobody has trouble with wave files regardless of platform.



Jay - atldigi wrote:
In article , wrote:


It seems half-assed to me that a "pro" replication
facility cannot open ProTools files.

Anybody want a mastering job?


The better facilities will be able to at least convert them if they
don't have digi hardware in house. An Mbox is like a $400 answer to
their problem, and any pro house can afford that. Alternately, a batch
processor like Barbabatch will make SDIIs into anything they want them
to be. This should not be something to worry the client about.

Even though I'm a Sonic HD mastering room, I have a PT24 TDM rig in the
studio just to play back pro tools files and sessions as they are a such
a common delivery format. Sure, aiff or wav may offer wider
compatability, but SDII isn't exactly esoteric. It's pretty lame that
they couldn't make it work.

John Noll wrote:

A couple of months ago I mixed a project into ProTools
using 24bit/44.1 Sound Designer files. I burned a data
CD for him to bring to the mastering engineer assuming
that this is a proper and common delivery format.

I get a call today from the client saying that the
company doing the mastering and replication (Diskmakers)
can't use this format. He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.

A conversation with a sales rep left me with no
confidence in this company. He said "just use the 16 bit
reference CD to master from". There were no engineers
available to talk to me as they had "all gone home" This
was at 4:40 pm.

It seems half-assed to me that a "pro" replication
facility cannot open ProTools files.

Diskmakers' "mastering" has not been a strong point in projects with
which I am familiar where the client has chosen them for replication.

Anybody want a mastering job?

Oasis CD has done decent mastering for other clients of mine.

--
ha

Wayne wrote:

I could have easily converted the files when I had the
project in house, but it was completed a couple of
months ago. I could have also recorded the original
mixes as wavs in PT, but I assumed that SDII was a
standard, prefered format.

Probably a stupid question, but if it was your decision to format the finished
product in SDII files, why is the client having to pay for your error?

Any _competent_ mastering service will not have trouble with SDII files,
period. If a client chooses some lame-ass replicator with a halfassed
"mastering" situation, then the client may cheerfully bear the full cost
of that decision. A Mac capable of saving those in a Sadie-compatible
format would cost a pittance in respect to a reasonable investment in a
mastering suite. Most likely the DM guy can't load the files because he
left the garage door of his mastering suite open.

--
ha

"Andrew M."
I have tried different ways to
convert sd2 to wave (on a PC) and have
never been happy with the results. One program called GUI2WAV adds noise
to the converted wave.

On my last project I just opened up files in the pool in Nuendo to do
format conversion at 24 bits, that sounded pretty transparent as file
conversion should be! You should be able to do the same thing in Cubase and
other sequencing programs (even on a PC.)

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

John Noll wrote:

He says they use Sadie and they
can't open SDII files.

I just pulled this from the Sadie website...

"Although based on a PC platform, SADiE is not confined to working only
"with PC files. Full compatibility is provided with Macintosh disks and
"many proprietary formats. Files may be freely interchanged between
"SADiE and other workstations without time-consuming file translation."

Apparently the reason they can't deal with the SKII files is they don't
know what the **** they're doing.

But hey, DM service is cheap.

--
ha

WillStG wrote:
"Andrew M."
I have tried different ways to
convert sd2 to wave (on a PC) and have
never been happy with the results. One program called GUI2WAV adds noise
to the converted wave.


On my last project I just opened up files in the pool in Nuendo to do
format conversion at 24 bits, that sounded pretty transparent as file
conversion should be! You should be able to do the same thing in Cubase and
other sequencing programs (even on a PC.)


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits



Steinberg openly admits this is not the case (even though the option is
available within all their programs for PC)and claims that a PC has no
proper way of dealing with SD2.

Andrew M. wrote:

Steinberg openly admits this is not the case (even though the option is
available within all their programs for PC)and claims that a PC has no
proper way of dealing with SD2.

There is some truth to this. SDII files use the Mac filesystem's resource fork
to describe the data (Fs, bits, channels), and windoze doesn't know about
resource forks In fact, the Mac saves a separate file when writing to a FAT
filesystem to store the resource fork should it be needed. Therefore, the
"proper" way to deal with SDII files is to ask the user for sample rate, word
size, and number of channels, if the fork file is not present.

SDII is a perfectly acceptable format pretty much anywhere Mastering is
done (even many places it isn't done :-). The fact that they don't know
what to do with the file indicates that while they might be excellent
replicators, they might have a thing or two to learn about mastering, at
very least what file formats they should be equipped to accept.

John - whoever has the files can easily load them into a PC or Mac, and
with very simple software convert (no quality loss or change of audio
info, it's basically a header with some extra info) to any number of
formats, Wav included.

Better still would be to go to a dedicated mastering facility for
mastering and send the premaster on to Diskmakers (or whomever) for
pressing.

Being in Norway, I can't really give you a name to go to in Philly
though :-)

I do know that Jay does good work (promastering.com), if you don't mind
sending a disc to L.A. (or even ftp'ing it up to him via the 'net).

Regards,
Thor
--
Sonovo Mastering & Sound Design
Mastering - Restoration - Post production
Stavanger, Norway
www.smsd.no


In article ,
John Noll wrote:

Probably a stupid question, but if it was your decision to format the
finished
product in SDII files, why is the client having to pay for your error?

I have not had a problem sending SDII files to anyone.




The client should not have to pay me or anyone for this
"error". My point is that SDII files are a commonly used
format for the delivery of mastered material. As it has
been suggested by others here, it is lame that someone
would not be able to handle this medium, particularly
because ProTools has become such a uniformly accepted
standard format.
JN

Thor wrote:
SDII is a perfectly acceptable format pretty much anywhere Mastering is
done (even many places it isn't done :-). The fact that they don't know
what to do with the file indicates that while they might be excellent
replicators, they might have a thing or two to learn about mastering, at
very least what file formats they should be equipped to accept.

John - whoever has the files can easily load them into a PC or Mac, and
with very simple software convert (no quality loss or change of audio
info, it's basically a header with some extra info) to any number of
formats, Wav included.

Better still would be to go to a dedicated mastering facility for
mastering and send the premaster on to Diskmakers (or whomever) for
pressing.

Being in Norway, I can't really give you a name to go to in Philly
though :-)

I do know that Jay does good work (promastering.com), if you don't mind
sending a disc to L.A. (or even ftp'ing it up to him via the 'net).

Regards,
Thor
--
Sonovo Mastering & Sound Design
Mastering - Restoration - Post production
Stavanger, Norway
www.smsd.no


In article ,
John Noll wrote:


Probably a stupid question, but if it was your decision to format the
finished
product in SDII files, why is the client having to pay for your error?

I have not had a problem sending SDII files to anyone.




The client should not have to pay me or anyone for this
"error". My point is that SDII files are a commonly used
format for the delivery of mastered material. As it has
been suggested by others here, it is lame that someone
would not be able to handle this medium, particularly
because ProTools has become such a uniformly accepted
standard format.
JN

Who do you hold accountable when Discmakers (and I don't endorse them)
clearly spells out the formats that are acceptable for them and you send
them something different?

In article ,
"Andrew M." wrote:

Who do you hold accountable when Discmakers (and I don't endorse them)
clearly spells out the formats that are acceptable for them and you send
them something different?

That depends who "you" are. You the client, you the
mastering/premastering house, you doing the mixing, you the producer,
etc.

I do mastering. I work for clients. The client has the final say in what
they want delivered. I have the professional responsibility to inform
the client of any choices that might make life difficult further down
the road, but the final decision is up to them. If they want their
master on a certain format that the replicator doesn't allow, I inform
them of this. If they insist, so be it. If it's something really strange
(cassette :-), I get it in writing.

Where I am the market is small enough that I should, as a professional,
know what plants take what and inform the client (there are only a
handfull). In the USA market which is gigantic, this might not be
reasonable. I would think if one was in doubt one could simply pick up
the phone (or get on the net) and confirm that the format the client
insists upon is actually supported and let them know the consequences of
their decision. That helps prevent inconvenient situations later on...

Regards,
Thor

That's one scary thought, having your record mastered by Discmakers.



David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com