Weird problem with .wavs imported into Sonar from ProTools

[Malcolm Boyce]

I'm working on a project in Sonar that originated in ProTools. I have done this many times before but never experienced the problem that I detected on this.

The files are .wavs that were exported by Jagoe from his ProTools rig to a CDR, using what he believed was the same procedure that he has always used. Everything appeared fine until we went to O/D some tracks to the original session and a severe latency issue appeared on input to output. This happened upon starting playback of the tracks and not so much before.

As soon as I removed the tracks from the project, the problem disappeared. We figured that it was something with the files, so I removed the meta data from the .wavs and then everything worked fine.

Anyone else see this before, and anyone know how to avoid including this "feature" when exporting from ProTools?

[macrae11]

Did Wes recently upgrade versions of PT or anything. Move to 7.0 or something?

That shouldn't change anything, but the only thing I can think of is in older versions of PT .wav files were .wav files, but in 7.0 and beyond PT only exports Broadcast Waves. There is only a very small amount of metadata on a BWF and I can't imagine why Sonar wouldn't be able to handle it.

You could try exporting .aif's maybe?

[Malcolm Boyce]

You know what, I think he did upgrade recently. And yes, there is a big difference between straight MS .wav and Broadcast Wave Files, and the "chunks" that they carry.

That could be the explanation that I was looking for, I'll let you know if I find out more.

[macrae11]

One thing I know, in PT you have the option when importing to convert to .bwf or leave as .wav Do you have that type of option in Sonar? That might sever the metadata from the file. I'm surprised Sonar doesn't handle .bwf properly seeing as how it's pretty much a standard now. Maybe just some settings off somewhere?

In PT there's not even an option to record to regular .wav anymore

[Malcolm Boyce]

I know I'm seeing these as .wav files straight from his disc, but I thought that the extension was the same in Windoze for both version of wave files.

[macrae11]

Yes sorry the extension is still .wav I meant to write .bwf as an acronym not as an extension. ie BWF

[Malcolm Boyce]

Update:

I was just at Jagoe's, and he exported some files for me. He is still using the same version of ProTools, is it 6.7...? Anyway. It is only given the option of BWF and then in brackets (.wav).... so I had him give me one copy in that format, and then one copy AIFF, and we'll see what happens with that.

As I mentioned, we have done projects in the past, with what we presume is the same setup, without any issue. Just trying to figure what happened. If AIFF seems to be less problematic, that may be the way to go from now on.

[Malcolm Boyce]

Update again:

So the .wav and .aiff files null, which is cool, and what they should do. This means that there would be no sonic difference between the two files.

So Andrew, what's the "conversion" quality selector doing, and why is it there when you are exporting the same resolution file that the project is? Does it actually do anything, or only when you are changing bit depth or sample rate?

...And Sonar is set up for BWFs, so that isn't the issue. It's just something in the meta data that ProTools and/or the Mac OS is writing to the file.

I'm still working on it, and I'll let you know.

[macrae11]

The conversion selector should not come up if you're exporting to the same sample rate as the project. I just tried it on both our HD rig and my 002 rig. The selector disappears unless you change the sample rate. I tried changing file types, mono or stereo, and bit depth, but it didn't appear until I changed the sample rate. I'm on 7.3 for both rigs, so i'm not sure if that makes a difference as I never used version 6 extensively.

[Malcolm Boyce]

The conversion selector should not come up if you're exporting to the same sample rate as the project.

... and it doesn't. Wes didn't have it set properly, as I suspected after you said that.

Now I'm thinking that could be the "extra" step that was different from previous projects. I'm here now, getting the remainder of the album's files, and we'll see if there's a difference without that "conversion".