Forum Replies Created
Author | Posts |
---|---|
3 Jan, 2021 at 2:34 pm in reply to: How to make a sound walk – questions after the workshop #65481 | |
Keymaster
|
There is a rather wide range of applications that provide similar solutions to Echoes, all with their own, often slightly different use cases. |
16 Oct, 2020 at 5:13 pm in reply to: A Leap Into the Sonic Future #57962 | |
Keymaster
|
Thanks Ralph, As you can see, our forum isn’t (yet?) too heavily used 🙁 It also pays to keep an eye on the event page, and the comments section, there: |
20 Sep, 2020 at 1:01 pm in reply to: How to make a sound walk – questions after the workshop #54835 | |
Keymaster
|
Questions and Answers from the Sounds from he Chase & Chalke workshop chat – we recommend you check our earlier posts that also have lots of Q&As from our previous “how to make sound walk” workshop Q: Where to find Voice Memo on Iphone to use for recording audio Q: source of Sound effects Effects SFX? Q: What was the editing software that was demonstrated? Q: What is the url for Echoes? Q: Are you only able to upload walks on laptop/computer? It doesn’t seem to have the new walk option on the app on android? Q: With the echoes app is it possible to listen to recordings on a walk without begin in the area. E.g could I listen to recordings from a Poland walk in Australia? Q: Within Echoes you can plot a possible online route and hear what the sound walk would sound like. How do you do that? Q: what is the URL for Shorelines? Q: Are the walks curated by Echoes? Can you delete it if wanted? Q: where is the link to the Forums? |
9 Jul, 2020 at 3:42 pm in reply to: Open Locative Media standard – who/what is it for? #45103 | |
Keymaster
|
It seems to me there are a few strands of intent that are intertwined, here. A standard should be broad enough, but also has to recognise it is unlikely to cover all instances and all eventualities. A standard that allows for everything is not likely to be a standard, meaning we would have no choice but to make abstractions and set limits. A format that has a broader application than existing formats, and is more widely adopted then existing formats is beneficial to everyone involved. It needs to be clear what the applications and limitations are for any format that we suggest. To understand the potential challenges and limitations, we need to understand the variety of works we might want to include in being able to be described through this format. I’ll start.
Josh, I’m not familiar with Janet Cardiff. Her website appears offline. I just checked the description of a work of hers, here: It seems to me this particular piece is, really, just one audio file. What about Echoes? What about other, similar, tools? Do some include a kind of data that goes beyond media connected to geospatial information? |
23 Jun, 2020 at 10:09 am in reply to: Open Locative Media standard – who/what is it for? #43839 | |
Keymaster
|
It’s possible to attach a range of licenses to work uploaded to the Internet Archive. But, all variations of Creative Commons. I’m quite sure you can not put content behind a login; it would arguably defy the purpose of the Internet Archive. Either way, I think this is sufficient for our purpose and needs, here; we’re looking for a place to store media in a way that reliably provides longevity of accessibility. |
22 Jun, 2020 at 7:10 pm in reply to: Open Locative Media standard – who/what is it for? #43790 | |
Keymaster
|
If requiring archival before a standard, lack of structural resources might prevent moving forward. Yes, a PhD study on this and the general concept of a standard, would be great, but, who can wait four years? And who would pay for that? Half the current apps/platforms operating in this space could be effectively dead in four years. Involving multiple potential stakeholders is a good and important move forward. But, getting them on board would see a larger chance of success if we are able to agree on a unified and clear message, first. Inviting more people can result in more disagreement and a real risk of discussions and resolutions never leaving the starting gate. I’ll let @hamish-sewell answer for himself on his intentions, but it seems to me that the obvious objective, here, is interoperability. If there is a standard, any platform can convert from and to that standard, and vice versa. So, @joshkopecek, if we agree on the standard, you can create a converter for .echoes to .olm, and @kris can create a converter for .olm to .stx. I do think that creating a standard, without also necessitating the existence of a perpetual storage medium, is a worthwhile cause. Defining a standard is a much more important step than facilitating another free storage platform, which would have its own unique challenges, plenty of which would be completely unrelated to facilitating an open standard for locative media. Yes, @joshkopecek, approaching the internet archive is a great idea. In fact, it turns out that they already host audio, for free.
(Note, I marked it as ‘test’, meaning it should be automatically deleted after 30 days.) They also appear to host video, but I did not test this. So, this means that it appears we have a working solution for perpetually storing audio. Or, rather, as perpetual as it reasonably can get. To go back to @joshkopecek’s list of points:
|
19 Jun, 2020 at 7:45 pm in reply to: Open Locative Media standard – who/what is it for? #43548 | |
Keymaster
|
I think we’re discussing two things, here; the importance/need of a standard, and the importance/need of preserving media. These are related, but not the same. Defining a standard stands apart from preserving media. So, we can talk about one as well as the other, without requiring one for the other. Because long-term cost-free, or nearly cost-free, file hosting is a completely different beast altogether, I don’t think this needs to be part of the discussion on a standard for locative media. |
12 Jun, 2020 at 11:21 am in reply to: Open Locative Media standard – who/what is it for? #43052 | |
Keymaster
|
Yes, WLC could host files. But, even at small individual volumes, we’ll need a budget. Our budget, so far, has been 0. In the mean time, WLC-based file hosting would not be used by users creating a soundwalk if they are not aware of WLC, meaning that WLC-based file hosting can only solve the problem that Josh mentions, for some. I can be convinced otherwise, but I’m not sure that the benefits of offering ‘our’ own file hosting will not outweigh the benefits. That said, I can also see a possibility where we’d offer a relatively small amount of storage space for the files, perhaps only a particular series of types of files, and these files only, that referenced in the soundwalk. @Hamish, one more thing about the signatures: It’s possible I was not fully understanding your underlying thoughts on the purpose and meaning of them. Before we fully dismiss them, if we dismiss them, are you able to elaborate on how you saw their purpose a bit more? |
11 Jun, 2020 at 7:54 pm in reply to: Open Locative Media standard – who/what is it for? #43004 | |
Keymaster
|
On how to reference media; it doesn’t seem ideal to allow for inclusion of files within the context of the standard as this quickly could see overall file size explode. @josh: I’m not sure I follow your reference to a container format. I’d say that, yes, it would be the author’s responsibility to find a place to host files. Though, I suppose, it could also be allowed for file references to not be URIs, but also be referenced as relative to the open standard file. So, it seems we’re leaning towards ditching a signature, yes? |
11 Jun, 2020 at 11:40 am in reply to: Open Locative Media standard – who/what is it for? #42975 | |
Keymaster
|
Ah, sorry about misattributing the source of the line on the signature. @Hamish: If you’re questioning whether we should consider not using plaintext, I’m very strongly against not using plaintext. Plaintext is the format that can always be read by anything. @Hamish, @Josh: Yes, WLC, or any centralised repository, could function as a kind of issuing authority for unique signatures, but this can’t really be a requirement as part of the standard, as this prevents independent portability. In short, it then seems to me that the idea of this signature should be dropped. On rights; it makes sense to allow rights to be set for each referenced file, individually, as well as for the piece as a whole. On use cases: More clearly defined use cases are great to have. |