I prefer tagging all the files because then I can say it's done, and it comes it handy for clients if they use the reference mp3s for download codes, personal or promo use, and even the metadata in the WAVs comes in handy when the files are downloaded from Bandcamp.Īnother good use case is music licensing.imagine you're a music supervisor and you are choosing between two songs.one has good metadata and one has none and there is a deadline approaching.I'm going with the song that has metadata so I can easily track down who and what it is. The need for metadata in files is debatable, especially if you only narrowly think about indie artists who submit to CD Baby/DistroKid/TuneCore because it's true that the metadata doesn't get read, and most major labels have in-house people that handle it.in fact most major labels have even stopped asking for DDPs and do it ALL in house which I don't love but it is what it is. I know for a fact that WaveLab easily puts the ISRC in both spots when you render WAVs/mp3s from the montage, and I believe HOFA and Sonoris do it now too but I don't use those daily like I do WaveLab Pro.Ĭonsumer tagging apps probably only do the ID3v2 field. Last I checked, Meta only does the ID3v2 field which might be fine for most cases, but not all and that's probably true for the majority of consumer tagging apps. You probably want to be sure that whatever app you are using is putting it in both places in case whatever app is being used downstream to read the metadata is only reading one or the other. Does that program embed ISRCs? What am I missing? Both Meta and Metadatics pages don't mention ISRC codes - how can this be?See attached, and I had to remove some info for privacy but Meta will display and add ISRC codes.but as mentioned, there are two main places that people downstream (and their apps) look for ISRC codes.ID3v2 and AXML. That website doesn't contain the words 'ISRC' or 'Code'. A few requests for MP3s and 24 bit WAV each year. 16-44 WAVs for approval and then whatever formats they request. I don't foresee a lot of file tagging in my near future so a standalone tagger should do the trick!Īlso, I don't by default deliver nearly as many different formats as some MEs do. That would slow me down way too much at first. I'm so dug in with PT that, even though I'm full time mastering now, the idea of learning a new DAW has zero appeal to me.

I was doing both recording and mastering for most of my career and I started with Digidesign Sound Designer 2 in 1993 and PT in 1994 when it was just a 4 track 16 bit DAW. I use Pro Tools because that's how my business evolved. It's a little embarrassing to be asking about it this late in the game, but here I am! This new client has a publicist who wants tagged WAVs and MP3s so I'm finally going to do it. There have been no complaints, most clients are repeaters and business has been great. Even major labels have not asked me for tagged tracks, just CD Text. Unless you master about 3 albums a month, I can't imagine wanting to do the tagging in a 3rd party app for all the files/formats for every project.Īssembling the the master in a mastering DAW that can essentially tag the rendered/exported files with the info it already has inside the DAW for any and all files saves times, and promotes accuracy and consistency.To be totally honest, and this may sound crazy, in 26 years of mastering this is the first time I'm tagging files! All my clients have been letting their aggregators and distributors handle the metadata. It can do the analog play and capture well too as of WaveLab 10 and a number of mastering studios now use WaveLab 10 for 100% of the process.I'm just too locked into REAPER and all my scripts to change right now so I'm only using it for ITB mastering projects and to finalize projects where I do a digital/analog hybrid in REPAER first (sans limiting). Getting WaveLab Pro just for metadata tagging is a bit overkill though.but if you need a DAW to arrange/assemble singles, EPs, albums, do some final touches (final limiting) and render any and all master formats you may need for a given project, WaveLab Pro is great for that.Īssemble and enter data once. You'd be better off with HOFA Pro if you need to stay in that price range. Do you happen to know if Wavelab Elements has the tagging features that Pro has? Also, does it embed images?WaveLab Elements is too limited for professional use and metadata needs.

But I like what you said about Wavelab Pro.

Easy audio tag editor