Freesound Forums

Hi all,
I think it would be cool to be able to add a smallish non-audio folder to sample packs that could contain documentation,
sampler program files or photos. That way you could have pictures of a location where you made a field-recording to complete the experience, or make that huge multisample you made of your rare dublieskarp actually useful to somebody else, instead of just wasting server space and boosting your upload count Or, if your the technically minded type you could
have detailed documentation of your sounds available as a seperate txt or word file. Just my thought.
cheers,
patchen

I think what we really need is a more robust description system. You can have rich formatting and plenty of line breaks in your profile, but not in your file descriptions!

Also, there is a crossover with flickr to allow people to post their sample-related photos.

This sounds like a really cool idea.

I think offering the functionality to upload pictures is perhaps a bit too far out of the scope of Freesound, even if they are related to a sound (no rudeness intended, but some people would call that more a waste of server space than a huge multisample!)

As for Word documents… I don’t have Word installed, and indeed it isn’t available for my operating system of choice even if I wanted to install it. Some people (who I may or may not know) have been known to go on murderous rampages when it is assumed that they must be able to open Microsoft formats, and for everyone’s safety it is best not to get on their bad side.

Sampler patches are another matter. It seems like a nice idea to have readily usable patches available, in theory at least. That said, there are a huge number of formats that only work with certain samplers (and vice versa) and every way someone will complain. Soundfonts are quite well supported and verging on non-proprietary, while the SFZ format is very portable and open (as it is just samples with descriptive XML files) but not that well supported as of yet.

So, I think that for the most part pictures and supporting documents are better off hosted somewhere else and linked to in descriptions (this can already be done). I don’t know if images can be used inline in descriptions as I’ve never tried it, but if not, that might be an idea (there might be scaling issues to think about though).

That absolutely makes sense and thank you for the insight.