Freesound Forums

I recently took a look at an open-source audio editor for Linux, Jokosher [1], and one nice feature of it is the built-in Freesound support; that is, with an account you can search for Freesound samples in the program and drag them directly into your project - pretty cool, eh?

One problem with this feature currently is that Freesound samples don't have a short title, just a long description. This makes browsing through samples a bit unpractical as you have to read through lengthy descriptions. The file name could be used, but real title metadata would be much nicer to have.

Another thing that would make integration of Freesound into audio editors much nicer would be some kind of categorization system, so that e.g. all guitar samples would be grouped together. That way, the samples could be just as easily browsed as, for instance, the samples built into Apple Garageband.

I hope you are interest interested in making such a kind of integration really rock. I'm looking forward to your comments.

[1] Jokosher home page: www.jokosher.org

hey, this program is super-COOL ! Even with the limitation you point out integrated search of Freesound is the best thing *ever*. No idea it existed so thank you for posting
Saludos
D

I'm glad I could raise the attention for this feature.

Further thinking about better ways of integration, I think (optional) metadata for BPM and key (if C, D#, etc.) would also be cool. That way, Jokosher might even be able to adjust samples to the current project's speed etc., like Garageband does it for it's samples. That would be a clear killer feature!

Ah yeah, I remember stumbling onto the website of this program a few months ago and was pleasantly suprised to see the freesound logo.

I haven't given it a test drive yet but the screenshots look good.

Do you think we can enhance Freesound, maybe in the ways I already lined out, to make it integrate more tightly wit audio editors?

I'm not sure, ask Bram.

It's already so difficult with one description field... the easiest would be a standard way of tagging sounds:

bpm-150
bpm-145
bpm-110
key-csharp
key-bflat
key-a
loop
singe-shot

Perhaps I could put a notice somewhere about some "special" tags people should use if they can. I guess field-recording and processed/unprocessed should be more of them.

- bram

Bram
It's already so difficult with one description field... the easiest would be a standard way of tagging sounds:

bpm-150
bpm-145
bpm-110
key-csharp
key-bflat
key-a
loop
singe-shot

Perhaps I could put a notice somewhere about some "special" tags people should use if they can. I guess field-recording and processed/unprocessed should be more of them.

- bram

A nice solution would be to add optional fields like bpm etc to the submit form and, if filled by the submitter, append appropiate "special" tags automatically. Like a BPM entry that, if filled in with value 120, would automatically add the tag "bpm-120".

Is there still interest for this?