I have found that FLAC only saves about half the space of an equivalent WAV
file.  With huge hard drives being so cheap these days, it seems hardly
worth the trouble to FLAC-ify things like your CD collection.  Too much
trouble, not enough benefit.  I quit bothering with it.

Best,
John H. Haley

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Adam Jazairi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> My understanding is that the argument for WAV goes beyond fidelity. WAV has
> been around for much longer and is considered more stable as a preservation
> format. There are some that fear FLAC will go the way of Shorten. Also,
> since it's been widely implemented, there are more tools and specifications
> available for WAV (e.g., BWF), more robust metadata, etc.
>
> Still, the differences in file size alone make FLAC an appealing
> alternative, especially for large-scale digitization projects. I'm not sure
> I'd consider it the go-to format, but it's definitely worthy of
> consideration depending on the project/program.
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > FLAC is the go-to format for selling non-DSD high-resolution downloads.
> > It's also often used for CD resolution download sales. Apple still
> > stubbornly won't support FLAC as standard to iTunes, so sellers of
> > high-resolution must also offer ALAC versions (mainly a sale-backend
> PITA,
> > not really a PITA to convert WAV to yet another lossless format).
> >
> > Having used FLAC files for years, both creating them and purchasing them,
> > I cannot hear any difference from WAV. One of the audiophile magazines, I
> > think Absolute Sound, presented some subjective listening opinions
> claiming
> > to hear the difference between FLAC and WAV played with one of the
> non-free
> > playback programs. I cannot hear any difference using Foobar 2000 on
> > Windows XP and Windows 7 platforms, Same for using the Logitech
> Squeezebox
> > Touch music streamer, digital output going to my Benchmark DAC/preamp. I
> > have most of my CD's ripped to a FLAC archive, mostly listened to across
> > the network, either via the Squeezebox in the main system or streaming to
> > various other devices via ethernet or wifi.
> >
> > -- Tom Fine
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess" <
> > [log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 4:40 PM
> > Subject: [ARSCLIST] Is it time to rethink FLAC ?
> >
> >
> >
> >  Hello, all,
> >>
> >> Peter Kurilecz posted this following article to the Society of American
> >> Archivists listserve:
> >>
> >> http://bit.ly/1DZo1Yn
> >>
> >> It is about Harvard using forensic techniques to image obsolete media
> and
> >> then extract the data.
> >>
> >> One interesting piece of software was mentioned: XENA from the National
> >> Archives of Australia. The Wikipedia article states:
> >>
> >>     MP3, WAV, AIFF, and OGG formats are converted to FLAC files.
> >>                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xena_%28software%29
> >>
> >> Hence the subject of this post. When did FLAC files become the go-to
> >> standard? It appears that the XENA Wiki confirms this:
> >> http://sourceforge.net/p/xena/wiki/Setting_up_the_audio_plugin/
> >>
> >> At one point (many years ago, DSpace software (or at least the Univ of
> >> Toronto implementation thereof) converted audio to MP3. I hope they have
> >> changed their practice.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Richard
> >> --
> >> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> >> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
> >> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> >> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> Adam Jazairi
> MSI Candidate '15
> University Library Associate
> Art, Architecture & Engineering Library
> University of Michigan
> (734) 664-0104
> [log in to unmask]
>