LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2015

ARSCLIST May 2015

Subject:

Re: Is it time to rethink FLAC ?

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 10 May 2015 18:27:26 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (119 lines)

Hi Adam:

I agree with you 100%. Just to be clear, I never advise clients to go for a compressed format as
their archive format. What I would say to them is, if you can afford a bit more bandwidth and server
horsepower, use FLAC as your access format if your content is high-fidelity. For the archive format,
I always recommend (vehemently) sticking with the transfer format, at least 96/24 WAV these days. I
have been OK agreeing with the client request for 48/24 WAV for oral histories (I did point out that
twice the hard drive capacity cost a tiny fraction of the total job price, so if it were me I'd go
for 96/24, but they had written 48/24 into their funding proposal and thus wanted to stick with the
exact parameters of the funding).

Folks, hard drive space really costs near nothing nowadays. The transfer and processing costs real
money in the world of audio archiving. I think it's beyond penny wise and pound foolish to consider
a lossy archive format like MP3, and it's also foolish to rely on a compressed format like FLAC with
no WAV masters anywhere. What I was saying in my reply to Richard's post is that FLAC is a highly
viable high-fidelity format, not that I would ever prefer it over WAV for an audio master A FLAC
"safety" archive in a different location on different servers may be a viable way to save some small
amount of budget.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Jazairi" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Is it time to rethink FLAC ?


> 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]
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager