I will admit to not reading the entire post, but have a question:
According to my understanding, FLAC is a non-lossy compression scene applied to WAV and PCM files, not a digital encoding format in itself. If that is so, then one must start with WAV (or other PCM format) files in order to get to FLAC. Therefore FLAC is an accessory, not a proper format.
If this is so, then it can only be seen as a storage format, not a recording format, and the argument is academic.
Intelligent refutation is welcome.
On May 18, 2015, at 6:39 AM, Dave Rice <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was very pleased to hear that the merits of FLAC as a preservation format were again being considered by ARSC List; however most of the discussion only considered a few of its advantages over PCM/WAV such as that the openness of the format and resulting storage requirements, but the thread hasn't yet covered FLAC's preservation and fixity features over PCM/WAV.