> On May 18, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Lou Judson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I wonít belabor this much further, but can you give a citation other than your assertion that FLAC is an actual audio recording scheme and not just a compression/storage format?
Maybe crossed-emailed but Richard Hess just quoted support for writing to FLAC from the Sound Devices 722 firmware version 2-67 manual.
Beyond this are several audio architectures that pipe easily into encoding frameworks such as FFmpeg, so for instance http://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-devices.html lists support audio devices that take audio in such as ALSA, the newer Mac AVFoundation framework, JACK, libcdio, pulse, oss, and others. Connecting the input device to the flac encoder is fairly straightforward in libav or ffmpeg.
> I challenege you to prove a positive, not for me to prove a negative. I frankly donít know enough about it, but do know people I can ask.
Perhaps I'm not understanding what a recording scheme is. Would you consider a PDF or LZW compressed TIFF as a recording scheme for document scans, or v210 or h264 a recording scheme for video content?
> Lou Judson
> Intuitive Audio
> On May 18, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Dave Rice <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Intelligent refutation is welcome.
>> I can refute, but the information above seems to be based on presumptions (correct me if I'm wrong). If you have a citation that claims that "FLAC is not a recording format", that "FLAC is not a digital encoding format", or that "one must start with WAV (or other PCM format) files in order to get to FLAC" than I am happy to refute.
>> Dave Rice