The Sound Devices that Lou and I have is perhaps a ten+ year old design
portable recorder which is still sold today. Heck, I've probably had
mine for close to eight years.
I still think my assumption is valid that in the Sound Devices PORTABLE
RECORDER, the limitations are imposed by the embedded processor's
I never meant to imply (but thank you for clarifying) that it was a FLAC
On 2015-05-18 2:33 PM, Dave Rice wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>> On May 18, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi, Lou,
>> I just checked my Sound Devices 722
>> FLAC still constrains the machine's sampling frequency to 96 kHz and below as well as a single output medium.
>> WAV permits multiple output media as well as sampling frequencies up to 192 kHz.
> Just a quick aside to say that there it isn't because of the FLAC specification that the limit in Sound Devices is constrained for FLAC to 96 kHz. The FLAC header constrains the sample rate to 655,350 Hz. Yes at most channel counts and bit depths, WAV can technically support higher sample rates.
>> I see the limitations imposed on non-WAV formats as limitations in available processing power to handle the higher processing loads for the non-WAV formats.
> I am skeptical that this could be an issue on a modern computer. My 2011-era Mac Minis can digitize standard definition video to jpeg2000 and that requires 20,974,204 handling samples per second. I'm happy to contribute to a bug/enhancement request to Sound Devices to remove the limitation.
> Dave Rice
>> It appears that Sound Devices IS treating each of these as a direct-write format, NOT making a WAV and then converting later.
>> On 2015-05-18 12:44 PM, Lou Judson wrote:
>>> Thanks Richard, but I don’t think so. I own a SD 744 and as the manual you quote says, it records uncompressed PCM but can store in a variety of compressed formats, one of which is FLAC. To me at least, that only reinforces my point - FLAC is a way to store PCM or WAV, not an actual recording format.
>>> In other words, it compreses digital audio, but is not digital audio in itself. That is not to say it isn’t effective and good, just that it is not a format but rather a compression scheme. I would only use it to store audio for long term… not as preservation…
>>> Like rtf is a way to store ASCII data, but isn’t writing without it.
>>> I don’t know why I care so much, except that it seems the Australian claims are not what they think they are.
>> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.