That's not an "industry standard." That's a herd favorite. With a well-oiled cult-marketing machine
behind it. ;)
One man's opinion -- I don't particularly like either operating environment. Computers are a
necessary evil (and I mean evil as in time-sucking creativity-dulling, money-wasting) in today's
media production. I don't think anyone can dispute with any science that today's high-resolution
digital formats are closer to output=input than any pre-digital format, but the extra baggage of
computer fiddling and time-wasting is definitely a burden that slows the workflow and requires brain
power than at one time was spent in service of creativity and end product (music or whatever else
was being recorded).
I'll simply say that back in the early days of electrical recording, a hit could be made in one
complete take as part of a 3-hour session, the wax plated and the shellac pressed within a day and
known to be a hit within a week or so. This was accomplished by musicians who worked under very
primative recording conditions and controlled almost all aspects of the music within the musical
realm. As late as the mid 1960's, a hit could be accomplished live to tape within a 3-hour session
by musicians controlling many but not all aspects of the music within the musical realm (it's likely
that tape editing took place, and many hits of that time had some sort of mixing and/or overdubbing
involed), and a 45 single could be on the radio within a day or two. This just doesn't happen today,
but I'm sure someone will cite one or two freak examples (not any "hits" as in much radio play and
many sales). The main reason it just doesn't happen ... freakin' time-wasting, creativity-sucking
computers. Think about almost all commercially viable music today and consider how many aspects are
controlled in the computer realm rather than the music realm. Again, I'm sure there are freak
examples of a group of great musicians throwing up two microphones plugged into a portable flash
recorder and ending up with a viable commercial product (which I'm sure was smoothed out by hours of
tedious computer processing in a mastering house). But that is not the vast majority of commercial
Anyway, end of rant. Much learned about FLAC, which was the original intent of Richard's post.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamie Howarth" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Is it time to rethink FLAC ?
> It is the industry standard.
> it's in use at every top line mastering shop, and every major and vast majority of minor recording
> You guys bet on the wrong horse and simply won't let go of it.
> Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word substitution I'm on an iPhone
>> On May 18, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> That's simply not true! It's the most common platform. It's not an industry standard like 44.1/16
>> for CD. I don't know much about digital video, but based on my own experience, I'd say it's much
>> more difficult in the Windows world to get the results you can relatively easily get in the Apple
>> world (I've used iMovie and I've seen Final Cut Pro in action, and I haven't seen any Windows
>> programs that get video editing and production done as quickly in as user-friendly a manner). But
>> audio is a different story. It's always been possible to do the same things in both worlds.
>> "Creative types" have swooned at Mac style and marketing since the beginning, but that doesn't
>> mean you HAVE to be in the Mac world to get great audio results or have a smooth and fast
>> workflow. Like I said, not being an expert in video, just based on working on some video
>> productions with experts, it seems like video is best done in the Mac world. Digital photography
>> is the same as audio production -- it's a matter of choice with platforms. To this day, there is
>> a "style tax" for working in the Mac world (ie, everything costs 20-30% more, and the hardware
>> can cost 50+% more depending on what's being sold at what time by what PC makers). As a rational
>> business decision, it's easy to say "pay the man" if you're a video production operation. In the
>> audio world, it depends on what your other platforms are in the business. If you're a Mac
>> business or household already, then the choice is obvious, and likewise for Windows. Having set
>> up a mixed network at my office, I will say that Apple went the extra mile to make their boxes
>> play nicely in a Windows network, as a minority player would be expected to do if they wished to
>> be at all competitive. I will also say that someone well-versed in the Apple operating
>> environment can get the work we do at the office done just as quickly and just as well as someone
>> well-versed in the Windows environment. It's really horses for courses in the context of our
>> discussions here, not a matter of "industry standards." Except, as I said, in video production.
>> -- Tom Fine
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jamie Howarth" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 10:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Is it time to rethink FLAC ?
>>> Apple is the industry standard for audio and video.
>>> Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word substitution I'm on an iPhone
>>>> On May 17, 2015, at 8:28 PM, Michael Gillman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Also, I see we have some serious windows defenders on this list.