Well said, Mike.
The bigger question for me right now is how much longer I want to continue using MP3 for access copies on the web, and instead start using and perhaps migrate previous history to AAC. I hope by bringing that up I don't derail answers to Jeff's question though! I'd also be glad to hear what others are saying.
Karl Fitzke
Audio/Visual Specialist
214 Olin Library
Ithaca, NY 14853
607-255-5521
[log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: ARSC Library and Archives Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Casey, Michael T <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 2:01:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIB] FLAC vs. WAV for archives
All good questions. A few thoughts:
BWF has a specific location for structured embedded metadata that is part of an international standard. That is definitely a plus for long-term preservation.
BWF is recommended by all (I think) the pertinent standards and best practice organizations and is very widely in use. That bodes well for having resources and tools around for migrating to the next big thing.
I realize that storage capacity may still be an issue for some, but for most of us audio is a drop in the bucket compared to video.
Best,
Mike
-------------
Mike Casey
Director of Technical Operations, Audio/Video
Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative
Indiana University
812-855-8090
https://mdpi.iu.edu/
http://blogs.iu.edu/mdpi/
-----Original Message-----
From: ARSC Library and Archives Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bryan Martin
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 11:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FLAC vs. WAV for archives
We use FLAC as one aspect of our archiving. One of the advantages of FLAC is that it takes a checksum of the audio portion of the file, which you can compare against a checksum of the original WAV. You have to be careful to only take the checksum of the audio part of the WAV (leaving out headers and other packaging), since metadata and the like can change, which changes the checksum of the entire file. I'm not aware of anything superior to FLAC. All major operating systems have native FLAC support now.'
Bryan
Bryan Martin, MusBac, MA
Technical Supervisor
Music Library
University of Toronto
(416) 978-3739
https://music.library.utoronto.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: ARSC Library and Archives Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeff Willens
Sent: November 17, 2017 10:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ARSCLIB] FLAC vs. WAV for archives
I haven't found anything recent about FLAC on the different ARSC lists, so I thought I'd throw this out there --
What are your thoughts about FLAC vs. 96kHz/24-bit WAV files for audio preservation? Whereas FLAC is lossless and the compression is part of the recording process, not applied after the fact, is there an archival/preservation reason for staying with the more bloated, uncompressed WAV or BWF file formats?
OTOH, is there an alternative format that is more robust (and smaller sized) than FLAC?
What do your libraries/archives digitize to?
|