Storage is so cheap that there is no point giving hostages to fortune by
using any compression algorithm for archival storage. Just use WAV and
be done with it.
On 17/11/2017 15:42, Jeff Willens wrote:
> 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?
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.