 |
 |
Error during command authentication.
Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.
I am pretty sure that iTunes on a Mac used to grab everything and convert it to iTunes, which is incompatible with everything else. Maybe this is no longer true. I have always figured that iTunes is a format I can do fine without. But then I am old and grumpy. Best, John Haley On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Jamie Howarth <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Wavs play full res native on every Mac and recent years the OS as shipped > plays up to 96/24 max without downsampling out the headphone jack. 192 is > downsampled to 96. > The onboard D/A on all Macs and IPhones since the 4S is a Wolfson that > sounds great. > > Archaic platforms do weird stuff. > > Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word substitution > I'm on an iPhone > > > On May 14, 2015, at 7:42 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > I don't know how WAV is handled on a Mac in iTunes software, or whatever > other players are built-in on a standard-issue Mac as sold to consumers. > However, in the iTunes for Windows world, WAV files are converted on the > fly to some proprietary Quicktime and played through the Quicktime engine, > definitely audible to my ears (and not for the better). I assume they are > default converted to something lossy, because that's how it sounds to my > ears. Files ripped into iTunes in ALAC (Apple's proprietary data-lossless > size-compressed format) sound fine. So, at least in the Windows world, > Apple's main sound-playback software mangles WAV files. It may not be so in > the Mac world, I have never tested or listened on that platform. To my > ears, I think iTunes for Windows is doing the same thing with CD playback > -- converting on the fly to something and then running it through the > Quicktime engine. This is why I use Foobar2000 as my playback engine for > all formats. > > > > -- Tom Fine > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Sam" <[log in to unmask]> > > To: <[log in to unmask]> > > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:25 AM > > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Is it time to rethink FLAC ? > > > > > >> WAV is technically proprietary, as it's a subset of Microsoft's RIFF. > >> > >> One of the reasons broadcast WAV became--and is--the defacto standard > for > >> audio preservation was because of its ubiquity of being read. Don't > get me > >> wrong, I love FLAC, and it's what I've standardized on at home for my > >> digital audio needs, but FLAC isn't universally read out in the real > >> world. I know of at least one DAW widely used in libraries and archives > >> that can read FLAC but not write it. I also don't know if ProTools can > >> read FLAC as I've never tried it. Anyone know that one? > >> > >> Getting back to Richard's original question, FLAC isn't the standard for > >> audio preservation. > >> > >> It's an interesting take of the Aussies to place more faith in FLAC than > >> BWF, but I wouldn't use it for preservation. Now that various metadata > >> standards and tools are getting out there, it's a no-brainer to me to > have > >> BWF remain the preservation standard since FLAC and XML don't play as > >> nicely together as BWF and XML. > >> > >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Matthew Snyder <[log in to unmask] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >>> > >>> What digital audio formats aside from FLAC are considered > "non-proprietary, > >>> > or open source"? Is WAV? How about AIFF? > >>> > >>> > >>> Both of those are used and have proven their utility. WAV probably has > the > >>> edge, but a preservation engineer would be a better person to ask. > (Matt > >>> Sohn, hello?) But the link that started this discussion is the first > time > >>> I've heard of a compressed format being used for preservation. If a > FLAC > >>> file is corrupted, can it be at least partially recovered, the way WAV > can? > >>> > >>> The Library of Congress's digital preservation website has an extensive > >>> list of audio file formats and their characteristics here: > >>> > >>> http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/sound_fdd.shtml > >>> > >>> I thought at some point I saw a narrower listing of formats preferred > for > >>> preservation purposes, but maybe I dreamed that. Still, reading these > specs > >>> makes it pretty clear which formats are best for preservation and why. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Matt Snyder > >>> Archivist > >>> Special Collections Unit > >>> The New York Public Library > >>> [log in to unmask] > >>> Tel: 917-229-9582 > >> >