Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started. LISTSERV 16.0 - ARSCLIST Archives

Print

Print


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
> >>
>