Print

Print


Wholly agreed, Tom, and sorry if I misunderstood you. I think FLAC is a
wonderful format for access copies, especially if the alternative is MP3 or
WMA.

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi Adam:
>
> I agree with you 100%. Just to be clear, I never advise clients to go for
> a compressed format as their archive format. What I would say to them is,
> if you can afford a bit more bandwidth and server horsepower, use FLAC as
> your access format if your content is high-fidelity. For the archive
> format, I always recommend (vehemently) sticking with the transfer format,
> at least 96/24 WAV these days. I have been OK agreeing with the client
> request for 48/24 WAV for oral histories (I did point out that twice the
> hard drive capacity cost a tiny fraction of the total job price, so if it
> were me I'd go for 96/24, but they had written 48/24 into their funding
> proposal and thus wanted to stick with the exact parameters of the funding).
>
> Folks, hard drive space really costs near nothing nowadays. The transfer
> and processing costs real money in the world of audio archiving. I think
> it's beyond penny wise and pound foolish to consider a lossy archive format
> like MP3, and it's also foolish to rely on a compressed format like FLAC
> with no WAV masters anywhere. What I was saying in my reply to Richard's
> post is that FLAC is a highly viable high-fidelity format, not that I would
> ever prefer it over WAV for an audio master  A FLAC "safety" archive in a
> different location on different servers may be a viable way to save some
> small amount of budget.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Jazairi" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Is it time to rethink FLAC ?
>
>
>
>  My understanding is that the argument for WAV goes beyond fidelity. WAV
>> has
>> been around for much longer and is considered more stable as a
>> preservation
>> format. There are some that fear FLAC will go the way of Shorten. Also,
>> since it's been widely implemented, there are more tools and
>> specifications
>> available for WAV (e.g., BWF), more robust metadata, etc.
>>
>> Still, the differences in file size alone make FLAC an appealing
>> alternative, especially for large-scale digitization projects. I'm not
>> sure
>> I'd consider it the go-to format, but it's definitely worthy of
>> consideration depending on the project/program.
>>
>> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  FLAC is the go-to format for selling non-DSD high-resolution downloads.
>>> It's also often used for CD resolution download sales. Apple still
>>> stubbornly won't support FLAC as standard to iTunes, so sellers of
>>> high-resolution must also offer ALAC versions (mainly a sale-backend
>>> PITA,
>>> not really a PITA to convert WAV to yet another lossless format).
>>>
>>> Having used FLAC files for years, both creating them and purchasing them,
>>> I cannot hear any difference from WAV. One of the audiophile magazines, I
>>> think Absolute Sound, presented some subjective listening opinions
>>> claiming
>>> to hear the difference between FLAC and WAV played with one of the
>>> non-free
>>> playback programs. I cannot hear any difference using Foobar 2000 on
>>> Windows XP and Windows 7 platforms, Same for using the Logitech
>>> Squeezebox
>>> Touch music streamer, digital output going to my Benchmark DAC/preamp. I
>>> have most of my CD's ripped to a FLAC archive, mostly listened to across
>>> the network, either via the Squeezebox in the main system or streaming to
>>> various other devices via ethernet or wifi.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess" <
>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 4:40 PM
>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Is it time to rethink FLAC ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Hello, all,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Kurilecz posted this following article to the Society of American
>>>> Archivists listserve:
>>>>
>>>> http://bit.ly/1DZo1Yn
>>>>
>>>> It is about Harvard using forensic techniques to image obsolete media
>>>> and
>>>> then extract the data.
>>>>
>>>> One interesting piece of software was mentioned: XENA from the National
>>>> Archives of Australia. The Wikipedia article states:
>>>>
>>>>     MP3, WAV, AIFF, and OGG formats are converted to FLAC files.
>>>>                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xena_%28software%29
>>>>
>>>> Hence the subject of this post. When did FLAC files become the go-to
>>>> standard? It appears that the XENA Wiki confirms this:
>>>> http://sourceforge.net/p/xena/wiki/Setting_up_the_audio_plugin/
>>>>
>>>> At one point (many years ago, DSpace software (or at least the Univ of
>>>> Toronto implementation thereof) converted audio to MP3. I hope they have
>>>> changed their practice.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>> --
>>>> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
>>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>>>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Adam Jazairi
>> MSI Candidate '15
>> University Library Associate
>> Art, Architecture & Engineering Library
>> University of Michigan
>> (734) 664-0104
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Adam Jazairi
MSI Candidate '15
University Library Associate
Art, Architecture & Engineering Library
University of Michigan
(734) 664-0104
[log in to unmask]