Print

Print


On 5/18/2015 10:44 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> Here's what I don't get about this discussion. Why would someone want to
> use FLAC as their primary lossless format rather than WAV, given that
> FLAC includes (and features) a data-compression scheme that inherently
> puts more data at risk per potentially bad sector in a storage device?
> Given the low cost of storage, why not opt for less data at risk per
> sector?

I repeat what ssomeone said a long time ago in this thread: the big use 
for FLAC is not storage, but transmission. Not everyone has super-fast 
Internet service, and for those who don't, FLAC is a godsend.

Peace,
Paul

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com