Re: [Harp-L] Re: FLAC

[Garry Hodgson <garry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"jazmaan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dmf273@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The only downside to FLAC is that even when audio files are compressed 
> to 53% they're still pretty large.   

that's definitely better than shorten, which is typically 2/3 wav size.
i guess i will have to switch for future recordings on the archive.

> Probably too big to send via e-mail.

definitely.  but as an fyi, anyone who needs to send something big,
check out yousendit.com.  you upload a file, it sends an email to
you (or someone else) that they can use to download it.  you can send
a file up to 1G, which is enough to send a zipped set of mp3 files for a
complete show.  it's free.  not clear what their business model could
possibly be, but it comes in handy sometimes.

> Don't even mess with FLAC unless you've got a
> broadband connection.   But if you can deal with the big files, 
> sound quality just doesn't get any
> better than this.

true in theory, but for the vast majority of *current* flac use, the files 
are encoded to 44.1/16, so they are identical in sound quality to 
wav or shorten format of the same recording.  there are a few 24bit
flacs showing up, but i doubt most people have the equipment or
the hearing to distinguish them.

> No wonder the traders love it!

they love it for the better compression, the theoretical quality
advantages, multi channel support, and the fact that seek 
capability is designed in, not kludged like the shorten seek tables.  
it is also preferred for being an open, patent free standard, with a
portable open source reference implementation and well documented
API, thus not being subject to the whim of any one company or its lawyers.

----
Garry Hodgson, Technical Consultant, AT&T Labs

Your love, your anger, your kindness, your hate.
All of it creates the future for you and your children.
What kind of future are you creating today?