On 09.03.2012 15:09, yahoo2 wrote:> Uncompressed FLAC is called WAV.really? ;-) the problem is that there is no standarized way to store metadata in a WAVE file, like with FLAC tags / vorbis comments in flac files.... greets KoS
At 11:14 AM 3/9/2012, Martin Kos wrote:>On 09.03.2012 15:09, yahoo2 wrote: > > Uncompressed FLAC is called WAV. >really? ;-) > >the problem is that there is no standarized way to store metadata in a >WAVE file, like with FLAC tags / vorbis comments in flac files.... > >greets > KoSSo just use level 1. It's as close to uncompressed as the command line will do. Besides, why would you want uncompressed? Much larger files? I'd go 8 and have smaller files.
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM, yahoo2 <yahoo2 at rcn.com> wrote:> > So just use level 1. It's as close to uncompressed as the command > line will do. Besides, why would you want uncompressed? Much larger > files? I'd go 8 and have smaller files. > >Because they work for storage companies, and need to increase sales. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20120309/7ccd5be5/attachment.htm
On 03/09/2012 08:14 AM, Martin Kos wrote:> On 09.03.2012 15:09, yahoo2 wrote: >> Uncompressed FLAC is called WAV. > really? ;-) > > the problem is that there is no standarized way to store metadata in a > WAVE file, like with FLAC tags / vorbis comments in flac files....It seems like you can add ID3 tags to just about any file. Can they be added to a WAV file, or would most players get confused by that? Maybe someone has explained before, but if your equipment can handle flac, why bother keeping WAVs at all? The conversion is so quick and today's CPUs are so fast it's nearly zero-cost.
Mark,> if your equipment can handle flac, why bother keeping WAVs at all?Hash codes were invented by people with a vested interest in so-called "lossless" compression. The truth is even copying a WAV file from one drive to another will result in degradation of audio quality. While SnakeOil Software, Ltd can't protect you from the inherent defects of digital copying, it's a step in the right direction. My only hope is that this transmission reaches you in a legible form. On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Mark Rudholm <rudholm at hyperreal.org> wrote:> On 03/09/2012 08:14 AM, Martin Kos wrote: > > On 09.03.2012 15:09, yahoo2 wrote: > >> Uncompressed FLAC is called WAV. > > really? ;-) > > > > the problem is that there is no standarized way to store metadata in a > > WAVE file, like with FLAC tags / vorbis comments in flac files.... > > It seems like you can add ID3 tags to just about any file. Can they be > added to a WAV file, or would most players get confused by that? > > Maybe someone has explained before, but if your equipment can handle > flac, why bother keeping WAVs at all? The conversion is so quick and > today's CPUs are so fast it's nearly zero-cost. > _______________________________________________ > Flac mailing list > Flac at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20120309/a04190e2/attachment.htm
Solar flares and aliens, mostly. Also I was joking to demonstrate the absurdity. I verified Ben's hypothesis, it is using VERBATIM. On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Mark Rudholm <mark at rudholm.com> wrote:> Can you explain exactly how transferring a WAV file from one drive to > another results in degradation of audio quality? > > And what are the "inherent defects of digital copying"? > > Please be as technical as you can, myself and others on this list > understand the relevant concepts very well and would be interested in > understanding this degradation process. > > -Mark > > On 03/09/2012 01:25 PM, Jud White wrote: > > Mark, > > > > > if your equipment can handle flac, why bother keeping WAVs at all? > > > > Hash codes were invented by people with a vested interest in so-called > > "lossless" compression. The truth is even copying a WAV file from one > > drive to another will result in degradation of audio quality. While > > SnakeOil Software, Ltd can't protect you from the inherent defects of > > digital copying, it's a step in the right direction. > > > > My only hope is that this transmission reaches you in a legible form. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Mark Rudholm <rudholm at hyperreal.org > > <mailto:rudholm at hyperreal.org>> wrote: > > > > On 03/09/2012 08:14 AM, Martin Kos wrote: > > > On 09.03.2012 15:09, yahoo2 wrote: > > >> Uncompressed FLAC is called WAV. > > > really? ;-) > > > > > > the problem is that there is no standarized way to store > > metadata in a > > > WAVE file, like with FLAC tags / vorbis comments in flac files.... > > > > It seems like you can add ID3 tags to just about any file. Can > > they be > > added to a WAV file, or would most players get confused by that? > > > > Maybe someone has explained before, but if your equipment can handle > > flac, why bother keeping WAVs at all? The conversion is so quick and > > today's CPUs are so fast it's nearly zero-cost. > > _______________________________________________ > > Flac mailing list > > Flac at xiph.org <mailto:Flac at xiph.org> > > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac > > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20120309/b42ef3fa/attachment.htm
people on Audiocircle believe copying a file makes it sound worse... ---- Sent from my iPhone On Mar 9, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Jud White <jwhite at cdtag.com> wrote: Solar flares and aliens, mostly. Also I was joking to demonstrate the absurdity. I verified Ben's hypothesis, it is using VERBATIM. On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Mark Rudholm <mark at rudholm.com> wrote:> Can you explain exactly how transferring a WAV file from one drive to > another results in degradation of audio quality? > > And what are the "inherent defects of digital copying"? > > Please be as technical as you can, myself and others on this list > understand the relevant concepts very well and would be interested in > understanding this degradation process. > > -Mark > > On 03/09/2012 01:25 PM, Jud White wrote: > > Mark, > > > > > if your equipment can handle flac, why bother keeping WAVs at all? > > > > Hash codes were invented by people with a vested interest in so-called > > "lossless" compression. The truth is even copying a WAV file from one > > drive to another will result in degradation of audio quality. While > > SnakeOil Software, Ltd can't protect you from the inherent defects of > > digital copying, it's a step in the right direction. > > > > My only hope is that this transmission reaches you in a legible form. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Mark Rudholm <rudholm at hyperreal.org > > <mailto:rudholm at hyperreal.org>> wrote: > > > > On 03/09/2012 08:14 AM, Martin Kos wrote: > > > On 09.03.2012 15:09, yahoo2 wrote: > > >> Uncompressed FLAC is called WAV. > > > really? ;-) > > > > > > the problem is that there is no standarized way to store > > metadata in a > > > WAVE file, like with FLAC tags / vorbis comments in flac files.... > > > > It seems like you can add ID3 tags to just about any file. Can > > they be > > added to a WAV file, or would most players get confused by that? > > > > Maybe someone has explained before, but if your equipment can handle > > flac, why bother keeping WAVs at all? The conversion is so quick and > > today's CPUs are so fast it's nearly zero-cost. > > _______________________________________________ > > Flac mailing list > > Flac at xiph.org <mailto:Flac at xiph.org> > > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac > > > > > >_______________________________________________ Flac mailing list Flac at xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20120309/cac7581a/attachment-0001.htm