[geoff]

On 9/05/2015 9:26 p.m., John Williamson wrote:
On 09/05/2015 00:59, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:


Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.

And no longer an issue.


Storage space my no longer be as much of an issue as it used to be, but
in the world I live in, using mobile data, bandwidth is still a problem,
as sometimes my data link drops back to speeds that make me nostalgic
for the sheer speed of a 56K modem. I'd far rather try to stream or
download an MP3 file than an uncompressed .wav or a FLAC file of the
same performance.




Can't imagine streaming music for serious listening - not a quality
thing but a lifestyle-choice thing.I'd rather be in a situation where I
can sit down, relax, and slot in a CD or SACD.

In mobile situations I'd be listening to FM or iPod (all ALAC lossless).

geoff

[geoff]

On 9/05/2015 3:47 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 8:38:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
geoff wrote: "No, ****wit. Linear Pulse Code Modulation."


That'll be fine geoff. One can correct another without
resorting to name-calling.


(No wonder Usenet is going down...)

Ah, he called me a F'wit before over k vs K.
At least he now has an education!

Jack :-)



Big P, T, G, M, k,'Unit', m, n, µ, p small - spot the odd one out in the
series. Still reckon my idea is better.

geoff

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Fri, 08 May 2015 19:03:36 -0400, Randy Yates
wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:
[...]
I have 75Meg down and 20Meg up.

On a cellular network?

Er - maybe not. 23 Meg both ways is what I get on that.

I do not believe we are quite to the point where compression (for file
size) is no longer an issue for the general public and in all scenarios.
If it isn't for your personal situation and scenarios, then I'm happy
for you.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

Randy Yates writes:

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Fri, 08 May 2015 19:03:36 -0400, Randy Yates
wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:
[...]
I have 75Meg down and 20Meg up.

On a cellular network?

Er - maybe not. 23 Meg both ways is what I get on that.

I do not believe we are quite to the point where compression (for file
size) is no longer an issue for the general public and in all scenarios.
If it isn't for your personal situation and scenarios, then I'm happy
for you.

PS: It is still an issue for me, and until that changes, I'll be using
FLAC.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Nil[_2_]]

On 09 May 2015, Randy Yates wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

PS: It is still an issue for me, and until that changes, I'll be
using FLAC.

Me, too. There is no downside to FLAC and a number of downsides to
uncompressed WAV, including storage. No matter how cheap disk drives
are, I will always want to use them efficiently.

Even Microsoft has recognized that FLAC format is a good thing - built-
in support for it is included in Windows 10.

[jason]

On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) "JackA"
wrote in article
Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
But not compressed. Think .wav or .bwav files.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

Jason writes:

On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) "JackA"
wrote in article
Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
But not compressed. Think .wav or .bwav files.

Lossless PCM is a misnomer. It stands for Linear PCM.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[geoff]

On 10/05/2015 2:42 p.m., Randy Yates wrote:
Jason writes:

On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) "JackA"
wrote in article
Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
But not compressed. Think .wav or .bwav files.

Lossless PCM is a misnomer. It stands for Linear PCM.


And in case JackAss still hasn't figured it out, it is the raw digital
data that is the signal component of WAV (etc) files.

geoff

[Luxey]

Some people must be really bored.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 10/05/2015 2:42 p.m., Randy Yates wrote:
Jason writes:

On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) "JackA"
wrote in article
Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
But not compressed. Think .wav or .bwav files.

Lossless PCM is a misnomer. It stands for Linear PCM.

And in case JackAss still hasn't figured it out, it is the raw digital
data that is the signal component of WAV (etc) files.

Well, these days most converters actually spit out sigma-delta coefficients
that have to be transformed into PCM inside the box. So it's no longer
as "raw" as it as back in the ladder converter days. But it's only slightly
cooked.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 6:05:42 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
On 09 May 2015, Randy Yates wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

PS: It is still an issue for me, and until that changes, I'll be
using FLAC.

Me, too. There is no downside to FLAC and a number of downsides to
uncompressed WAV, including storage. No matter how cheap disk drives
are, I will always want to use them efficiently.

Even Microsoft has recognized that FLAC format is a good thing - built-
in support for it is included in Windows 10.

Bad thing about FLAC is was too late for binary encoding. Only a MINORITY of people offer or listen to FLAC because it adds LITTLE if ANYTHING to sound quality. Its Big File Size adds a greater chance of binary file corruption.

Jack

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 3:08:32 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 10/05/2015 2:42 p.m., Randy Yates wrote:
Jason writes:

On Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) "JackA"
wrote in article
Lossless PCM. Sort of like FL[ossless]AC
But not compressed. Think .wav or .bwav files.

Lossless PCM is a misnomer. It stands for Linear PCM.


And in case JackAss still hasn't figured it out, it is the raw digital
data that is the signal component of WAV (etc) files.

Right, Geoff. Let me give YOU and idea what "audiophiles" do. It's a laugh, even more than FLAC. Stay tuned.

Jack


geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 5:01:46 PM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
Randy Yates writes:

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Fri, 08 May 2015 19:03:36 -0400, Randy Yates
wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:
[...]
I have 75Meg down and 20Meg up.

On a cellular network?

Er - maybe not. 23 Meg both ways is what I get on that.

I do not believe we are quite to the point where compression (for file
size) is no longer an issue for the general public and in all scenarios..
If it isn't for your personal situation and scenarios, then I'm happy
for you.

PS: It is still an issue for me, and until that changes, I'll be using
FLAC.

Randy, not to criticize you or anything like that, but you posted a FLAC of that Blood, Sweat & Tears song. I quickly heard tape hiss noise. Is this the kind of sound quality you celebrate or would you prefer it didn't have tape have noticeable hiss noise? I feel you took the FLAC thing personally.

Anyway, a possibly unpublished demo version peace offering. While Jeff Barry supposedly wrote songs, I'm not sure what instrument(s) he played or if he sang. Ellie, on the other hand, certainly knew how to play piano and sing.. Now, both females are now RIP...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...ybeiknow-d.mp3

Jack



--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[geoff]

On 11/05/2015 6:41 a.m., JackA wrote:


Bad thing about FLAC is was too late for binary encoding.

Que ???!!!


Only a
MINORITY of people offer or listen to FLAC because it adds LITTLE if
ANYTHING to sound quality.

EXACTLY.

It adds NOTHING to sound quality. And it takes away NOTHING from sound
quality.
Unlike lossy technologies like MP3.

Its Big File Size adds a greater chance of
binary file corruption.

Absolute drivel. If that was the case almost nothing would ever work in
any computer.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:

Absolute drivel. If that was the case almost nothing would ever work in
any computer.

I believe the man is deliberately posting drivel in order to **** people
here off. I don't think anyone could actually believe any of that stuff,
it is too ludicrous. I think you have been trolled.

What worries me is that people coming in here who aren't familiar with the
situation might actually believe this stuff.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

geoff wrote:

Absolute drivel. If that was the case almost nothing would ever work in
any computer.

I believe the man is deliberately posting drivel in order to **** people
here off. I don't think anyone could actually believe any of that stuff,
it is too ludicrous. I think you have been trolled.

What worries me is that people coming in here who aren't familiar with the
situation might actually believe this stuff.
--scott

As long as he gets fed here he'll keep ****ting in the punch bowl.

Just _stop_.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 5:32:37 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

Absolute drivel. If that was the case almost nothing would ever work in
any computer.

I believe the man is deliberately posting drivel in order to **** people
here off. I don't think anyone could actually believe any of that stuff,
it is too ludicrous. I think you have been trolled.

What worries me is that people coming in here...


Same ol' same ol' "people". Nobody new, they come and they go. Only REGULARS gripe.

Jack

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 4:41:05 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 11/05/2015 6:41 a.m., JackA wrote:


Bad thing about FLAC is was too late for binary encoding.

Que ???!!!


Only a
MINORITY of people offer or listen to FLAC because it adds LITTLE if
ANYTHING to sound quality.

EXACTLY.

It adds NOTHING to sound quality. And it takes away NOTHING from sound
quality.
Unlike lossy technologies like MP3.

Its Big File Size adds a greater chance of
binary file corruption.

Absolute drivel.

Statistically incorrect.

If that was the case almost nothing would ever work in
any computer.

I can't help it if you applaud and use bloatware.

Jack


geoff

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

(hank alrich) writes:
[...]
Just _stop_.

Until the guy stops trolling and posting under a fake name, I'll not be
responding to him directly. Notice I started a new thread for the FLAC
thing.

Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
have they got to lose? A fool responds to such.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 7:08:26 PM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
(hank alrich) writes:
[...]
Just _stop_.

Until the guy stops trolling and posting under a fake name, I'll not be
responding to him directly. Notice I started a new thread for the FLAC
thing.

Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
have they got to lose? A fool responds to such.
--
Randy Yates

Randy, only those who know they are wrong become upset.

I've seen one too many FLAC people post less than thrilling audio. It's like they believe FLAC will solve all their audio problems.

Jack
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Trevor]

On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.

And no longer an issue.

NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
required ARE a benefit to them!
Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many TB+
drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
working files are wave.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 11/05/2015 9:08 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
have they got to lose?

The question IMO is what do they gain?

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 11/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.

And no longer an issue.

NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
required ARE a benefit to them!
Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many TB+
drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
working files are wave.

Trevor.




You can do that with Broadcast WAV. So unless for some reason file-size
is an issue *for you*, then not an issue at all, other than personal
choice. Which is fine.

geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 6:47:44 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 11/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.

And no longer an issue.

NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
required ARE a benefit to them!
Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many TB+
drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
working files are wave.

Trevor.




You can do that with Broadcast WAV. So unless for some reason file-size
is an issue *for you*, then not an issue at all, other than personal
choice. Which is fine.

geoff

BTW http://www.head-fi.org/t/705032/fixi...upt-flac-files

[Trevor]

On 11/05/2015 8:47 PM, geoff wrote:
On 11/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.

And no longer an issue.

NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
required ARE a benefit to them!
Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many TB+
drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
working files are wave.



You can do that with Broadcast WAV. So unless for some reason file-size
is an issue *for you*,

As I just wrote if you bothered to read, it *IS* an issue for me, and
many others that clearly store more data than you do.

Trevor.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

Trevor writes:

On 11/05/2015 9:08 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
have they got to lose?

The question IMO is what do they gain?

There is no good answer to that...
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Randy Yates wrote:
Trevor writes:

On 11/05/2015 9:08 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
have they got to lose?

The question IMO is what do they gain?

There is no good answer to that...

Permit me to recommend the book "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things"
by Whitney Philips, as published by MIT Press.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 1:49:24 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
Randy Yates wrote:
Trevor writes:

On 11/05/2015 9:08 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
Any spineless coward can come on usenet and post garbage incognito. What
have they got to lose?

The question IMO is what do they gain?

There is no good answer to that...

Permit me to recommend the book "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things"
by Whitney Philips, as published by MIT Press.

This is way more interesting...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...oll_school.jpg

Jack

--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 11/05/2015 11:52 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 11/05/2015 8:47 PM, geoff wrote:
On 11/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.

And no longer an issue.

NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
required ARE a benefit to them!
Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many TB+
drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
working files are wave.



You can do that with Broadcast WAV. So unless for some reason file-size
is an issue *for you*,

As I just wrote if you bothered to read, it *IS* an issue for me, and
many others that clearly store more data than you do.

Trevor.




Clearly. Which is why I qualified what I said with the bit you snipped off.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 12/05/2015 5:52 AM, geoff wrote:
On 11/05/2015 11:52 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 11/05/2015 8:47 PM, geoff wrote:
On 11/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 9/05/2015 9:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2015 2:24 a.m., Trevor wrote:
Exactly, and does save space, which is the main point.

And no longer an issue.

NO longer an issue for *YOU* perhaps. As others have indicated the
advantages of meta data tags, and half the number of hard drives
required ARE a benefit to them!
Considering that I require back ups of my multi-tracks, and how many
TB+
drives I have to store, all my back ups at least are FLAC, even if the
working files are wave.

You can do that with Broadcast WAV. So unless for some reason file-size
is an issue *for you*,

As I just wrote if you bothered to read, it *IS* an issue for me, and
many others that clearly store more data than you do.


Clearly. Which is why I qualified what I said with the bit you snipped off.

Rubbish, you failed to provide ANY reason one should use broadcast wave
simply to save meta data rather than FLAC, when both are lossless, both
have tags, and one is smaller. Now sometimes I do need to send BWAV
files, but I have no valid reason to save everything in that format,
especially all my back-ups. If you do and you are lucky that money and
storage space is never an issue to you, then that's fine, no need to
argue every else should though. Not unless you can provide another
reason that you so far have not?

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 12/05/2015 5:44 p.m., Trevor wrote:


As I just wrote if you bothered to read, it *IS* an issue for me, and
many others that clearly store more data than you do.


Clearly. Which is why I qualified what I said with the bit you snipped
off.

Rubbish, you failed to provide ANY reason one should use broadcast wave
simply to save meta data rather than FLAC, when both are lossless, both
have tags, and one is smaller. Now sometimes I do need to send BWAV
files, but I have no valid reason to save everything in that format,
especially all my back-ups. If you do and you are lucky that money and
storage space is never an issue to you, then that's fine, no need to
argue every else should though. Not unless you can provide another
reason that you so far have not?

Trevor.


" .... other than personal choice. Which is fine. "

The bit you 'lost'.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 12/05/2015 7:33 PM, geoff wrote:
On 12/05/2015 5:44 p.m., Trevor wrote:
As I just wrote if you bothered to read, it *IS* an issue for me, and
many others that clearly store more data than you do.

Clearly. Which is why I qualified what I said with the bit you snipped
off.

Rubbish, you failed to provide ANY reason one should use broadcast wave
simply to save meta data rather than FLAC, when both are lossless, both
have tags, and one is smaller. Now sometimes I do need to send BWAV
files, but I have no valid reason to save everything in that format,
especially all my back-ups. If you do and you are lucky that money and
storage space is never an issue to you, then that's fine, no need to
argue every else should though. Not unless you can provide another
reason that you so far have not?


" .... other than personal choice. Which is fine. "


Right, other than personal choice *and* file size, just as I said all
along. You still provide *NO* reason why your personal choice is better
though, so there is no debate to be had.

Trevor.

[Gray_Wolf[_2_]]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 15:44:23 +1000, Trevor wrote:

On 12/05/2015 5:52 AM, geoff wrote:

[snip]
Clearly. Which is why I qualified what I said with the bit you snipped off.

Rubbish, you failed to provide ANY reason one should use broadcast wave
simply to save meta data rather than FLAC, when both are lossless, both
have tags, and one is smaller. Now sometimes I do need to send BWAV
files, but I have no valid reason to save everything in that format,
especially all my back-ups. If you do and you are lucky that money and
storage space is never an issue to you, then that's fine, no need to
argue every else should though. Not unless you can provide another
reason that you so far have not?

Trevor.

One thing I've noticed is I can play a 24bit 96kHz FLAC with my PCI
sound card still set to 44.1KHz. I can't do that with a wave file. I'd
have to reset the sound card's sample rate.

[[email protected]]

in an effort to make ths a more productive discussion, i will ask a question...

can someone explain how to add meta data tags onto a .wav file.

do common players such as windows media player recognize the tags?

thanks

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
in an effort to make ths a more productive discussion, i will ask a question...

can someone explain how to add meta data tags onto a .wav file.

Your DAW can probably write a broadcast wav with that information already, if
you look at the save options.

But the reference standard tool for editing that stuff is BWF MetaEdit.

do common players such as windows media player recognize the tags?

I have no idea, but all of the broadcast software I have used seems to.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

writes:

in an effort to make ths a more productive discussion, i will ask a
question...

Just a guess, but have you tried it with Audacity?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Phil W[_3_]]

makolber:

can someone explain how to add meta data tags onto a .wav file.

Wave editors or DAWs should be able. Wavelab can write/edit BWF tags.

do common players such as windows media player recognize the tags?

As far as my limited experience goes:
- WinAmp can/could display the BWF tags in .WAV files
- WMP on WinXP and Win7 can not

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:00:30 AM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
writes:

in an effort to make ths a more productive discussion, i will ask a
question...

Just a guess, but have you tried it with Audacity?

I see no sign.

http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-be...-and-mp3-files
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Nil[_2_]]

On 12 May 2015, Gray_Wolf wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

One thing I've noticed is I can play a 24bit 96kHz FLAC with my
PCI sound card still set to 44.1KHz. I can't do that with a wave
file. I'd have to reset the sound card's sample rate.

I suspect your player is doing a resampling on the fly. It's not a
feature of FLAC per se, but a feature of your player. Though I'm
surprised your player wouldn't do the same thing for the WAV file.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 12 May 2015, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

can someone explain how to add meta data tags onto a .wav file.

I have used a program called Mp3tag to write info tags to most of my
audio files. It didn't used to handle WAV files, but as of a few
versions ago it does. I don't do it, though - all my archived WAV files
are converted to FLAC.

http://www.mp3tag.de/en/

The only info tag in a Broadcast WAV file that's useful to me is the
positioning one. If I'm trading files with someone else for editing in
a DAW, the file can be stamped with its start position, so the other
party can precisely line it up on his timeline.

do common players such as windows media player recognize the tags?

A few do, not many. WMP did not, last time I looked.