[Terry[_3_]]

I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.

If this is so, then what does the original tune have to be played in
for me to make a copy of it?
If it's a MP3 tune then it's already compressed, so that's not good.
Would these formats be only good for vinyl copying or master tapes?

Terry

[Scott Dorsey]

Terry wrote:
I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.

Not NEAR perfect. Perfect. The bits go in, the bits come out. The
ones that come out are identical to what goes in. This is the whole
point of digital systems.

If this is so, then what does the original tune have to be played in
for me to make a copy of it?

Whatever you want. Whatever goes in is what comes out.

If it's a MP3 tune then it's already compressed, so that's not good.
Would these formats be only good for vinyl copying or master tapes?

It's for anything you want. A CD, for instance, is straight 16-bit 44.1
data. You put it into a 16-bit 44.1 AIFF file, you have precisely what
was on the CD. You put it out to another CD, the two CDs are identical,
bit for bit.

This is the way normal digital systems are.
--scott

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

[Richard Crowley]

"Terry" wrote ...
I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.

That is incorrect. Can you provide a reference where you read it?

AIFF is a *container* that may contain uncompressed
(i.e. bit-perfect) audio, OR one of several compressed
(lilely lossy, meaning not bit-perfect) codecs.

FLAC is a *lossless* compression codec that produces
bit-perfect reproduction. Not "near-perfect". Perfect.

If this is so, then what does the original tune have to be played in
for me to make a copy of it?

Difficult to answer that question without knowing what you
are trying to do here? Presumably you would need an original
signal (or file) of sufficient quality to warrant even worrying
about making bit-perfect copies.

If it's a MP3 tune then it's already compressed, so that's not good.

If you have an MP3 file, then there is no point in converting it to
anything else unless you wanted to compress it even further.
Once encoded into MP3 (at least most of the popular variants)
the loss has already happened and there's nothing you can do to
get it back.

Would these formats be only good for vinyl copying or master tapes?

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on a lot of other factors you did
not mention. Are you going somewhere specific with this, or
are you just asking general questions?

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Terry" wrote ...
I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.

That is incorrect. Can you provide a reference where you read it?

AIFF is a *container* that may contain uncompressed
(i.e. bit-perfect) audio, OR one of several compressed
(lilely lossy, meaning not bit-perfect) codecs.

I think that's really AIFF-C, isn't it? The original .aiff format wasn't
a container file, was it? I thought it was a swanky .wav with byte order
reversed?
--scott


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

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Terry" wrote ...
I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.

That is incorrect. Can you provide a reference where you read it?

AIFF is a *container* that may contain uncompressed
(i.e. bit-perfect) audio, OR one of several compressed
(lilely lossy, meaning not bit-perfect) codecs.

I think that's really AIFF-C, isn't it? The original .aiff format wasn't
a container file, was it?

Wikipedia identifies AIFF as a "Audio-Only Media Container"
along with AU and WAV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contain..._%28digital%29

Yes, the compressed version is called "AIFF-C", but with so
much other incorrect information, it wasn't clear exactly what
the OP is inquiring about.

I thought it was a swanky .wav with byte order
reversed?

Leave it to Apple to come up with something different.
Frequently, it seems, just to be different.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Terry" wrote ...
I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.
That is incorrect. Can you provide a reference where you read it?

AIFF is a *container* that may contain uncompressed
(i.e. bit-perfect) audio, OR one of several compressed
(lilely lossy, meaning not bit-perfect) codecs.
I think that's really AIFF-C, isn't it? The original .aiff format wasn't
a container file, was it?

Wikipedia identifies AIFF as a "Audio-Only Media Container"
along with AU and WAV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contain..._%28digital%29

Yes, the compressed version is called "AIFF-C", but with so
much other incorrect information, it wasn't clear exactly what
the OP is inquiring about.

I thought it was a swanky .wav with byte order
reversed?

Leave it to Apple to come up with something different.
Frequently, it seems, just to be different.



Actually, I believe AIFF files predate WAV files by a few years.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 17:40:55 -0700 (PDT), Terry
wrote:

I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.

If this is so, then what does the original tune have to be played in
for me to make a copy of it?
If it's a MP3 tune then it's already compressed, so that's not good.
Would these formats be only good for vinyl copying or master tapes?

Have the other folks' responses answered your true question?
Formulating a question is always a difficult thing, both because
if-ya-knew-all-the-issues-ya-wouldna-hafta-asked-the-question and
because the translation from thought to Newsgroup post is a
learned art. We ain't born with it; no truer proof than Moi.

As you've already read, there're folks here who can answer your
true question in just about *any* level of detail, so you'll only
need to work on framing it in a way that elicits the pie-slice
of the unknowably vast Universe that interests you.

IMO, this framing of questions is the very core of Humanity, so
GET BUSY. Arf.

All the best,

Chris Hornbeck
"He sorta smiled, and kissed me goodby,
And tears were beginning to show.
As he drove away, on that rainy night,
I BEGGED him to go slow..."

"Whether he heard, I'll never know...

(NO NO NO NO, NO NO NO)

Look out! Look out! Look out! Look out!"

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.

If this is so, then what does the original tune have to be played in
for me to make a copy of it?
If it's a MP3 tune then it's already compressed, so that's not good.
Would these formats be only good for vinyl copying or master tapes?


When you feed analogue audio into a soundcard it is normally stored as
a WAV (if you've got a PC) or AIFF (if you're on Mac). Quality
depends on your chosen sample rate and bit-depth. You would need a
very good source and quite unusual ears to hear any improvement beyond
44.1KHz and 16 bits (though some will argue this point:-). WAV and
AIFF are essentially the same. They aren't compressed formats -
copies are identical to the original.

But the files are big. This is less of an issue than it used to be.
Storage media get ever bigger and ever cheaper. In the context of an
affordable 1TB hard drive, a music collection in WAV format doesn't
look as big as it used to! But maybe you want to cut down on storage
size.

You can go two ways. If you want to retain full quality, you need
lossless compression. ZIP or RAR are general-purpose compressers. You
don't get a "near perfect" copy, you get the same bits you put in.
Think about it - these formats are used to store program code.
Near-enough isn't good-enough. FLAC is a similar system optimised
for audio. You might get as much as 50% size reduction, probably
less.

Or you can go for a lossy compression system, typically MP3. You
trade file-size against quality-loss.

(It IS possible to store compressed data under the WAV or AIFF labels.
Don't worry about it.)

[Sean Conolly]

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Terry" wrote ...
I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.
That is incorrect. Can you provide a reference where you read it?

AIFF is a *container* that may contain uncompressed
(i.e. bit-perfect) audio, OR one of several compressed
(lilely lossy, meaning not bit-perfect) codecs.
I think that's really AIFF-C, isn't it? The original .aiff format
wasn't
a container file, was it?

Wikipedia identifies AIFF as a "Audio-Only Media Container"
along with AU and WAV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contain..._%28digital%29

Yes, the compressed version is called "AIFF-C", but with so
much other incorrect information, it wasn't clear exactly what
the OP is inquiring about.

I thought it was a swanky .wav with byte order
reversed?

Leave it to Apple to come up with something different.
Frequently, it seems, just to be different.

Actually, I believe AIFF files predate WAV files by a few years.

.... and the difference in byte order is probably because it was developed in
a Motorola environment and wave was in an Intel environment. I have the same
issue at work with TIFF files - they can be in either order.

Sean

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 31/05/08 4:23, in article , "Richard
Crowley" wrote:

(...)
Wikipedia identifies AIFF as a "Audio-Only Media Container"
along with AU and WAV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contain..._%28digital%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiff

--
Joe Kotroczo

[Terry[_3_]]

On May 31, 11:19*am, Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 31/05/08 4:23, in article , "Richard

Crowley" wrote:

(...)

Wikipedia identifies AIFF as a "Audio-Only Media Container"
along with AU and WAV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contain..._%28digital%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiff

--
Joe Kotroczo * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So it sounds like what all of you are saying is, if I'm wanting to
copy a MP3 song file to my computer forget about FLAC. The MP3 file
has already be de-graded so there would be no point.
But, if I wanted to copy a music CD to my computer then I should use
FLAC since it will copy the CD bit for bit and I would have a exact
copy of the music CD.

Is this correct?
My objective is to get the best music sound I can. I never know what
my source of music is. It could be thru my audio card from the
internet, or off a CD, or off a cassette tape, or off a MP3 file, or
off a 45rpm record.
I just want to get the best recording I can.


Thanks,
Terry

[Richard Crowley]

"Terry" wrote ...
So it sounds like what all of you are saying is, if I'm
wanting to copy a MP3 song file to my computer forget
about FLAC. The MP3 file has already be de-graded
so there would be no point.

Exactly so.

But, if I wanted to copy a music CD to my computer then
I should use FLAC since it will copy the CD bit for bit and
I would have a exact copy of the music CD.
Is this correct?

Actually, since disk capacity is so cheap these days (and getting
cheaper every year), most people likely just use (uncompressed)
WAV for that purpose. FLAC (and other lossless compression
formats) are typically used for archiving, etc. where space is a
premiium.

My objective is to get the best music sound I can. I never
know what my source of music is. It could be thru my audio
card from the internet, or off a CD, or off a cassette tape,
or off a MP3 file, or off a 45rpm record.
I just want to get the bet recording I can.

Uncompressed WAV would certainly be the guaranteed way
of capturing as high quality as possible. But for many sources
(such as MP3, many 45's, etc.) WAV is overkill.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Terry
wrote:

So it sounds like what all of you are saying is, if I'm wanting to
copy a MP3 song file to my computer forget about FLAC. The MP3 file
has already be de-graded so there would be no point.

Yes. A MP3 file is as small as it's ever likely to be unless uou
degrade quality even further.

But, if I wanted to copy a music CD to my computer then I should use
FLAC since it will copy the CD bit for bit and I would have a exact
copy of the music CD.

Or leave it as a WAV. No-one's FORCING you to reduce the size :-)


Is this correct?
My objective is to get the best music sound I can. I never know what
my source of music is. It could be thru my audio card from the
internet, or off a CD, or off a cassette tape, or off a MP3 file, or
off a 45rpm record.
I just want to get the best recording I can.

RC- [Sun, 1 Jun 2008 22:15:09 -0700]:
most people likely just use (uncompressed)WAV for that purpose.

Hey, way to grab some air! Actually, "most
people" do not just use wavs. First, few
rippers even suggest going to wav, and second,
there's no standard way to add meta-data (artist,
title, track, etc.) to a .wav so players have
no way to know what's in a .wav. Third, the
Phantasm player (see below) doesn't even do
..wav (though 40iPlay does, even 192/24), but
does do FLAC, ALAC, et al., and does it oh so
nice, on WinMobile or destktop.

--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iplay.40th.com - Advanced PPC audio player
phantasm.40th.com - The final destination

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:12:21 GMT, () wrote:

most people likely just use (uncompressed)WAV for that purpose.

Hey, way to grab some air! Actually, "most
people" do not just use wavs. First, few
rippers even suggest going to wav, and second,
there's no standard way to add meta-data (artist,
title, track, etc.) to a .wav so players have
no way to know what's in a .wav. Third, the
Phantasm player (see below) doesn't even do
.wav (though 40iPlay does, even 192/24), but
does do FLAC, ALAC, et al., and does it oh so
nice, on WinMobile or destktop.


Did you miss that the question was how to make an "exact copy"? This
guy's asking for quality. We must assume that he'll listen on
equipment and in an environment when he'll notice it! Else, yes, he
may as well save space with an MP3.

LP- [Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:38:18 +0100]:
Did you miss that the question was how to make an "exact copy"? This
guy's asking for quality. We must assume that he'll listen on
equipment and in an environment when he'll notice it! Else, yes, he
may as well save space with an MP3.

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:12:21 GMT, () wrote:

First, I did not write this (it was RC; you removed
the attribution):

most people likely just use (uncompressed)WAV for that purpose.

Second, where do you see where I say anything
about mp3? FLAC and ALAC are each lossless -
they are exact copies.

Hey, way to grab some air! Actually, "most
people" do not just use wavs. First, few
rippers even suggest going to wav, and second,
there's no standard way to add meta-data (artist,
title, track, etc.) to a .wav so players have
no way to know what's in a .wav. Third, the
Phantasm player (see below) doesn't even do
.wav (though 40iPlay does, even 192/24), but
does do FLAC, ALAC, et al., and does it oh so
nice, on WinMobile or destktop.

Ignore any dups/messed up replies on this.
--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iplay.40th.com - Advanced PPC audio player
phantasm.40th.com - The final destination

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote...
most people likely just use (uncompressed)
WAV for that purpose.

Hey, way to grab some air!

Whatever that means?

Actually, "most people" do not just use wavs.
First, few rippers even suggest going to wav,

Perhaps you just wandered into this newsgroup by
accident, but most of us are not "rippers". Most of
us are actually producers of things that others "rip".

and second, there's no standard way to add meta-
data (artist, title, track, etc.) to a .wav

WAV files store all that meta-data just like MP3 files
(etc) do. In fact the TIFF (WAV) format allows for
an unlimited number of meta-data chunks.

so players have no way to know what's in a .wav.

Sounds like you're using less than full-featured players.

Third, the
Phantasm player (see below) doesn't even do
.wav (though 40iPlay does, even 192/24), but
does do FLAC, ALAC, et al., and does it oh so
nice, on WinMobile or destktop.

Thanks for the sales pitch. The fact that your product
doesn't know how to read WAV meta-data doesn't
say much for it, does it?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , wrote:
RC- [Sun, 1 Jun 2008 22:15:09 -0700]:
most people likely just use (uncompressed)WAV for that purpose.

Hey, way to grab some air! Actually, "most
people" do not just use wavs. First, few
rippers even suggest going to wav, and second,
there's no standard way to add meta-data (artist,
title, track, etc.) to a .wav so players have
no way to know what's in a .wav. Third, the
Phantasm player (see below) doesn't even do
.wav (though 40iPlay does, even 192/24), but
does do FLAC, ALAC, et al., and does it oh so
nice, on WinMobile or destktop.

I don't think ANYBODY does any audio production work with any of those
formats. For the most part, if you go into any audio post suite or
studio, you'll see a mixture of .wav files and vendor proprietary formats.

There is, in fact, a standard way to add metadata to a .wav file... it
is called the "broadcast WAV" format, and it is in fact one of the few
actual standardized audio file formats that are controlled by an international
standards body.

Stuff like FLAC is fine for distribution, but for actual production where
disk space isn't at a premium but CPU is, it's not so popular.
--scott

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

RC [Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:24:33 -0700]:
accident, but most of us are not "rippers". Most of
us are actually producers of things that others "rip".

That could explain why you think "most people"
use .wav. Few real people use .wav - not for
music. Rip is a generic term meaning to pull
from CD and put in a those things we call files.
Caddy, fetch my Clue stick.

and second, there's no standard way to add meta-
data (artist, title, track, etc.) to a .wav

(etc) do. In fact the TIFF (WAV) format allows for
an unlimited number of meta-data chunks.

Not standard. It could be anything ('title',
'trackname', who knows what -- this must be
known precisely to handle properly). TIFF?
Perhaps you meant AIFF. Oh, caddy...

so players have no way to know what's in a .wav.

Sounds like you're using less than full-featured players.

Well, I use the best. If you want to limit
yourself to a player that knows whatever
particular meta-data format you use, that's
good (for you).

Thanks for the sales pitch. The fact that your product
doesn't know how to read WAV meta-data doesn't
say much for it, does it?

It only shows I don't waste effort on things
no one uses. Real people don't use wav for
music. Heck, few even use FLAC, or ALAC, but
I do. These things I know very well.

--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iplay.40th.com - Advanced PPC audio player
phantasm.40th.com - The final destination

SD- [2 Jun 2008 13:25:43 -0400]:
In article , wrote:
RC- [Sun, 1 Jun 2008 22:15:09 -0700]:
most people likely just use (uncompressed)WAV for that purpose.
Hey, way to grab some air! Actually, "most
people" do not just use wavs. First, few

I don't think ANYBODY does any audio production work with any of those

The OP asked

From: Terry
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 17:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: HELP needed understanding AIFF & FLAC "lossless" formats
Msg-ID:

I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.

If this is so, then what does the original tune have to be played in
for me to make a copy of it?
If it's a MP3 tune then it's already compressed, so that's not good.
Would these formats be only good for vinyl copying or master tapes?

Yes, if I were editing PCM I'd use stay in
PCM (wav) but would send it to ALAC (alac is
lossless) when I was done. Real people don't
edit PCM. This guy is ripping (which is what
he really wants to know how to accomplish).

To OP:

I suggest getting iTunes. It lets you rip from
CD to ALAC (or AAC, or mp3). It's very simple
to use (I use it as a ripper-encoder only, but
anyone could use it as a player, too). ALAC and
AAC are perfectly gapless, too (with the right
player). Even the mp3 generated by (newer)
iTunes is gapless (with the right player --
like either of mine).

--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iplay.40th.com - Advanced PPC audio player
phantasm.40th.com - The final destination

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , wrote:

Yes, if I were editing PCM I'd use stay in
PCM (wav) but would send it to ALAC (alac is
lossless) when I was done. Real people don't
edit PCM. This guy is ripping (which is what
he really wants to know how to accomplish).

That's right, real people edit 1/4" with a razor blade! But these days
sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and edit PCM files.
--scott

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

[Don Pearce]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , wrote:
Yes, if I were editing PCM I'd use stay in
PCM (wav) but would send it to ALAC (alac is
lossless) when I was done. Real people don't
edit PCM. This guy is ripping (which is what
he really wants to know how to accomplish).

That's right, real people edit 1/4" with a razor blade! But these days
sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and edit PCM files.
--scott


Not sure I understand the problem here. PCM is what comes out of an ADC,
so if you edit in the digital domain, PCM is pretty much your only
option. What am I missing?

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , wrote:
Yes, if I were editing PCM I'd use stay in
PCM (wav) but would send it to ALAC (alac is
lossless) when I was done. Real people don't
edit PCM. This guy is ripping (which is what
he really wants to know how to accomplish).

That's right, real people edit 1/4" with a razor blade! But these days
sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and edit PCM files.

Not sure I understand the problem here. PCM is what comes out of an ADC,
so if you edit in the digital domain, PCM is pretty much your only
option. What am I missing?

That not everyone edits in the digital domain.

Actually, there is some discussion going on about directly editing DSD
files. This turns out actually to be nontrivial, and so most of the DSD
editing systems out there (and that includes the Merging Technologies box)
translates into an internal PCM representation for editing purposes.

THAT is a much more interesting and relevent discussion than anything to
do with ripping CDs.
--scott

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

[Don Pearce]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , wrote:
Yes, if I were editing PCM I'd use stay in
PCM (wav) but would send it to ALAC (alac is
lossless) when I was done. Real people don't
edit PCM. This guy is ripping (which is what
he really wants to know how to accomplish).
That's right, real people edit 1/4" with a razor blade! But these days
sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and edit PCM files.
Not sure I understand the problem here. PCM is what comes out of an ADC,
so if you edit in the digital domain, PCM is pretty much your only
option. What am I missing?

That not everyone edits in the digital domain.

I'm guessing that very few people are still editing in the analogue
domain. I know there are a few at the BBC Radiophonic Workshop who do it
for fun.

Actually, there is some discussion going on about directly editing DSD
files. This turns out actually to be nontrivial, and so most of the DSD
editing systems out there (and that includes the Merging Technologies box)
translates into an internal PCM representation for editing purposes.


Tricky. You obviously need to have some sort of display of a waveform,
which kind of requires conversion to PCM, but that need only be for the
display. I guess there could be some kind of interpreter that could
interpose itself so the actual editing happened directly in the DSD.

THAT is a much more interesting and relevent discussion than anything to
do with ripping CDs.

Oh yes. Ripping CDs is definitely not a topic for this group.

d

[Tobiah]

I thought it was a swanky .wav with byte order
reversed?

Leave it to Apple to come up with something different.
Frequently, it seems, just to be different.

Actually, this is Microsoft's M.O. .wav is like a
scrambled .aiff (well, vice versa too). MS just had
to pee in the corner.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , wrote:
Yes, if I were editing PCM I'd use stay in
PCM (wav) but would send it to ALAC (alac is
lossless) when I was done. Real people don't
edit PCM. This guy is ripping (which is what
he really wants to know how to accomplish).
That's right, real people edit 1/4" with a razor blade! But these days
sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and edit PCM files.
Not sure I understand the problem here. PCM is what comes out of an ADC,
so if you edit in the digital domain, PCM is pretty much your only
option. What am I missing?

That not everyone edits in the digital domain.

With all due respect, Scott... EVERYBODY but you edits in the digital
domian :-) *ducks to avoid being hit by edit block*

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 2/06/08 21:25, in article ,
"Tobiah" wrote:


I thought it was a swanky .wav with byte order
reversed?

Leave it to Apple to come up with something different.
Frequently, it seems, just to be different.

Actually, this is Microsoft's M.O. .wav is like a
scrambled .aiff (well, vice versa too). MS just had
to pee in the corner.

Ah, yes, but come on, well all know it's IBM's fault.

(... for using a little-endian CPU in their PC, instead of a big-endian.)

Or we could declare it Intel's fault, for building a little-endian CPU,
instead of a big-endian like Motorola.


;-)


--
Joe Kotroczo

[Richard Crowley]

"Joe Kotroczo" wrote ...

Or we could declare it Intel's fault, for building a little-endian CPU,
instead of a big-endian like Motorola.

Since Moto abandoned the mainstream Microprocessor
business, there aren't many big-endian designs left.

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 2/06/08 23:58, in article , "Richard
Crowley" wrote:

"Joe Kotroczo" wrote ...

Or we could declare it Intel's fault, for building a little-endian CPU,
instead of a big-endian like Motorola.

Since Moto abandoned the mainstream Microprocessor
business, there aren't many big-endian designs left.

Switchable endianness is all the rage these days.

--
Joe Kotroczo