Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

.wav as the archival standard

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • .wav as the archival standard

    This thread is based on a discussion with a potential customer that took place off-line. The customer ultimately decided not to purchase Diamond Cut software because it did not support flac and other non-lossy compression schemes.

    I would like to reiterate my opinion on this subject. The archival standard is .wav not flac or ape or any other of those types of files. And, I will profer a good reason for that based on my experience over the last year.

    I purchased a 1 Terabyte drive last Christmas for myself in order to archive my music collection which I did in .wav format. I paid 600 bucks for the external USB hard drive at that time. I have roughly 2000 record albums on that drive now. Rick, recently looked up the price of my drive and it is down to 275 bucks today. I predict that in one year, it will be down to around 140 bucks. So, why bother compressing the audio in any form whatsoever, especially when you consider a big peril that exists when doing that. The amont of money being saved is tiny compared to the work involved in creating these files.

    So, what is the peril that I am talking about?

    Well, projecting forward 10 years from now, you are still going to want to enjoy your collection, but what format has the best chance of standing the test of time, .wav or some other thing? I put my money on .wav, and I will also say that in 10 years a 1 Terabyte hard drive will cost 25 bucks at most. There may not be any programs out there in the future that will support these someday to become antique schemes. Lets face it, when Terabyte hard drives cost 25 bucks, there will be absolutely no need for file compression of any sort whatsoever.

    Comments?
    Last edited by Craig Maier; 07-27-2019, 05:03 PM.
    "Who put orange juice in my orange juice?" - - - William Claude Dukenfield

  • #2
    I think flac is fine for transferring data and for mp3 players (my son's plays flac and a couple of other compression formats), but it makes sense that all your restoration work is completely noncompressed, then you can do whatever you want to with it.

    I often download files in flac format, but decompress them and burn to cd.

    I think you're correct that it's risky to use any format but wav for long-term storage.
    Dan McDonald

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't think it's a bit risky to use FLAC or any of the open sourced formats. They have been going strong for some time and are as robust in terms of support as Windows itself. But, it there ever comes a day when FLAC is no more and a better compression scheme comes along, it is a very painless procedure to go back and forth from .WAV to FLAC.

      I still don't understand the potential customer's reluctance to go with Diamond Cut. Work with the uncompressed files with in the program and then compress the finished work with FLAC..... not too cumbersome or time consuming. ?????

      GB

      Comment


      • #4
        That's what I couldn't understand either, GB. Do what you want after, but use the uncompressed files for restoration work.

        I guess long-term is relative. I used to use shn compression - 7 or 8 years ago to save discs, but it's getting more and more difficult to find software that can uncompress shn. I can't get any to work on my current computer (don't know why), but I can get some programs to work on an older computer, so I'm transferring those back to wav. And that's just a few years. Flac has come on strong, but it's hard to know when it will go away, and if operating systems and hardware continues to change as fast as it has, it will probably be a bit difficult to "de-flac."
        Dan McDonald

        Comment


        • #5
          I must add that if a person thinks that they will be able to access their music collection without any problems in the future in not living in the real world. The CD is about at it's end of it's useful life cycle and will go by the way of the dinosaur like the LP and the cassette before it.

          All music collections should have the capability of evolving to make use of the current popular formats (preferrably uncompressed) and to think that even .WAV is going to be around for eons is being naive. .WAV might be around for along time, or it could reach it's end of it's usefulness as well. I have no problem with that.

          A person just has to keep a pulse of what is going on with technology. No real problem will result if you understand that a certain format will probably not last an extended time and prepare for the transfer of your music collection to the new standard. A problem would occur however if you wanted to salvage a collection, let's say 10 or so years after a particular format has ended it's useful life.

          I'm a realist and understand that no one format is going to be the definitive format forever.

          GB

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dan McDonald
            That's what I couldn't understand either, GB. Do what you want after, but use the uncompressed files for restoration work.

            I guess long-term is relative. I used to use shn compression - 7 or 8 years ago to save discs, but it's getting more and more difficult to find software that can uncompress shn. I can't get any to work on my current computer (don't know why), but I can get some programs to work on an older computer, so I'm transferring those back to wav. And that's just a few years. Flac has come on strong, but it's hard to know when it will go away, and if operating systems and hardware continues to change as fast as it has, it will probably be a bit difficult to "de-flac."
            Hey Dan:

            Shorten is supported by at least a few programs. If you want some specifics, PM me.

            GB

            Comment


            • #7
              Quoting GB:

              " - - - still don't understand the potential customer's reluctance to go with Diamond Cut. Work with the uncompressed files with in the program and then compress the finished work with FLAC..... not too cumbersome or time consuming. ?????"

              -------------------------------------------

              A competitors program supports one of those non-lossy compression schemes directly and so he said that using Diamond Cut creates more work for him - - - he said that it is not friendly to the user because of that and he is really very concerned about disk storage space.

              BTW - I do not get it either. You only save half the space and you risk owning a derelict database if you do not pay close attention to it every year or so. And for what? To save a little money for storage? Strange.
              -------------------------------------------

              .wav is basically just PCM audio. It will not be hard to decode it even 100 years from now. It is a very simple and straightforward format. It is entirely logical. Flac and those others are not straightforward.
              Last edited by Craig Maier; 11-25-2007, 07:29 PM.
              "Who put orange juice in my orange juice?" - - - William Claude Dukenfield

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Craig Maier
                .wav is basically just PCM audio. It will not be hard to decode it even 100 years from now. It is a very simple and straightforward format. It is entirely logical. Flac and those others are not straightforward.
                Since the code is open sourced with FLAC, it really doesn't need to be straightforward. I have the code. I could also make it work years from now if need be.

                I still don't think .WAV as we now know it, will be around too much longer. I have no proof to support this, but just a gut instinct. Something better is on the horizon.

                GB

                Comment


                • #9
                  Quoting GB:

                  "I still don't think .WAV as we now know it, will be around too much longer. I have no proof to support this, but just a gut instinct. Something better is on the horizon."

                  --------------------------------------------------------

                  It will be hard to beat .wav (uncompressed PCM digital audio). Right now, it goes up to (and Diamond Cut supports) 36 bits (216 dB of dynamic range) and also sampling rates up to a little over 200 KHz with the make waves generator, which yields a 100 KHz bandwidth. What more could anyone possibly want in an audio format? No human can detect anywhere near even 100 dB of dynamic range and no human can really detect more than around 25 KHz of baseband audio.



                  ps - It is impossible from a Physics perspective to produce signals that cover the audio range (20 Hz to 20 KHz) and also exhibit 216 dB of dynamic range. I will not get into the gory details on it unless you insist on it, but trust me on that one.
                  Last edited by Craig Maier; 11-25-2007, 08:40 PM.
                  "Who put orange juice in my orange juice?" - - - William Claude Dukenfield

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I guess what I meant to say is that good old M$oft will definitely get some competition. Not necessarily better technologically speaking, but will not be the only player in town.

                    The superior techincal format doesn't alway win out, unfortunately. I just hope and pray that uncompressed audio doesn't die off. All this Mp3 business makes me sick.

                    Even with my not so good anymore ears, I can almost always tell a lossy source from a non-lossy one.

                    PS. You need not bore me with the gory details of .WAV. Since I am a former employee of that company, I know pretty much what I need to know.



                    GB

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      M$oft could go out of business tomorrow, but .wav will still live on; there is no reason for it not to.
                      "Who put orange juice in my orange juice?" - - - William Claude Dukenfield

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Craig Maier
                        M$oft could go out of business tomorrow, but .wav will still live on; there is no reason for it not to.
                        True.....

                        Can you tell I tend to have the ex-employee syndrome? Anything is better than that awful company I used to work for!!!!!! Ha Ha.

                        In essence, I totally agree with your point. In this day and age of cheap storage, there is no need to use compression. I get a bunch of FLAC files from my musician friends and the first thing I do is uncompress the files and never look back. I have all the de-compression schemes on my computer, because I never know exactly who is going to compress with what, but for storage, I never use compression.

                        GB

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree with you all on preferring .wav - but there's an angle that hasn't been discussed yet. MP3, FLAC, et.al. didn't become popular because they minimized storage requirements but rather because they facilitated rapid transmittal of songs over "limited" bandwidth networks for file sharing. I say "limited" because every time you read about the internet becoming hopelessly clogged, something comes along that permits even more throughput for video, etc.

                          I think the challenge to all the formats will come from some future superior algorithm for transmission that requires more sophisticated data interleaving, ghosting techniques, etc. That "advance" will quickly kill off FLAC and everybody else -- except something like .wav (since you'll still have to have a place to start to encode from that is data rich).

                          Everything I have is in .wav. The only reason I use MP3 or anything else is for playback on my cell phone. If pocket space permits, for real listening, I still use my Nomad Jukebox 3 because it plays back .wav format.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That's why I still don't understand why MP3 is still the dominant music format. It came about before widespread cable and DSL connections. Now with the fast internet, why bother with a lossy format? I can download a whole album in a matter of a couple of minutes in a non-lossy format; why would I want to save a couple of seconds and download it as an MP3 if given the choice?

                            I don't get it. I try to avoid Mp3 like the killer virus it is. !!!!

                            Uncompressed music rules!

                            GB

                            PS. The internet is NOT hopelessly clogged. Even if all the MP3's and compressed video were to go away, there would be plenty of bandwith to go around.
                            Last edited by ; 11-25-2007, 10:07 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was just wondering.... it seems that this topic always comes up around this time of year. I know we have had this discussion for the last couple of holiday seasons.

                              Craig?????? Do you secretly work for a hard drive manufacturer????

                              GB

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X