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?
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?
Comment