> From: "Rich Peet" <>
> Subject: Re: lossless recording
>
> This is why if you are going to use an audio compression program for
> archival use it is very important that the software be small, Free
> for all uses by anyone (free as in free beer), open source, and be
> able to handle partially contaminated material. Once that is met it
> is no longer important that the mainstream did not use it.
free, in this case also means no reliable support. If something goes
wrong and you have all your copies in this format, who will you turn to
in hopes of recovering the files? The free, open source community washes
from one new love to another with no long term support. And tends to be
populated with folks who believe you should be enough of a programmer to
fix any problems. They need to mature a whole lot.
It is true, if you do not intend to supply the file to anyone else in
that format it's not too important if they can read it. You are your own
little island.
You get exactly what you pay for in that free stuff and no more.
> That is just code choice for audio. When it comes to equipment I
> simply don't understand your comment that dvd encoding is in any way
> better to anything or something that should be considered anything
> other than a short range storage solution? The current state of dvd
> is a complete and total disaster when looking at archive use.
The DVD compression format, which is what was being discussed, does have
the advantage of being a recognized and agreed to standard by most of
the heavy hitters in such things. Not just some current darling of the
open source community, that's what I mean.
I should note as well that the large archives make it a policy of not
compressing or anything like that. It adds another layer of risk of
failure. Keep your archive as simple and easy to read as possible.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|