Posted by: "Lou Judson"
>
> Yes, my point was only the distinction between listening archives for
> the moment and archives for the future... MP3s can sound fine, but
> pros always want to preserve the original PCM file for "future use"
> is all I was meaning to say. In my book, original recordings as MP3s
> are not usable as master files for editing as the decode/re-encode
> process is so destructive.
Right now mpeg4 is the current standard, mp3 is a old standard. While I
don't expect it to go away soon, someone mentioned 50 years. I have my
doubts about it being around then. That may also be true of current PCM
files, there can be more accurate methods of encoding sound in the
future. PCM is linear in a log world of sound. The group cannot even
maintain it's Yahoo space, who's going to keep formats current and so
on. Who will you trust to make the right decisions on that?
Please note that I view mp3 or mpeg4 as dead end formats, you don't edit
them farther, and if you do you don't understand their purpose. For that
you go back to your uncompressed original archive. But the files in that
uncompressed archive are not suitable for putting up on the internet for
general downloading. They are far too big, which is the reason for the
compressed formats. Even the compressed formats are limiting, you can't
share very many minutes of a recording without cutting out a lot of
people who cannot download them.
As far as what's usable to science, I work with the biologists that
study these animals. They don't quibble about the format, they take what
they get. And editing the sound is not part of what they do, they work
mostly with the original as recorded sound. Much of their work is still
done with cassette recorders. Sonograms of calls were first studied and
understood from such equipment. It's the technical hobbiest that gets
picky as to format.
> Not debating the need for a place to keep them and access our works!
As long as we get over the ego trip that these are somehow the greatest
natural sound recordings in history. They are not, many have little or
no value beyond the moment.
The majority have no or little scientific value. The detailed habitat
and site documentation is not there. Often there is no precise location,
no weather data and so on. For bioacoustics, the equipment is unreliably
calibrated if it's calibrated at all. There is no detailed protocol
statement. That does not make them of no value, just seriously wounds
any scientific value. It especially makes elaborate analysis of the
sonograms and so on of poor value. Unpublishable, the pros can't use it.
For many, they are posting their first efforts. I can tell you from
experience that in just a short time as you gain experience you will be
embarrassed that those are still up where someone can listen to them.
They will teach errors in recording, and bad techniques in some cases.
And you want someone referring to that 50 years from now?
Walt
|