[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Prefered format for digital archiving?
Brandon,
FWIW, the standard that seems to have gained
popularity in everday audio post-production is the BWF format. This is due
primarily to the ability to write header data, as well as the cross-platform
compatibility with most operating systems and software. While this doesn't
neccesarily cross over into the area of archiving, most of the files we use
for production work are archived in either BWF or SD-2.
--Scott
Scott D. Smith
Chicago Audio Works,
Inc.
1644 N. Honore
Suite 301
Chicago, IL 60622
Phone: (312) 337-8282
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:59
PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Prefered format for digital
archiving?
> >"In my non-professional opinion, there is no standard
format."
>
> Yea...that's pretty much what I figured. I've
been researching
> standards for months now and it's becoming painfully
clear that there
> is no general consensus. In a way, I think this
is good. There's a
> ton of options out there and they all serve
different purposes. I was
> just putting the feelers out to get an
idea what most of you thought on
> the matter; mostly because one of my
co-workers asked me this question
> earlier today and, as much as I like
to think I know what's going on, I
> wasn't sure what to tell him.
Things seem to change by the hour......
>
> More than anything I
was interested to see if there was something I was
> missing regarding WAV
v. AIFF. I was unaware of AIFF's waning
> popularity so I guess
that's a factor that I wasn't considering. Nice
> to know.
Regardless, it seems like we're all on the same page here.
>
>
Again, I appreciate the replies.
>
> Brandon
>
>
Brandon Burke
> Graduate Research Assistant
> Digital Library
Services
> University of Texas at Austin
> Austin, TX
> phone:
(512) 495-4439
> email: bburke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
*********************************************************************
>
* "Stand up and face the full force of a dissonance like a man."
*
> *
>
*
>
*
-- Charles
>
Ives
*
>
*********************************************************************
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2004, at 5:43 PM, Mike Richter wrote:
>
> > At 03:37 PM 3/24/2004 -0600, Brandon Burke wrote:
> >>
I know this is a loaded question but...
> >>
> >> Is
there an accepted standard format for audio files that are to be
>
>> digitaly
> >> archived on a server of some sort? By this I
mean a format that does
> >> not
> >> entail
>
>> condensing and/or any other manipulations that would in any way
>
>> affect my
> >> ability to go back, open up, and have access
to "the whole thing".
> >> I'm not
> >> talking about
simply saving, let's say, a Pro Tools session en masse
> >>
but
> >> rather
> >> a file format that retains as much
of the "sound" information as
> >> possible. Not
> >>
the session itself. I'm asuming that these are completed sessions.
>
>> Also, I'm
> >> not concerned with things like CD-Rs, etc;
though I obviously would
> >> like to
> >> preserve the
ability to make them again later.
> >>
> >> My guess is
that we're talking about either a WAV or AIFF files, no?
> >
>
> In my non-professional opinion, there is no standard format.
>
>
> > There are three parameters of interest for a digital file with
audio
> > information: sample rate, bit depth, number of channels. A CD
uses 44.1
> > ksps, 16 bits, two channels. The highest quality at
moderate cost
> > today is
> > 96 ksps, 24 bits, two channels.
Purists will argue that information is
> > still lost with those
parameters - and that is certainly true in
> > theory. In
> >
the other direction, spoken word is generally considered fully
> >
intelligible
> > at 16 ksps, 8 bits, one channel - my approximation to
the target for
> > telephone quality. Somewhere in that 36:1 range, you
are likely to find
> > your preferred operating point.
>
>
> > AIFF has lost popularity in modern times; it offers no
advantage over
> > WAV
> > and has been pretty much superseded
even on the Apple computers which
> > were
> > its 'home' in
decades past. Depending on the operating parameters you
> > choose and
on your considerations of storage space and convenience, you
> > should
look into lossless compression. Both Shorten and Monkeys Audio
> >
provide lossless compression. If the parameters you have chosen for
> >
WAV are
> > substantially used by your signal, compression of the order
of 2:1 is
> > routine. If you have much wider bandwidth than is used
for the bulk of
> > the
> > audio (including noise),
substantially higher compression is routine.
> > Since
> > the
compression is lossless, the decompressed file is identical with
> >
the
> > original.
> >
> >
> > Mike
>
> --
> > mrichter@xxxxxxx
> >
http://www.mrichter.com/
>
>