Re: [ARSCLIST] ARSCLIST Digest - .BWF backward compatibility

[Mike Richter <mrichter@xxxxxxx>]

At 02:27 PM 3/27/2004 -0500, Dave Radlauer wrote:
> In a message dated 3/26/04 9:02:12 PM, LISTSERV@xxxxxxx writes:
>
> << But...are .bwf files (which I've never heard of) accessible to any other
> applications than the specialized program used to create them?
> Accessibility, >>
>
> Yes, bwf files are widely accessible to applications:  basically they're an
> extension of .WAV and backward compatible with .wav applications. pretty much
> in the manner you describe for MSword.  Its just that the text fields won't be
> available in many other applications.
>
> A more likely incompatibility is that hi-rez files of ANY format (resolution
> higher than 16-bit, 44.1Khz sampling) will not be backward compatible with
> older audio apps not equipped to handle the larger files.

My ignorance will be showing again - but that's not a problem.

What format(s) have standardized structures for more than two channels?
Clearly, while that is of little interest for most historic recordings,
true quadraphonic releases date back more than three decades, 5.1 and 6.1
audio is now in commercial distribution and even more channels are in use
in studios. Ultimately, archives will want to preserve those in a
standardized format. That requirement may lead to favoring one file system
over others.


Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/