Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rappard
So even zipping and then unzipping a wave file would affect content?
OK, here's my challenge: provide a proper 5.1 wave file (24/96 if you have one), and prove that it suffers from encoding and decoding to FLAC.
Sound Devices recorders are not "professional equipment"?
http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/re...c-limitations/
Also:
http://www.2l.musiconline.no/shop/di...m.asp?id=34188
OK. So post the wave file (or a snippet thereof) here.
In the end, if you want to blabber nonsense about compressed file formats without supplying proof I don't care as long as I don't have to listen to it. |
I'm not going to go into one of my work places and set up a complete test station and photograph it all while it is running the different file formats through the spectographs and the oscilloscopes just to prove an argument that I really don't care that much about. I know it's not nonsense, but if you want to believe compressing a file is completely non destructive then go ahead. I used to use flac a alot to send audio to clients until I started hearing artefacts in the mid range frequency bands. Digital is not infallible just like analogue is not infallible. So if you wish to worship the lossless compression codecs go ahead. I just know that lossless does not mean lossless it is just a title. Flac are best used for archival purposes and that is all.
I'm sure Hevusa would tell you he has heard digital artefacts during the recording process on occasion and this is working with uncompressed formats.
As for the sound devices stuff, I have never seen one in the field on any of the films or tv programs I have worked on, this however does not mean they aren't professional. However a professional audio guy would no use flac for the first instance recording. And when I said professional recording devices I meant studios running Protools HD et al. not boring $4000 two channel field recorders.