[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] FLAC?
On 27/10/06, Karl Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, David Seubert wrote:
>> I came away convinced that FLAC is
>> inappropriate for archival use.
>> Second, there is no guarantee that FLAC will be around in six months
>> or two years.
> Perhaps someone could comment on the history of WAV and thoughts about
> how long it might remain with us.
An ordinary WAV file (ie 16/44.1) is only a plain sequence of 16-bit
numbers with a header stuck on at the beginning, so at worst it can be
read as raw data.
Likewise for AIFF.
If you think it might be at a higher bit depth or sample rate, you may
have to do some guessing, but there are not likely to be many options.