"Free Lunch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I did a search on the error message and found someone else with a > similar problem and Josh's reply said: > > > but the wave file seems invalid. sample data is supposed to be > > padded to an even number of bytes. > > The gotcha here, as I have tried to explain in similar cases before, > is that we do not live in a perfect world. Many of us record audio > and are unable to control whether a piece of hardware crashes and > leaves the end of a WAV perfectly aligned or padded. In this case the > recorder (Alesis hd24) did not crash, it apparently just doesn't pad. > Since these are original audio masters being backed up, editing them > isn't a viable option.
I'll add my vote to this; it would be nice to have an option that would encode these broken wav files. It's a pity some recorders are so badly engineered, but not terribly surprising in our modern world. > A bug was filed on that a couple years ago but apparently the fix > didn't make it into 1.1.4. If the header says the WAV is only 50 > bytes, then flac will only archive 50 bytes and will omit the rest of > a file. Oh, your WAV was 1GB? Sorry, that audio is not part of the > archive. What, you deleted the WAV and only have the flac archive? > Well, I guess you should have noticed the message that indicated your > audio was being discarded: > > WARNING: skipping unknown sub-chunk 'PAD ' Are you saying the audio is hidden inside a chunk called "PAD "? What kind of a wav file has audio hidden within a padding chunk? You know, FLAC encodes only audio, and uses the file only as a vehicle for getting that audio. So I think it's justified in throwing out a padding chunk. What behavior would you prefer? > Yep, that's all the warning you get when flac discards potentially > massive amounts of the original WAV simply because the header doesn't > match the contents. You can use the --warnings-as-errors option. > Also, I get the legacy wave warning very frequently. It isn't clear > what the issue is there? WARNING: legacy WAVE file has format type 1 but bits-per-sample=24? Some of my programs' wav files get that warning, too. I just looked into that, and apparently Microsoft's latest spec urges the use of an alternate header format (WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE) for bit depths other than 8 and 16. I'm not sure why, as I know of no program that has trouble with these 24-bit files, and no program besides FLAC that warns about them. Other wave file documentation I've seen -- for example, http://www.sonicspot.com/guide/ -- doesn't include that restriction. I guess this warning could be removed without harm. Regards, Scott / Graue _______________________________________________ Flac mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
