On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Kjetil S. Matheussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks to all. Those sounds like good arguments. > I'm still a little bit reluctant against wavex > though, because googling for the wavex format > hardly gives any relevant hits. > > But I guess it's better than wav anyway, so > I'm going to change something. Are you sure > there's no other format that might be a > better alternative than wavex? > > And I also wonder if wavex are able > to handle >4GB files? (I couldn't find > any spec about the format on the net) > Because if wavex is not able to handle > more than 4>GB files I have to enable > the same workaround as for wav files. > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev >
you get a lot more useful hits on google with WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE than wavex it seems. Loki _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
