hi kjetil! Kjetil S. Matheussen 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.
fwiw, steve harris used .w64 for his timemachine application. haven't looked into it myself, but i recall someone over on the sursound mailing list saying that it was quite sane. maybe steve will chime in if he reads this... best, jörn -- jörn nettingsmeier home://germany/45128 essen/lortzingstr. 11/ http://spunk.dnsalias.org phone://+49/201/491621 Kurt is up in Heaven now. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
