JJZolx wrote: > Why would they need to do that if they already have something of an > established file standard that supports metadata, and while hard disk > storage is becoming cheaper and more compact every day? I would also > think that an uncompressed format must be much easier to work with in > software.
One of the key issues in modern mixing is the file access time, which is controlled directly by the file size. Its not much of an issue for a couple of tracks, but when you need to open 20 or 30, it is noticeable. Something like flac can be read and uncompressed faster than you can read WAV files. Clearly the work has to be with raw PCM, but other than that, living compressed is a winner. I would expect a very least compression flac would be a win. No point in wasting time trying to save the last bit of file space. Just going from 100% to 60% would be a win. While disks are cheaper and bigger, internal PC buss speeds are not faster, IO is not faster. In general, "IO" is always the bottleneck, if you extend it to mean IO from the CPU to main memory as well as secondary storage -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
