Re: [flac-dev] (no subject)

2013-06-12 Thread Erik de Castro Lopo
Janne Hyvärinen wrote: On 10.6.2013 22:27, Marcus Johnson wrote: Also, shouldn't the changelog feature the 4GB windows fix? I remember reading about that bug fix at the start of 1.3.0, and I for one was incredibly excited about it. if nobody remembers it I can try to hunt down that

Re: [flac-dev] Question from Argentina

2013-06-12 Thread Federico Miyara
Dear Ulrich, Thanks for your answer. Well, today 4 GiB is about half an hour of 8-channel, 96 kHz, 24-bit uncompressed audio, or about 0.9 % of the capacity of a modest 2 TB HDD. Not much, in other words, and who hasn't cursed yet at artificial 4 GiB (or even 2 GiB) limitations? So I wouldn't

Re: [flac-dev] Question from Argentina

2013-06-12 Thread Erik de Castro Lopo
Federico Miyara wrote: Thanks for your answer. Well, today 4 GiB is about half an hour of 8-channel, 96 kHz, 24-bit uncompressed audio, or about 0.9 % of the capacity of a modest 2 TB HDD. Not much, in other words, and who hasn't cursed yet at artificial 4 GiB (or even 2 GiB) limitations?

Re: [flac-dev] Question from Argentina

2013-06-12 Thread Erik de Castro Lopo
Federico Miyara wrote: Fact is that FLAC is highly economical in items such as reserving 20 bits for sampling rate or 3 bits in the middle of the middle of a byte for number of channels (which are, in fact, currently too few for applications such as beamforming that use arrays of several