Sound formats

Ken Norris pixelbird at interisland.net
Sun Sep 25 20:38:36 EDT 2005


Hi Stephen,

On Sep 25, 2005, at 2:41 PM, use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com 
wrote:

> Sound converter? Isn't that REALLY old?

Old and moldy, I guess. It worked for what I wanted eventually. I think 
a WAV should be a WAV,  but some, which claim to be that I have tried 
to D/L from the web, must not be, because they fail to open.

>  How about Bababatch?

Costs 400 bucks! (USD). There's no way I can justify that on my budget. 
I'd pay up to a hundred, but their software pricing is too rich for my 
blood.

>  How about In and out of PRO TOOLS, MOTU. LOGIC or some modern DAW
> software?

Well, sure, but even LOGIC will fail to open a WAV once in awhile. I 
don't use ProTools.
>
> I'd blame the tools you were using before I'd blame the format in
> general, especially if they're older than 3 years.

Heck, all I own is older than 3 years ;-)  Well, maybe not 
_everything_. But you're probably right about that.

>  I agree that
> probably among the zillion PC based DAWs there might be some file
> hacks,  but the big guys like Digidesign and the Broadcast folks not
> to mention the AES won't let that happen.

Well, here it is: WAV files are basically Micro$oft's version of AIFF. 
It's a good thing AIFF files still work, because my experience is that 
they are more reliable for playback than anything else there is. It's 
what all commercial audio CD's use. Bigger than the Library of Congress 
will ever be, but they, too, use AIFF files for final archiving AFAIK 
(although they use WAV in other parts of the system, they have to if 
they want to preserve things previously saved to WAV files).

It's true, as a broadcast (and also the internet, which is also 
actually a broadcast system) digital media, it's prolific.

But if you are trying to convince me that WAV is more reliable than 
AIFF, well, I don't think so.

All the best,
Ken N.




More information about the Use-livecode mailing list