The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
are WAV and AIFF Obsolete at this point?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1
Lives for gear
 

Thumbs up are WAV and AIFF Obsolete at this point?

OK I started to use Reaper and the more I use it the more I love it - there is simply no other DAW with so much power and user flexibility and you can really do things which you can't even think of with other DAWs...

now one of the thing which dragged me into using Reaper was the fact that it can record directly in FLAC - I do this all the time now. I only record in Flac actually. 24 bit Flac in whichever sample rate the project requires.

I track live gigs for sometimes hours 18 or 24 tracks all in FLAC no hiccups, no difference than using WAV or AIFF with any other DAW except that the space taken on my hard drive is way less. and I mean a lot less.

If for a mastered track the space saving is about half, it's not unusual to see files which takes maybe 20%/30% the original size (for example drums which have only transients but not constant volume -

this means that a session which usually would take 12GB I can have it in 3.5GB a session which usually is 30GB (at high sample rate) I can have it for around 8/10GB - which is wonderful to upload it for backup, to share it etc.

I set Reaper to record by default in FLAC and I never had a problem with it. Low buffer size, same processing power in mixing etc.

I always thought that Flac would be more processing intensive but in fact Reaper does this in real-time seamlessly.

How is it possible that other DAW do not use the same and still continue with WAV and AIFF?

I remember on Logic I used to convert the session to M4A (apple losselss) and have it reduced to the same size as FLAC - but Logic can't record directly in ALAC nor FLAC...

Are WAV and AIFF Obsolete by today? If I can track so many tracks with just an average laptop why don't every DAW use FLAC to record? It's so much better, in theory it should make handling bigger sample rates and lot of tracks easier due to less reading necessary from disk and for my experience processing to convert in real-time is not an issue at all...

Any thoughts? Anyone else using FLAC?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 

HD space is cheap and I try to eke out whatever processing advantage I can get, so I've always defaulted to WAV. Have you pushed the track count and compared system performance with FLAC vs lossless? There's obviously going to be some amount of hit to the CPU if a codec is running on 100+ hi rez tracks simultaneously, but the question is how much and is it truly negligible compared to the rest of the overhead in a project?
Old 1 week ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 

Two factor to consider: HD (even SSD) impact on tracks is always more comparing to CPU impact from format. Every track you have on a project will be converted to 32bit float or 64Bit Float (or 48 bit fixed point on old pro tools hardware). So the CPU result is equal if using FLAC or Wav in my experience. And I ran lot of tracks (150+) finding the FLAC is kinda snappier on hard drive and no different on SSD.

I know someone will say "hard drive are cheap these days" but this is not the point. Web space is not free (over 15GB for example on google drive or 2GB on Dropbox), moving projects gets faster when FLAC is used. Archiving is way more easy (20GB instead of 80+GB when comparing simple albums)

I can't see why we are stuck on these formats (WAV and AIFF) which have so much limitations (that's the BWAV and CAF stepping in). I see the option to have a lossless compression really invaluable - in Logic you have save all audio files as ALAC but you can't record directly. In reaper you can do record directly in FLAC. It works amazingly. I just don't see why Software companies don't implement this directly - at least giving users the choice.
Pro Tools would be so cool if would do this. But considering how long they took to do offline bounce I can imagine they just don't have access to good technology like for example the guy behind Reaper or Steinberg or Apple...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2pulse View Post
HD space is cheap and I try to eke out whatever processing advantage I can get, so I've always defaulted to WAV. Have you pushed the track count and compared system performance with FLAC vs lossless? There's obviously going to be some amount of hit to the CPU if a codec is running on 100+ hi rez tracks simultaneously, but the question is how much and is it truly negligible compared to the rest of the overhead in a project?
Old 1 week ago
  #4
Lives for gear
 

I've been using wav (just because it's there in Logic) and m4a and mp3 320 as the Logic export, but many sites are only compatible with mp3 which I am getting pretty tired of. We need a new standard format that everyone accepts. I cringe at early recordings I have saved in lower mp3 bitrates. What was I thinking? And by the way, spinners might be cheap, but I can't stand old fashioned drives and prefer to use SSD's for almost everything except deep storage, and that can costs thousands. in any case, I think we have a ways to go . .
Old 1 week ago
  #5
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
Two factor to consider: HD (even SSD) impact on tracks is always more comparing to CPU impact from format. Every track you have on a project will be converted to 32bit float or 64Bit Float (or 48 bit fixed point on old pro tools hardware). So the CPU result is equal if using FLAC or Wav in my experience. And I ran lot of tracks (150+) finding the FLAC is kinda snappier on hard drive and no different on SSD.
You're wrong. FLAC is a compressed format, and the amount of hit to the CPU this has increases with the number of tracks/clips you have in the project. For small projects, you may not feel this. But for large projects, this will add up - and it will affect the amount of Effects, Instruments, etc. that you can run on that machine.

If your PC is powerful enough to handle this, then you will not feel it. But you cannot say they are the same, since they most obviously aren't. That's just confirmation bias (your PC handles it well, so it must be fine for everyone).

Compression always has a CPU hit. The reason why Uncompressed Audio Formats (WAV, AIFF) are so popular is precicely because it's the most CPU-friendly format. This is exactly why they DON'T use compression. Compressed formats are for distribution. The detriments of uncompressed formats is the storage they take - however, storage requirements for Audio are more manageable than for Video, since it doesn't make sense to record at high bit depths for many people, anyways, while videographers do have to chase higher frame sizes.

This is also why some DAWs will automatically convert compressed formats like FLAC, MP3, AAC, etc. to WAV or AIFF before working with it - or, at least give you the option to do so. This is [effectively] a performance setting. Additionally, when doing destructive editing, many DAWs will write the edits to a new "FX Render" which is typically WAV or AIFF, not FLAC. So even using FLAC in those DAWs can be misleading.

FLAC is going to be snappier on HDDs because the files are smaller. That's a big duh. The only benefit of FLAC over WAV or AIFF is file sizes - which is typical for consumer distribution formats (MP3 vs. WAV, AAC vs. WAV, FLAC vs. WAV, MP4 vs. Uncompressed AVI/QT, HEVC vs. ProRes 4444, etc.).

It is worse in every other WAY. And no, performance is not the same. All formats may need to be converted to 32-Bit or 64-Bit float by the DAW (when not recorded natively in that format - WAV can, so you're half wrong there, as well), but you still have to get the FLAC Audio Data out of that file. For WAV/AIFF, this is simply a matter of reading the data blocks. For FLAC, it is like getting the audio data out of a ZIP file. Extra work needs to be done - work that could otherwise go to other tasks in the DAW if you were using a format that didn't impose this requirements... like WAV or AIFF.

How much of an impact that has to a specific user depends on the system on which they run the DAW. Someone with a MacBook Air is going to feel this far earlier than someone with a Mac Pro.

Considering how cheap SSDs are, these days, how FLAC performs on a HDD is irrelevant, anyways. HDDs are good for backup, though (or work, if you RAID them).
Old 1 week ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
Reaper ... there is simply no other DAW with so much power and user flexibility and you can really do things which you can't even think of with other DAWs...
Pretty much any other DAW is more powerful than Reaper. Reaper is priced better though

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
Are WAV and AIFF Obsolete by today?
no they are the industry standards

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
this means that a session which usually would take 12GB I can have it in 3.5GB a session which usually is 30GB (at high sample rate) I can have it for around 8/10GB - which is wonderful to upload it for backup, to share it etc.
A 4tb hard drive is like $50 now. So don't worry about disk space

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post

How is it possible that other DAW do not use the same and still continue with WAV and AIFF?
Because DAWs are optimized to buffer raw data from disk and WAV and AIFF are raw data.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
Anyone else using FLAC?
Hopefully not

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
Any thoughts?
You want to use a PCM like formats. FLAC can degrade real-time DAW performance. FLAC uses something similar to a an RLE or LPC compression formats used in video compression, which are basically 50 year old technologies. So they are no optimized. They are slow, they serve no purpose in 2020. FLAC was sort of useful 20 years ago when the internet was slower
Old 1 week ago
  #7
Gear Nut
 
HexRanger's Avatar
 

FWIW, I asked the same question on the Reaper forum and ran some tests myself:

https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=15

TL;DR, in my case I was more looking at renders/freezes than tracking (I do a lot of VST work), and the only downsides of FLAC I could materially realize was possible clipping because of the 24 bit limit, and the case you work with other software or collaborators that can't use it.

Performance-wise, there was a small bump when Reaper initially rendered peak files after importing flac, but only the initial render.

Otherwise, I'm a huge fan of the format, and do all my work in it except final prints.
Old 1 week ago
  #8
Lives for gear
 

I don't know what you mean by large projects but I sometimes worked with really lot of tracks at high res and never noticed a hit on the CPU by FLAC. Actually I can still have more tracks and more plugins in reaper than what I can with pro tools and WAV.
The impact on hard drive is noticeable while on SSD is not but SSD are still expensive and I can't have my 12 Terabyte on SSD yet.
One thing which I love about FLAC is that it let's me record way more. You say hard drives are cheap but when you are touring you might not have access to much hard drives. Within my laptop I can have way more projects and it's easier to bring them back to the main computer later on. My laptop has SSD and its limited space comparing to my desktop and I don't fancy going around with 10 portable hard drives when I tour.
Also when recording in studio Reaper/FLAC combination changed my life. I used to go home with 200GB of data after a long session and now I have same lenght for maybe 80GB. The CPU impact is negligible so much which I default to record FLAC always. The upload times are way faster and storage space on web is way less.
I'm not an expert IT engineer but I am sure what you gain in lack of compression for CPU you lose it by the additional quantity of data to read and transfer.

You talk about video and ProRes and that's a good example. Have you ever tried to edit uncompressed footage? Unless your computer power is really out of ordinary you would be better off with ProRes.

In audio the situation is also more critical than video as no one cares about dropped frame in video but everyone hear is you skip a sample in audio.

Anyway all your motivations and explanations don't make it for me in my experience. Theoretically I believed exactly like you until I started to use FLAC practically. And I won't look back.
Now Why don't pro tools give option to the user to chose? I would be happy and for you would be the same as you could keep on using WAV.

Also isn't WAV obsolete by this point as it's almost universally replaced by BWAV and Apple is trying to do the same with CAF instead of AIFF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trensharo View Post
You're wrong. FLAC is a compressed format, and the amount of hit to the CPU this has increases with the number of tracks/clips you have in the project. For small projects, you may not feel this. But for large projects, this will add up - and it will affect the amount of Effects, Instruments, etc. that you can run on that machine.

If your PC is powerful enough to handle this, then you will not feel it. But you cannot say they are the same, since they most obviously aren't. That's just confirmation bias (your PC handles it well, so it must be fine for everyone).

Compression always has a CPU hit. The reason why Uncompressed Audio Formats (WAV, AIFF) are so popular is precicely because it's the most CPU-friendly format. This is exactly why they DON'T use compression. Compressed formats are for distribution. The detriments of uncompressed formats is the storage they take - however, storage requirements for Audio are more manageable than for Video, since it doesn't make sense to record at high bit depths for many people, anyways, while videographers do have to chase higher frame sizes.

This is also why some DAWs will automatically convert compressed formats like FLAC, MP3, AAC, etc. to WAV or AIFF before working with it - or, at least give you the option to do so. This is [effectively] a performance setting. Additionally, when doing destructive editing, many DAWs will write the edits to a new "FX Render" which is typically WAV or AIFF, not FLAC. So even using FLAC in those DAWs can be misleading.

FLAC is going to be snappier on HDDs because the files are smaller. That's a big duh. The only benefit of FLAC over WAV or AIFF is file sizes - which is typical for consumer distribution formats (MP3 vs. WAV, AAC vs. WAV, FLAC vs. WAV, MP4 vs. Uncompressed AVI/QT, HEVC vs. ProRes 4444, etc.).

It is worse in every other WAY. And no, performance is not the same. All formats may need to be converted to 32-Bit or 64-Bit float by the DAW (when not recorded natively in that format - WAV can, so you're half wrong there, as well), but you still have to get the FLAC Audio Data out of that file. For WAV/AIFF, this is simply a matter of reading the data blocks. For FLAC, it is like getting the audio data out of a ZIP file. Extra work needs to be done - work that could otherwise go to other tasks in the DAW if you were using a format that didn't impose this requirements... like WAV or AIFF.

How much of an impact that has to a specific user depends on the system on which they run the DAW. Someone with a MacBook Air is going to feel this far earlier than someone with a Mac Pro.

Considering how cheap SSDs are, these days, how FLAC performs on a HDD is irrelevant, anyways. HDDs are good for backup, though (or work, if you RAID them).
Old 1 week ago
  #9
Lives for gear
 

See it your way but no other DAW is even close to Realer as of 2020.
Spectral editing on DAW (please name a DAW who can do this lol)? ARA?
Region rendering? Complete customisation? The guy behind reaper is a genius.

Have you ever tried to do a plug in test with your DAW and Reaped? Same plug in and count the instances, than you can collect your jaw from the floor.

FLAC is extremely useful for life on the road. 4TB is not that big for the amount of audio and backups I do. My main computer has 12 internal TB and I can't count them but I have somethings like 20 external hard drives. And they fill up fast. I do record a lot of bands, lot of live, lot of projects.

And when I am on the road, or move between studios FLAC saves me lot of time for transferring files over the net and as well for having more project on my laptop SSD which admittedly is quite small by today standard and I need to upgrade this. Albeit I think I have option for 1 or 2 TB on SSD and its quite expensive over here.

To anyone his own. I hope more people will use FLAC as when they transfer me projects I can work faster. This is my personal new standard. And I can't see why people don't see the advantages of this and in practice have no drawback. But hey I guess everyone his own - have a nice day

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Pretty much any other DAW is more powerful than Reaper. Reaper is priced better though


no they are the industry standards


A 4tb hard drive is like $50 now. So don't worry about disk space


Because DAWs are optimized to buffer raw data from disk and WAV and AIFF are raw data.


Hopefully not



You want to use a PCM like formats. FLAC can degrade real-time DAW performance. FLAC uses something similar to a an RLE or LPC compression formats used in video compression, which are basically 50 year old technologies. So they are no optimized. They are slow, they serve no purpose in 2020. FLAC was sort of useful 20 years ago when the internet was slower
Old 1 week ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 

Interesting read thank you. Expressed way better than I could.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HexRanger View Post
FWIW, I asked the same question on the Reaper forum and ran some tests myself:

https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=15

TL;DR, in my case I was more looking at renders/freezes than tracking (I do a lot of VST work), and the only downsides of FLAC I could materially realize was possible clipping because of the 24 bit limit, and the case you work with other software or collaborators that can't use it.

Performance-wise, there was a small bump when Reaper initially rendered peak files after importing flac, but only the initial render.

Otherwise, I'm a huge fan of the format, and do all my work in it except final prints.
Old 1 week ago
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Another thing I would like to add: I used Reaper in the last 8 months (I am a later adopter as I have always been using Pro-Tools/Digital Performer/Logic) and I recorded literally hundreds of hours of multitrack live directly in FLAC and never had an hiccup - I was afraid on my first test but it always worked out rock solid. I can't say the same about Pro Tools lol.
Old 1 week ago
  #12
Lives for gear
 
blackcom's Avatar
 

I always use WinRAR to make 1 smaller file when backing up projects.

Record to Flac if CPU allows it? Yeah why not, ill check it out. m.2 drives are still expensive.
Old 1 week ago
  #13
Definitely not WAV.
I use WAV all the time, every day, on professional projects.
Old 6 days ago
  #14
Gear Head
I was about to use only flacs but then I learned the hard way that not all pioneer decks play them so I switched back to wav. Maybe someday flac only.
Old 6 days ago
  #15
Gear Head
 
axisnyc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keministi View Post
I was about to use only flacs but then I learned the hard way that not all pioneer decks play them so I switched back to wav. Maybe someday flac only.
You may (may) want to consider switching once and for all to .aiff for everything so that all of your files can hold tagging information and graphics properly embedded.

The WAV format is extremely archaic in that respect, even though there are hacks to make such files keep tags it's definitely non-standard. It was never designed for this. There are no devices in existence today that require WAV exclusively, so why continue with it?

But maybe you enjoy not having meta-tags, it all depends on how you manage your music collection and if you've plotted a path for keeping things under control it as it grows.

There are tons of apps that can easily convert WAV > AIFF, even some like dBPowerAmp that will do batch conversions recursively so you can keep folder structure as you had it and convert an entire directory of folders with one single command.

Some of this does depend on your level of computing proficiency and your specific needs. No two people are the same... just a suggestion.
Old 6 days ago
  #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
A 4tb hard drive is like $50 now.
Please post a link to this $50 4TB drive so I can pick a few up, thanks.
Old 6 days ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Tracktion has had FLAC for years. That's all I use.
Old 6 days ago
  #18
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keministi View Post
I was about to use only flacs but then I learned the hard way that not all pioneer decks play them so I switched back to wav. Maybe someday flac only.
Yep, and for producers who work with samplers, the FLAC support is hit and miss.

For the OP's use case, it makes a lot of sense but this can't work for everyone yet.
Old 6 days ago
  #19
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Pretty much any other DAW is more powerful than Reaper. Reaper is priced better though
Have you used Reaper? It's hugely powerful although I would agree in that it doesn't come bundled with sounds and soft synths like Logic and Cubase. I've moved from Logic to Reaper after 20 years of Logic and for general audio editing and mixing use Reaper is quicker and more efficient for a number of reasons.

For tracking and sound creation other tools may well work better but as a DAW Reaper is killer.

Each to their own.
Tony
Old 6 days ago
  #20
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ripripstabstab View Post
Please post a link to this $50 4TB drive so I can pick a few up, thanks.
here is a 3tb

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-7200R...97&s=pc&sr=1-6


here is a 4tb

https://www.ebay.com/itm/WD-Blue-4TB...AAAOSwGsheHTn2
Old 6 days ago
  #21
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ripripstabstab View Post
Please post a link to this $50 4TB drive so I can pick a few up, thanks.
https://www.newegg.com/seagate-const...00Z5-_-Product

7200 too. I confess I was surprised.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Pretty much any other DAW is more powerful than Reaper.
Pretty much lol
Old 6 days ago
  #22
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bambony View Post
Have you used Reaper? It's hugely powerful although I would agree in that it doesn't come bundled with sounds and soft synths like Logic and Cubase. I've moved from Logic to Reaper after 20 years of Logic and for general audio editing and mixing use Reaper is quicker and more efficient for a number of reasons.

For tracking and sound creation other tools may well work better but as a DAW Reaper is killer.

Each to their own.
Tony
Reaper is no where as powerful Nuendo/Cubase or Studio One and I don't recall it being even as powerful as Samplitude was in the 90s. Reaper is good, I like it but it is limited. Saying it is more efficient than Cubase is strange since Reaper chokes on 100 tracks or so at 96k. I have never maxed out Cubase or Nuedno and I have produced projects with nearly 500 tracks without even using VST Link. Reaper can't come anything close to that. Using VST link in Cubase can probably accommodate several thousand tracks with plugs and VI/MIDI. Can Reaper do that?

What about VST ? VSTI? and ASIO? which are native to Cubase. What proprietary technology does reaper have that is more efficient and as powerful as those technologies?

Think about it, if you use reaper with VST plugins and ASIO, then Reaper is powerful because of, and thanks to Steinberg/Cubase technology. So saying it is the most powerful DAW is wrong. Since it is clearly not.
Old 6 days ago
  #23
Gear Head
 
Mind Riot's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Reaper is no where as powerful Nuendo/Cubase or Studio One and I don't recall it being even as powerful as Samplitude was in the 90s.
You don't recall if Reaper was, at some point you haven't specified, as powerful as another DAW from a quarter century ago. Got it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Reaper is good, I like it but it is limited. Saying it is more efficient than Cubase is strange since Reaper chokes on 100 tracks or so at 96k.
Reaper's track and FX count are limited by the capabilities of your computer; it has no internal track or FX limits. If something choked it wasn't Reaper, unless your settings or your interface were screwed up. Happens to the best of us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Using VST link in Cubase can probably accommodate several thousand tracks with plugs and VI/MIDI.
'Probably' means you haven't tested this claim and have zero evidence to back it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Can Reaper do that?
'Probably'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
What about VST ? VSTI? and ASIO? which are native to Cubase. What proprietary technology does reaper have that is more efficient and as powerful as those technologies?
All Windows based DAWs use VST and VSTi technology. You mentioned Studio One as a DAW more powerful than Reaper, Studio One uses VSTs, why don't you look down on it the same way you do with Reaper? What proprietary technology does Sutdio One have that is more efficient and as powerful as those technologies?

Why does Studio One get a pass from you but not Reaper? They both use the same Steinberg technologies.

Isn't that just hypocritical?

Steinberg deserves credit for the technology they created. But they don't use it exclusively, and it's been out there for everyone to use for many, many years now.

Trying to single out one DAW for using it as though it's a negative makes no sense whatsoever.

And while it's not a contribution to the DAW world as a whole like VSTs, Reaper has anticipative FX processing, essentially a look ahead processing though that's a vast oversimplification, that allows for many more FX to be used at once than other DAWs with less CPU load, and this has been demonstrated in benchmark testing that a few intrepid souls were so kind to undertake a while back.

And while that was some years ago, the benefits of anticipative FX processing are still easily seen. A few weeks ago I heard about Acustica Audio releasing a free plugin for the holidays, and it intrigued me. It was a model of an SSL Fusion, which is a sophisticated 'color box' with some saturation options and such. If you don't know Acustica, they use some proprietary methods and tech to make their plugs, and they're not hugely expensive they are extremely CPU hungry. I downloaded it and followed a couple threads about it.

In one such thread there was a fellow who lamented that he loved the sound of the plugin, but the demands on his CPU were a deal breaker. He said one instance of this plug running in Studio One demonstrated a CPU load of 45% and that he couldn't get anything done with things working that way.

I was curious about my own CPU load on my nothing special PC, a seven or eight year old i5 with 8 gb RAM running Windows 7 64. So I fired up Reaper and checked, and this was me just slapping it on the main bus on a project where I was doing a great amount of experimentation, thus it already had 200+ FX running. Reaper reported that the new plug was causing a CPU load of 3%.

So that is the proprietary technology that Reaper has. There's more, but that is perhaps the most noteworthy.

Leaving that aside, I'm of the opinion that pretty much all modern DAW software is quite capable and we live in a time where one can easily acquire very powerful workstations and make quality recordings very easily. I don't care what DAW anyone uses and I don't feel superior because I'm a Reaper user.

But I must admit, when I read posts and stories like what I just described about people having to give up the use of plugs they want to use because their DAW can't handle it, or similar stories where people hit a wall of some kind or another that limits their creativity because their DAW is maxing out in some way, I am really glad I have anticipative FX processing built into my DAW and sometimes I feel like other people are missing out.

Because I never have to think about the number of plugs I'm using, or the number of instances, or the types of plugs. I just never have to worry about it because in Reaper it has ceased to be an issue.

Now, I'm not really one to get in online fights over DAWs (or anything else, preferably), and I don't want to be combative...


Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Think about it, if you use reaper with VST plugins and ASIO, then Reaper is powerful because of, and thanks to Steinberg/Cubase technology. So saying it is the most powerful DAW is wrong. Since it is clearly not.
But this here, this is so stupid and nonsensical that I had to say something. This is literally the reasoning of a child trying to say his toy is better than your toy.

"But, um, Captain America was first 'cause he, um, became Captain America a really long time ago before he got frozen, so, um, if there wasn't Captain America then there never would've been an Iron Man, so that's why my Captain America is better than your Iron Man and, um. that's also why I get to have your Jell-o at lunch because I was right!"
Old 5 days ago
  #24
Lives for gear
 
sardi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
So not only is it not $40, but it’s also second hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post
https://www.newegg.com/seagate-const...00Z5-_-Product

7200 too. I confess I was surprised.
Again not $40 and also a refurbished drive.

Each to their own, but the last thing I would suggest to anyone is to purchase a used spinning HDD.

*** Apologies. Misread it as $40.

Last edited by sardi; 5 days ago at 04:44 PM.. Reason: Extra info
Old 5 days ago
  #25
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by sardi View Post
Again not $40 and also a refurbished drive.

Each to their own, but the last thing I would suggest to anyone is to purchase a used spinning HDD.
No one said anything about $40, no idea where you got that, the request was for a $50 4TB drive. That one is $54. Brand new is $68. If you want to play nit-pick games, have fun, I'll pass.
Old 5 days ago
  #26
Lives for gear
 
sardi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post
No one said anything about $40, no idea where you got that, the request was for a $50 4TB drive. That one is $54. Brand new is $68. If you want to play nit-pick games, have fun, I'll pass.
Apologies. I misread it. Indeed it was $50.

Still wouldn’t be buying a second hand spinning drive though. $68, US I’m assuming, is still cheap as a mass storage drive. Never seen prices that low including conversion over here.
Old 5 days ago
  #27
Gear Guru
Why on earth would you be recording in a lossy format?......No matter how good you're still losing something......
Old 5 days ago
  #28
Lives for gear
 
sardi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
Why on earth would you be recording in a lossy format?......No matter how good you're still losing something......
Whilst I don’t agree with using FLAC over WAV/AIFF, it isn’t a lossy format.

FLAC and ALAC are both lossless. Convert the file back to WAV and it will null with the original.
Old 5 days ago
  #29
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by sardi View Post
Whilst I don’t agree with using FLAC over WAV/AIFF, it isn’t a lossy format.

FLAC and ALAC are both lossless. Convert the file back to WAV and it will null with the original.
Sorry thought it was compressed......
Old 5 days ago
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
Sorry thought it was compressed......
FLAC is compressed, but lossless. Like zipping, but with an algorithm optimized for minimizing the footprint of PCM data.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump