Kewl wrote:I'm glad to see that FLAC has been added as a possible file format: the only thing sub-optimal about this is that FLAC supports a maximum of eight channels and doesn't support 32 bit float.
WavPack, on the other hand, supports up to 256 channels (Nuendo can now record 14 channels files) and is 32 bit float compatible.
I vote for WavPack!
Kewl wrote:If you're going to use a lossless format, why not use one that is completely compatible with the DAW (number of channels, bit depth). WavPack is a better fit, spec-wise, with Nuendo than FLAC: I say keep FLAC, add WavPack.
Vocalpoint wrote:Kewl wrote:If you're going to use a lossless format, why not use one that is completely compatible with the DAW (number of channels, bit depth). WavPack is a better fit, spec-wise, with Nuendo than FLAC: I say keep FLAC, add WavPack.
Or why not stick with the one that is completely compatible with the rest of the world and that the rest of the world is using? After 30+ years in broadcast and media - I do not ever recall receiving, discussing or ever even opening a wavpack file. I wouldn't know what to do with it if it arrived. And neither would anyone else...
Kewl wrote:Wow, really? So also not a big fan of DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD?
Vocalpoint wrote:I am a fan of both DTS-HD MA and True HD - but I still do not understand how that relates to using wavpack VS FLAC.
Kewl wrote:For only these two reason, WavPack is a better lossless format to work within Nuendo. I'm not asking to throw away FLAC support, I'm asking to add WavPack support.
Vocalpoint wrote:FLAC usage far outstrips any wavpack usage anywhere.
anyone out there doing serious multichannel sound for the formats you mentioned won't care about disc space, CPU cycles or compressing anything. Why would you need to?
Kewl wrote:I would enjoy the disc space saving from the get go, rather than only at the end when I archive the project. Maybe it's because I work on a laptop...
Vocalpoint wrote:Probably easier (and less time consuming) to just get a bigger hard drive than waiting for this obscure format to be given consideration.
FLAC is an excellent archive format for projects and it's great for music playback - but for real work - I would rather just stay uncompressed (wav).
Drives are way too cheap
riwe wrote:Althogh WavPack is technically seen the better solution, I would prefer FLAC because it is widely recognized. Not for daily work, but for archive and transport purposes.
Kewl wrote:That's what people said about FLAC five years ago.
Kewl wrote:Yes, the point is to have the choice. And I would like to able to choose between Wave64 and WavPack: because of the file size limit, Wave doesn't cut it for me.
Kewl wrote:No, if you can save space and money, it's better.
Vocalpoint wrote:I am thinking that's directly related to the fact that no one would ever work in Nuendo (Or any recording app for that matter) in compressed format for actual production.
Lydiot wrote:I have never had a request for any other file format. I'd even guess that 95-99% of my customers and their customers are completely unaware of FLAC.
Chewy Papadopoulos wrote:Other formats, i.e. WavePak? If they were relevant in the production world. Otherwise, focus on the stuff we need. Chewy
Fredo wrote:And internet connections have become so fast that it is hardly an issue anymore.
Users browsing this forum: etl17 and 2 guests