FLAC for lossless audio?

And for delivery …

Fredo

+1

VP

My experience in post production in the US has been that people requested AIFF files back in the day (i.e. early 2000’s), then stopped doing that. Now the only request, if I even get one, is for WAV files (or “Broadcast Waves”).

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.

And any other time I’ve been asked to deliver anything other than AIFF or WAV it’s been Pro Tools sessions, DA88 (doesn’t happen any longer), Beta or DigiBeta (doesn’t happen much any longer really) or new HD optical drives.

I’m all for options, but my industry in my geographic location doesn’t seem to care about FLAC.

Same. Every single customer of mine has only ever wanted the actual wav files.

Then again - the OP - the way I interpret this thread - is wanting to actually “work” in Nuendo using a compressed file format for nothing but to save disc space…which I think is a waste of CPU.

Why would anyone want to instantly compromise their workflow by adding in all the overhead of a compressed format when an uncompressed one has none?

As suggested - the OP should just get a 2013 size hard disk and get on with Nueudo as intended - using wav for everything. It’s a no-brainer.

VP

I’ve been experimenting with FLAC delivery lately from my readers for audiobook production, and it has a lot of potential-- sure saves upload time, and space in the DropBox.

Have no use for it in audio post or music composition-- aside from the above application (just trying to find ways to make available resources work!), FLAC is a non-presence in my professional life, and I don’t know anybody who’s even thinking about messing with it the way I am. I guess I have too much free time.

As far as music composition, editing and post-p are concerned, I have absolutely no desire nor need to work with FLACs however “natively” as might be possible with a compressed format like that-- am with previous posters in regards to keeping the production end simple. But importing and exporting, yes!

Other formats, i.e. WavePak? If they were relevant in the production world. Otherwise, focus on the stuff we need.

Chewy

Agreed!

VP

We are working for a Dubbing company who uses (sorry, used) FLAC as an exchange format.

The need to send us large audio + video projects, to which we need to add our stuff.
Because of the size of the projects, they try to minimalize the up/download times.
Which makes sense.
However, our delivery format is .wav.

Have to say that they have stopped doing this, because a few of their foreign studios are on PT.
And internet connections have become so fast that it is hardly an issue anymore.

Fredo

I use .rar archives with .bwav files as delivery format.
Saves a lot of bandwidth (much better than .zip for audio) and keeps the original and accepted file format including metadata, timecode stamp etc.

Internet connections are getting better (waiting for my 100mbits), but at the same time more customers a starting to ask for exported stems. I uploaded around 10 gigs this thursday)

Ollie

I’ve been sending most of my clients APPL (Apple Lossless in a Quicktime wrapper) that they drop into FCP. Nobody’s even questioned it.

Granted, if they’re using FCP they have to be on Macs, and have QuicktimePro.

I’m with Kewl on this one, WavPak sure could be useful as a native recording format when using a laptop with a tiny SSD and having to record long multichannel takes in 24/96 without having to carry external drives or anyhting.

I also can’t understand people refusing the function because they simply have no use for it, or don’t understand the problematic here… Crazy IMHO…

Kewl, i can’t remember if WavPack is opensource as FLAC ? If it is, it’s probably very easy to implement in Nuendo ?

Hey Dorian, thanks for the support!

Yes, WavPack is open source, same as FLAC. The way FLAC is implemented in Nuendo 6 is through Xiph, so maybe that was easier because of pre-compiled libraries.

And I don’t understand why people who can obviously afford Nuendo - can’t use it on a computer with a hard drive of sufficient space that allow them to simply use wav format instead of worrying about this in the first place?

Let me be clear - it’s not that we do not understand the issue - but they are much bigger issues in Nuendo that need development attention instead of worrying about dove-tailing another open source format into the mix.

Especially when the one that is supported world wide (FLAC) works perfect or that 99.9999% of Nuendo users simply record in native wav format.

Again - help me understand why would anyone want to bother working in Nuendo - in a compressed format?

VP

VP, you made your point, again and again. You seem to think that your way of working with Nuendo is the only way of working with Nuendo. It is not.

Some people, like Dorian and myself, work with mulichannel files at high sample rate and bit depth that, on a laptop (especially one with a smaller SSD), take a lot of space.

Wanting to occupy less physical and digital space is not a futile exercise. I can understand that you don’t care about that: can you understand that some people do?

Actually - this has nothing to do with the way “I” work in Nuendo - it’s that pretty much ALL Nuendo users work this way - we ALL use wav files - No mystery here.

Well- the only time I would ever care about “less” space - is when I am archiving or backing up data.

But in this day and age when 1TB of space costs less than a typical night out - my apologies - but I do not understand why anyone would purchase an expensive DAW like Nuendo and then instantly handcuff it with a low capacity SSD and a reliance on some obscure open source format just to be able to do a session?

Seems a lot easier to just get a decent drive, rock normal wav files and operate in Nuendo at full capacity with no worries.

But hey - each to their own I guess. Good luck in your quest :slight_smile:

VP

So if i follow you, Steinberg should remove support for the AIFF, MXF, and FLAC recording file formats, as a minority of users actualy use them ? Interesting…

Well, if you use a non destructive recording format like FLAC (or soon WavPack i hope :wink: ), you can actually directly archive your Nuendo projects “as is”, gaining about 50% of the size and time in the backup process…

SSDs of about 500GB in size cost between 400$ and 700$ depending on the performance, this is not what i call cheap. I don’t want to talk for Kewl, but if you look at its signature, you’ll see that he’s using a MacBook Pro with an internal SSD, with a MH ULN-8 probably alimented via DC power. A compact rig. Sometimes needed. Even with 100GB free on its 160 stock SSD, if he needs to record 8 tracks for more than 4 hours in 24/192, this would be about 63GB. I think this is his point.

Frankly, i use exclusively BWAV in my projects, and also for my sound libraries, only because Pro Tools and Soundminer do NOT recognize FLAC or anything else compressed and non-destructive (except Apple thing which i don’t want to use). But this is another story.

I don’t understand why you’re opposing this kind of legitimate request, knowing that’s it’s clearly easy to implement for Steinberg on a dev point of view… If i see here feature requests from Nuendo users that i don’t need (and there are a lot), i just shut up and pass… I made an exception for the “restoration” tools some asked for, just because i think THIS is a waste of dev time because third party plugins developpers already do a great job in this area.

This request is NOT about a delivery format… But an internal native recording file format. I personaly don’t use Nuendo to convert my audio files for delivery, i use better dedicated and specialized tools for that, tools that can handle anything, compressed or even destructive if it is what is asked by the client…

IMHO Nuendo is following the right path (the Reaper “opened” one ?) concerning inter-operability, i hope it will not change in the future because of such reactions… And i also hope Nuendo will develop “exotic” surround monitoring options that are still not supported yet (configurable by the user like in Reaper or AudioMulch, or many others).
Sorry for the OT, but it was the occasion :wink: .

Where did I say to “remove” anything? But c’mon - AIFF - in the minority? Please…

Don’t get me wrong - I like requests and have made them myself…but please do not presume to know how easy or not easy something is to implement from a dev point of view. Only Steiny know for sure. :slight_smile:

VP

Christ…

How about we stay away from nonsensical conclusions.

Nobody is saying support for existing formats should be removed. Really the only reason people are voicing a different opinion is probably because they (I at least) think development cycles could be used better than developing support for a native recording format that most people don’t use. I for one would like to see Steinberg spend WAY more time dealing with what actually gives us the media to work on to begin with; aaf/omf exchange. I can’t think of many issues that are of higher importance than this for a post-production DAW. And I think other people feel similarly; better to spend the time on certain things than others.

AIFF is a minor audio format nowadays, even minorer as FLAC IMHO.
I know you didn’t ask for removal of some actual supported formats like FLAC, but you probably would have reacted the same for the inclusion of these in Nuendo at the time, wouldn’t you ?

[quote=“Dorian”]
I don’t understand why you’re opposing this kind of legitimate request, knowing that’s it’s clearly easy to implement for Steinberg on a dev point of view…
[/quote]

Don’t get me wrong - I like requests and have made them myself…but please do not presume to know how easy or not easy something is to implement from a dev point of view. Only Steiny know for sure. > :slight_smile:

I’m not a prfessionnal dev but i work with some regularly (internal projects and beta testing), and i can easily imagine implementing WavPack is not such a big deal for Steinberg. But you’re right, i’m not in the Steinberg dev team, neither are you by the way.

This is not a nonsensical conclusion IMHO. You would probably have reacted in the same way at the time of implementing FLAC or MXF in Nuendo, back in the days. That was my point.

Nobody is saying support for existing formats should be removed. Really the only reason people are voicing a different opinion is probably because they (I at least) think development cycles could be used better than developing support for a native recording format that most people don’t use. I for one would like to see Steinberg spend WAY more time dealing with what actually gives us the media to work on to begin with; aaf/omf exchange. I can’t think of many issues that are of higher importance than this for a post-production DAW. And I think other people feel similarly; better to spend the time on certain things than others.

Correcting bugs and issues are not feature requests. This thread is about a (quite simple to implement one, IMHO) feature request.
C’mon, we’re not asking Steinberg to stop correcting issues here, just to implement a small and tiny thing which really makes sense (at least for Kewl and me).

On a side note, if you’re concerned with OMF/AAF transfers, have a look to AATranslator, a great tool that adresses most of the problems we are all facing with interoperability between DAWs and editing suites. I’m using this tool on a regular basis, but i’m not asking Steinberg to stop “loosing” dev time with their AAF support that i don’t use. Do you get my point ? Just teasing you :wink: .

Sorry for the loosy english, it is not my native language…

I don’t think I would to be honest.

Fair enough, I understand the difference. I’m just saying that it comes out of the same bank account if you know what I mean. But yeah, we’re bound to always have slightly different opinions on various preferences we’re promoting and their priorities.

Yeah, I get your point. When it comes to this specific issue though I really do think it’s a bit different specifically because the app is said to be a post-production version of their software. Post heavily relies on media interchange and virtually every single project I do with the exception of the odd VO recording involves importing media from omf/aaf. Without that media I can’t do the job. This is regardless of whether or not I use .wav, .aiff or flac as a recording format once I have that media. No media import = nothing to save to flac or whatever. Know what I mean?

Your English is fine to me.