Subject: Re: [Cellar] Standardizing FLAC

From: Nick Krabbenhoeft <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:05:31 -0400

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Jérôme wrote:
>
> I would say that RF64 is the solution to your container problem with a
> very small cost but that you should move to FLAC for other reasons
> (detection of corrupted data, storage cost improvement...). note that this
> is the same reason I recommend FFV1 vs uncompressed video (v210...)
>

I agree that RF64 would be the lowest cost solution. We have looked at
RF64, Wave64, and other containers, but we're finding there is a high
political cost to convince internal and external partners to use anything
besides WAVE32.

My initial reasons to use a non-WAVE32 container were because of the
problems managing part files during ingest, storage, description, and
access. I'm looking at FLAC now because its other features address the
objections we've heard to RF64.

Unfortunately, FLAC does not have the weight of a standardization process
behind it yet, which is why I'm looking to contribute.

-Nick

---

From: Tessa Fallon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:40:02 -0400

RE: "Is anyone within CELLAR currently also involved in the FLAC
development community, or know of a particular person to reach out to?"

Via Tim Terriberry, the group reached out to Erik de Castro Lopo to discuss
standardizing FLAC.  Erik is the current maintainer of FLAC.

Ashley, I'm happy to reach out to Erik and can cc you if you want

For those interested in html to md (Nick, John Warburton), I imagine the
best starting point is to talk with the person who's been guiding the
process so far
--Ashley, this is you, correct?  Also if there is any documentation for
this process, pls share

I started another thread re: FLAC work, but perhaps it's better to loop
back to this one.

Cheers,

Tessa

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Nick Krabbenhoeft <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar
>
>

---

From: Jean-Christophe Kummer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 06:59:54 +0000

I can tell that from around 3 mio files which have been digitised mainly in the archival community from let alone our clients, the choice never has been FLAC but linear wav – in the beginning with WAV with the famous 2high 31 limitation, and later on with RF64.

So sticking to WAV/RF64 would be my first idea to make it an acceptable choice.

The revolution in the archive world is not flac but ffv1.

Matroska as container will overcome some avi limitations which were already in use,
But please let´s not introduce a new war – audio codecs for archives have been solved 15 years ago.

Christophe

Von: Cellar [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Nick Krabbenhoeft
Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. September 2016 23:06
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: [Cellar] Standardizing FLAC

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Jérôme wrote:
I would say that RF64 is the solution to your container problem with a very small cost but that you should move to FLAC for other reasons (detection of corrupted data, storage cost improvement...). note that this is the same reason I recommend FFV1 vs uncompressed video (v210...)

I agree that RF64 would be the lowest cost solution. We have looked at RF64, Wave64, and other containers, but we're finding there is a high political cost to convince internal and external partners to use anything besides WAVE32.

My initial reasons to use a non-WAVE32 container were because of the problems managing part files during ingest, storage, description, and access. I'm looking at FLAC now because its other features address the objections we've heard to RF64.

Unfortunately, FLAC does not have the weight of a standardization process behind it yet, which is why I'm looking to contribute.

-Nick

---

From: Ashley Blewer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:18:23 -0400

Revolutions and format politics aside, CELLAR is tasked with the
standardization of MKV, FFV1, *and* FLAC and there's plenty of work to do.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Jean-Christophe Kummer <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I can tell that from around 3 mio files which have been digitised mainly
> in the archival community from let alone our clients, the choice never has
> been FLAC but linear wav – in the beginning with WAV with the famous 2high
> 31 limitation, and later on with RF64.
>
>
>
> *Von:* Cellar [mailto:[email-masked]] *Im Auftrag von *Nick
> Krabbenhoeft
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 13. September 2016 23:06
> *An:* [email-masked]
> *Betreff:* Re: [Cellar] Standardizing FLAC
>
>
>

---

From: Ashley Blewer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:21:22 -0400

In-line.

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Tessa Fallon <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Via Tim Terriberry, the group reached out to Erik de Castro Lopo to
> discuss standardizing FLAC.  Erik is the current maintainer of FLAC.
>
This would be a great start! Thanks!

> --Ashley, this is you, correct?  Also if there is any documentation for

I did a lot of the conversion for FFV1 and MKV (as did Dave Rice) but
haven't done any work towards FLAC. It has proven to be a useful way to
review the spec in a granular way and facilitate contributions although not
required. All roads eventually lead to a makefile that converts to an RFC
so it makes sense to follow the same steps as we have with the other two,
though.

---

From: John Warburton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:29:56 +0100

> so it makes sense to follow the same steps as we have with the other two,

​I'll read the spec contained within the library doucments from beginning
to end, therefore. Even just to get a feel for the documents, rather than
the command line options, will be a greater education than that which I
have at present.

JW
​