[Matroska-devel] Matroska-devel Digest, Vol 139, Issue 1

Dave Rice dave at dericed.com
Fri Apr 17 17:35:32 CEST 2015

> On Apr 17, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Jerome Martinez <Jerome at MediaArea.net> wrote:
> Le 17/04/2015 15:04, Marcus Johnson a écrit :
>> Why LPCM (which I assume is using wav, wav64, RF64, or BWF) instead of FLAC?
> Audio bitrate is usually a lot lower than video bitrate (and it is more and more true with higher video resolutions, we don't increase so much the channel count or bit depth), and lot of professional users (memory institutions, broadcasters...) consider that having an audio codec provides too much complexity compared to the overall (audio+video) compression ratio benefit.
> This may change in the future.

I asked the same question about FLAC. I don’t think there was a particular reason that it was omitted. Amongst audiovisual archives I think PCM is so predominant that FLAC was overlooked. Hopefully later we can do some of the same conformance checker work on it. Verifying that PCM conforms to its specification is a bit simple since any value data may be considered valid raw PCM, whereas FLAC has many interesting checks such as crcs. Even though the data rate of audio is less than video it still helps enormously in tape digitization work. There are some tape formats that have only 8 or 16 channels. For instance if you have an hour of Digital Betacam and digitized to 8 tracks, but 6 of those audio tracks are almost always silent FLAC would provide a substantial data savings.
Dave Rice

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.matroska.org/pipermail/matroska-devel/attachments/20150417/db37f279/attachment.html>

More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list