Clan/mp3 timecoding update

[Linguist - Wangka Maya]

I just brought some interested friends into the discussion, Mark  
Piggott says:

Interesting discussion....... Actually most digital formats compress  
using one algorithm or another and are therefore "lossy" to some extent.

For normal beings, like you and I Grant, mp3 and mp3 vers2 will  
reproduce sound to a quality than is undistinguishable from the real  
thing. I personally never use wav format - it's a Microsoft  
proprietry format not open source.........

So, how much "lossy" is ok? Is there a minimum standard, beyond which  
is unacceptable (I know, least "lossy" is best)? And is .wav format  
the least "lossy"?

Eleonora


On 29/05/2006, at 5:31 PM, David Nathan wrote:

> Dear Rachel
> We (below) also agree with the advice not to use MP3 as a recording  
> format. The main problem is that MP3 involves lossy compression -  
> ie you would be recording less accurate sound data than you could  
> otherwise be doing. This is therefore simply not the best way to  
> approach data collection. In turn, this has implications for  
> preservation (archiving) and for purposing of the recordings for  
> other useful products (e.g. involving the reconversion problems  
> Linda identifies).
>
> Choices affecting recording quality are relative and format is but  
> one of them. In the case of MP3, we'd also be worried that a  
> fieldworker might be encouraged to use an inferior MP3 dictation  
> recorder, or use MP3 merely as a way to get more sound onto a flash  
> card (instead of preparing a proper transfer strategy). In  
> addition, compressions vary - a high bit rate MP3 would be much  
> preferable to a low one, and other compressions, eg WMA or Minidisc  
> ATRAC, are better than MP3 (although MD carries its own  
> disadvantages of transfer). Finally, some recording decisions, such  
> as selection and usage of microphones, or recording location, can  
> have a very much greater effect on your recordings than format choice.
>
> Re archiving, at ELAR, if sound data is only available 'natively'  
> as MP3 we will archive those MP3 files. We would be particularly  
> concerned about the case where fieldworkers record in MP3 and then  
> convert the sound files to WAV - this not only bears all the  
> disadvantages mentioned here and in Linda's message, but also (if  
> not documented) hides the processing history of the data, and  
> denies the archive the opportunity to make the 'best possible'  
> conversion from MP3 (now or in the future). Therefore the 'archival  
> format' formulation taken in isolation can be very misleading.  
> While there are licence issues in relation to MP3 we would not at  
> this stage class it as a proprietary format in the same sense as  
> ATRAC or MS Word.
> David Nathan, on behalf of ELAR and HRELP at SOAS
>
>

Eleonora Deak - Linguist
Wangka Maya Pilbara Aboriginal Language Centre
POBox 2736
South Hedland WA, 6722
ph 	(08) 9172 2344
fax 	(08) 9172 2355
email	wmlinguist at kisser.net.au
web		www.wangkamaya.org.au



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/resource-network-linguistic-diversity/attachments/20060531/b31324c3/attachment.html>