Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [NONSENSE] From: New Audio Container (Read 2112 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[NONSENSE] From: New Audio Container

Quote
Quote
Sorry, but think i DO know what im talking about.  The 2gb limit is a reall problem with a really easy solution. This problem is not a reason to implement a different container format for every audio format.  FYI i have examined and programmed and tested a program to read wav's and i noticed many (almost all) programs dont even interpret the value of wBitsPerSample correct. So when even a "simple"  format as wav isn't applied correct, i think it wont become better when there are 10 container formats floating arround, which are all much more complex then the wav format.  


PS im not very good in writing english, since its not my native langue, but that doesnt mean i dont know what im talking about.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=312823"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And where is your "easy" solution to 2GB problem ? Your post doesn't say that. I assume you want to allow full 32-bit range of DWORD headers, but that's a hack (specifications explicitly say that allowed value range is up to 0x7FFFFFFF), you can't expect software developers to follow that, and then you still have the same problem but with 2x higher limit. You don't know what you're talking about after all.
Quote
FYI i have examined and programmed and tested a program to read wav's and i noticed many (almost all) programs dont even interpret the value of wBitsPerSample correct.
That is nonsense, and not relevant to the topic. If some people prefer just to assume noone will ever open WAV files other than 16bit, then it's their own problem.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=312824"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I really dont like the way you are discussing this subject. Im not attacking you personally, yet it looks like you feel the need to defend you opinion with almost rude behaviour. If you are not a mod i dont think you should decide (or discuss) who can post and who can not.

Quote
That is nonsense, and not relevant to the topic.


You say i dont know what im talking about. I can prove i do know what im talking about and then its irrelevant  .

Quote
If some people prefer just to assume noone will ever open WAV files other than 16bit, then it's their own problem.


I dont make such a totally stupid assumption,  and i dont suggest anything that even remotly looks like this. And since you seem to know whats usefull and whats not... why exactly was this remark from you usefull?


Quote
And where is your "easy" solution to 2GB problem ? Your post doesn't say that. I assume you want to allow full 32-bit range of DWORD headers, but that's a hack (specifications explicitly say that allowed value range is up to 0x7FFFFFFF), you can't expect software developers to follow that, and then you still have the same problem but with 2x higher limit. You don't know what you're talking about after all.


I cant imagine you dont have enough immagination to think of a solution.  My suggestion is to pick one, anyone, and just use it. No i dont mean to to use unsigned int for the size, this i wouldnt even call a solution.  Why not store the size of the wav somewhere in a 64 bit int. Or even better use the microsoft waveformextensible or whatever its called. This has some other usefull features to. Just pick ONE. I dont see anything good comming from the current growth of standards, which are often only partly supported.
You call it a hack to add a 64 bits size tag somewhere? You think "software developers" should not use a easy hack, but should support all those weird audio formats? Well thats your opinion. I just disagree. IMO there are already enough container formats.

(@ mods i wont continue this disagreement,  so no need to intervene)