[Commons-l] Sound files

[Siebrand Mazeland]

Hi guys,

I have no knowledge about this software, but Gerard indicated that 'praat'
is GPL licensed and its source is available. The code was written in C, I
assume, as C99 is required to compile it.

Wouldn't benifits be much greater is support for other file formats in praat
was arranged for somehow?

Cheers!

Siebrand

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: commons-l-bounces op lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:commons-l-bounces op lists.wikimedia.org] Namens Gerard Meijssen
Verzonden: zondag 11 februari 2007 17:55
Aan: Gregory Maxwell
CC: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List; The Wiktionary
(http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list
Onderwerp: Re: [Commons-l] Sound files

Hoi,
The problem is that existing academic software like "praat" use .wav files.
I do sympathise up to a point that storage is used. However, the price of a
terabyte of storage is such that this is not that relevant. 
Both an .ogg and a .wav file would be saved. The first is to enable science
to do its thing, the second is for our punters.
Thanks,
    GerardM

http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/


Gregory Maxwell schreef:
> On 2/11/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen op gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> I read this in digest mode so let me answer things together.
>>
>> The reason why .ogg files are not great is because indeed it is a 
>> lossy algorithm. There is some great software to analyse 
>> pronunciation files; a program called "praat" is worth mentioning it 
>> is even licensed under GPL. There is even functionality in there to do
with IPA transcription.
>>
>> Gregory's proposal to use Ogg/FLAC is not helpfull. This is not the 
>> format that is used to analyse pronunciation files. The notion that a 
>> specific quality was "the gold standard" at the time is indeed that. 
>> It used to be, times have changed.
>>
>> The Shtooka program that we are talking about CAN create both a WAV 
>> and an OGG file. It just needs asking. It would be helpful if we 
>> learn sooner rather than later what the outcome is of this request.
>
> The Ogg/Flac is lossless, so it removes your concerns about lossyness.
> It can be uploaded today, so it removes the problems of not being 
> uploadable. It is compressed (losslessly) so it's not quite so bad on 
> our storage and bandwidth. Shtooka already outputs Flac, and could be 
> trivially altered to output ogg/flac, if you'd like I will do this for 
> you. Any number of Ogg/Flac files can be quickly converted to wav with 
> a single command.
>
> I am very hesitant and concerned about the prospects of permitting 
> uncompressed files: I think people will use them where they are 
> completely inappropriate because they are a bit easier to playback.
> Flac or Ogg/Flac should be substantially smaller than wav and won't 
> drive people to use uncompressed formats for bad reasons.
>


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l op lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l