While I'll grant you that FLAC version info is on the 'nice to know side,' it's still good practice to document the version and build of any program you're using to process critical data. Here's a few more reasons...
While all versions of FLAC are lossless, the codec has been
gradually improved over the years. Compression ratios are better and the overall process, both for compression and decompression upon playback, is faster!
Several
security vulnerabilities have been identified that would allow the execution of malicious code contained within FLAC files. Fixes were implemented for these vulnerabilities in v1.2.1. I've been going through all of the 2007 shows uploaded on LMA and there is one recording in particular with six ratings and an average of two stars. The first comment reads:
Quote:
Oh goddamnit!! There's a fucking virus in this recording. Is this a fucking joke?
FUCK YOU!!!!!!!
|
If you're an LMA uploader and you ever work with 24-bit audio files, you
damn well better know the version of FLAC you're using. The LMA is not engineered to decode 24-bit audio encoded by v1.2.x, nor will it for an undetermined time. It's a bummer as v.1.2.x show incredible improvements for the compression ratios of 24-bit files. If you're not paying attention and you upload 24-bit audio encoded with the wrong version, you're gonna yourself a major headache when the md5 failure hits and your recording is locked until an administrator approves the corrections.
Third party compatibility can always be an issue; in the case of the LMA, they just can't afford the coding changes required to adopt FLAC v1.2.x anytime soon.
As Andrew mentions, our protocols and standards have changed over time. In the past, you laid out any expectations of quality (typically type II, yudens, and 4x max!!!) and dealt with the material you were given. Andrew probably has
the best collection of recordings with known sources, if not the best collection outright! He's always been highly selective of the material he trades for and is incredibly faithful to proper documentation and care of his enviable collection.
I'd like to again emphasize that Sebastian's release, based on paper, simply has to be an improvement. Check out
the graphs for Izotope's 64-bit SRC, they're pristine! Even if the DAT > CDR > EAC process was performed perfectly, I have to doubt the SRC used even comes close to the accuracy of Izotope. There are undoubtedly hundreds of shows on CDR that could, in the ears of an audiophile, be improved upon simply by retransferring a 32 or 48 kHz DAT and using modern day, high quality SRC algorithms.