In Reply to: RE: Formats be Damned posted by J.Mac on May 28, 2007 at 13:26:04:
Lossless formats are just that, lossless.
If you've ever zipped a text file, then reopened it up to see the same text, then you've experienced lossless compression. Chances are you've done something with a zip file before. You've at least done something with an .exe, which also feature lossless compression. Or an .msi.
In that case, no one says lossless, well because it has to be lossless. Its just compression. It was only till audio and video came into the computing scene that the concept of lossy compression was created.
They give you the exact same data, regardless of what that other guy says about bit rates. Bit rates are irrelevant, as they are interpreted.
Imagine the data string 000000000000000101000000000000001111111100000000000
if I said
FX01X11X01X1EX08X1BX0
to the right interpreter, it would have the exact same information. I'm sure anyone here that knows hex sees it pretty clearly. Actual lossless compression is more complex, picking up on patterns beyond repeating data like I just did.
But there is no loss of data. Thats why we say lossless.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Well said - kgiessler 05/28/0715:37:24 05/28/07 (18)
- RE: Well said - rick_m 21:35:33 05/28/07 (0)
- But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... - rick_m 16:45:20 05/28/07 (16)
- RE: But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... - maabx 05:50:38 05/29/07 (5)
- RE: But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... - Dawnrazor 06:44:09 05/29/07 (4)
- Lossless should sound a lot bettern than uncompressed - Scrith 13:00:02 05/29/07 (2)
- Testing between WAV and FLAC - John Swenson 15:26:46 05/30/07 (1)
- RE: Testing between WAV and FLAC - Scrith 14:34:57 06/1/07 (0)
- RE: But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... - maabx 07:09:53 05/29/07 (0)
- RE: But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... - kgiessler 17:53:29 05/28/07 (9)
- Precisely.. - rick_m 20:22:10 05/28/07 (8)
- RE: Precisely.. - kgiessler 20:34:56 05/28/07 (7)
- RE: Precisely.. - JimOfOakCreek 08:38:02 05/29/07 (6)
- RE: Precisely.. - Dawnrazor 08:16:55 05/31/07 (5)
- Take the LAME recommendations with a grain of salt. - rick_m 22:38:29 05/31/07 (4)
- RE: LAME 320.... - alan m. kafton 02:42:43 06/1/07 (3)
- RE: LAME 320 sounds awfully good. - rick_m 08:56:40 06/1/07 (2)
- FYI - to eliminate sw issues, the tracks were copied onto CDR... - danny kaey 10:02:11 06/1/07 (1)
- Even then software issues lurk. - rick_m 10:45:22 06/1/07 (0)