|
|
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:47:37 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: so you were saying that regardless of the encoding compressed files are always different from the original. Which is ********. ******** yoursel - whay the frell do you think it's called *lossy* compression? *Of course* MP3 files are always different from the original. Sheesh, whatta maroon! You'll notice I didnt mention mp3 there at all, by the way... -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:47:41 -0000, "Stimpy"
wrote: Kurt Hamster wrote: There are no gains with MP3 other than price and size. Portability and convenience? The iPod and iTunes has changed the way I listen to music. Might not be the same quality as my traditional system but, fcuk it, if I can have a box the size of a fag packet holding 10,000 songs that I can listen to in the car or almost 30,000 songs (mainly at 320kbps) on my home MP3 jukebox then I'm willing to forego some quality for the sheer convenience. WTF? How far away from work *are* you, when you need 10,000 songs in your iPod? Why not use just a couple of dozen or so at full .wav quality? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:33:52 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:35:04 +0000 Kurt Hamster wrote: ******** to the encoding, the fact remains there are audible differences between compressed files (at any bit rate) and uncompressed audio. Thats ******** because theres more than a couple of non-lossy compressed formats out there... Also, bear in mind that an encoding doesnt have to *compress* data at all, although usually encoded data is easier to compress afterwards. Look again. I said differences between compressed and non compressed. I didn't say anything about encoding, non-lossy or otherwise. the *compression* isnt what affects the quality though. the data is discarded in the encoding part of the process. The actual compression in mp3 is non-lossy, as it happens. Bull****. The compression algorithm is *extremely* lossy. What you are talking about is the *decompression* process. If you say so. Im not sure I want to argue about perceptual encoding with you though. Perceptual encoding is a kludge however you look at it. It certainly isn't an accurate representation of the source. Fair enough. it might not be technically accurate. However if its sonically accurate (ie. one cant hear the difference) then I dont care. While true, this seems a poor excuse in a home system, where mass storage of digital media is not a problem in 2004. Especially given your whining about 'maximum accuracy'. Are you not familiar with the expression 'garbage in, garbage out'? Because you wanted linearity in the chain with regard to accuracy. Is the source no longer part of the chain in your neck of the woods? The content of the source has f*ck all to do with linearity. That is about the dumbest thing you've said yet - which is an achievement in itself! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: the *compression* isnt what affects the quality though. the data is discarded in the encoding part of the process. The actual compression in mp3 is non-lossy, as it happens. Bull****. The compression algorithm is *extremely* lossy. What you are talking about is the *decompression* process. No, Im talking about the encoding process. IIRC the compression used is huffman or LZW (or some such). This is done AFTER the encoding process. The content of the source has f*ck all to do with linearity. That is about the dumbest thing you've said yet - which is an achievement in itself! Linearity is a property of the system, not the data you put into it. -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:30:46 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:47:37 +0000 (UTC) (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: so you were saying that regardless of the encoding compressed files are always different from the original. Which is ********. ******** yoursel - why the frell do you think it's called *lossy* compression? *Of course* MP3 files are always different from the original. Sheesh, whatta maroon! You'll notice I didnt mention mp3 there at all, by the way... Indeed so, but we already know that you use MP3. Or were you going to weasel out by claiming that you'd been talking about lossless compression all along? Which would be a lie................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
Hi,
In message , Ian Molton writes On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:11:53 +0000 (UTC) (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: the *compression* isnt what affects the quality though. the data is discarded in the encoding part of the process. The actual compression in mp3 is non-lossy, as it happens. Bull****. The compression algorithm is *extremely* lossy. What you are talking about is the *decompression* process. No, Im talking about the encoding process. IIRC the compression used is huffman or LZW (or some such). This is done AFTER the encoding process. It's been a long time, but if I recall, the process goes something like: Decompose the signal into frames. Analyse to determine the spectral energy distribution and break signal into sub-bands. Allocate bits to each sub-band according to the data rate set in codec. Compare frequency distribution to psychoacoustic models stored in the codec, and discard data that would not be perceived due to masking etc. (This bit is lossy). Huffman code the bitstream, compressing redundancies in the sample. (Not lossy - it assigns 'symbols' to bit sequences to achieve compression without loss). Finally, format the bitstream. I'm stretching my memory here, so I could be incorrect on the order of things, and the above is way oversimplified. If anyone can be bothered, the real story is at http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/audio.html -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:23:44 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: Indeed so, but we already know that you use MP3. Among other things... Or were you going to weasel out by claiming that you'd been talking about lossless compression all along? No. Which would be a lie................ Indeed it would. If I was claiming that. -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:15:50 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:11:53 +0000 (UTC) (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: the *compression* isnt what affects the quality though. the data is discarded in the encoding part of the process. The actual compression in mp3 is non-lossy, as it happens. Bull****. The compression algorithm is *extremely* lossy. What you are talking about is the *decompression* process. No, Im talking about the encoding process. IIRC the compression used is huffman or LZW (or some such). This is done AFTER the encoding process. The encoding is part of the compression process. Don't be disingenuous. The content of the source has f*ck all to do with linearity. That is about the dumbest thing you've said yet - which is an achievement in itself! Linearity is a property of the system, not the data you put into it. Which part of 'garbage in, garbage out' did you fail to understand? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
In article , Glenn Booth
wrote: Hi, In message , Ian Molton writes No, Im talking about the encoding process. IIRC the compression used is huffman or LZW (or some such). This is done AFTER the encoding process. It's been a long time, but if I recall, the process goes something like: Decompose the signal into frames. Analyse to determine the spectral energy distribution and break signal into sub-bands. Allocate bits to each sub-band according to the data rate set in codec. Compare frequency distribution to psychoacoustic models stored in the codec, and discard data that would not be perceived due to masking etc. (This bit is lossy). Huffman code the bitstream, compressing redundancies in the sample. (Not lossy - it assigns 'symbols' to bit sequences to achieve compression without loss). Finally, format the bitstream. I'm stretching my memory here, so I could be incorrect on the order of things, and the above is way oversimplified. If anyone can be bothered, the real story is at http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/audio.html IIRC the above description is fairly accurate. There is also some loss due to 'requantisation' where components that are regarded as 'unimportant, but worth keeping' may be stored with relatively few bits. Hence in terms of loss of details, the behaviour is slightly more compex than 'keep some details and completely discard others'. But information is lost. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk