Quote:
Originally Posted by barryem
FLAC is also compressed but you're right that it's lossless. MP3 and most compressors use standard compression methods, as does FLAC, but they take it a step farther by discarding sound data which it's hoped the user won't miss. They do this in a very intelligent way and it works pretty well but loss is loss and quality is reduced. How much it's reduced depends on the quality level the user tells it to use when creating the MP3 file.
I grew up listening to music on radios in the 1940's and then in the 50's and 60's the quality of the reproduction got a lot better. I can hear the difference at times in losseless and lossy compression but for the most part I don't notice it. It's all a lot better than I grew up with.
Still, if you have the equipment you might as well have files that can push it. I don't so I'm generally happy with middling MP3 compression.
Barry
|
I had forgotten how complicated all of that was. I don't remember ever knowing that FLAC was compressed. I'm guessing that it's at such a low level that it can be uncompressed to exactly what quality it was when it was produced (sung, played, whatever) (I guess that that's what lossless means)?
I am not an audiophile. I have fallen into the pattern of being the only one, really, who posts free classical music on the Media (Non-Book/Non-Audiobook thread, in the Deals, Freebies and Bargains forum, though. That's enjoyable.
My "ears" would not be able to detect the difference between an MP3 and a FLAC, I'm pretty sure.
Isn't vinyl considered the medium with optimal sound quality? If so, the media that I use now is inferior to what I used growing up. ha That is, if the record hadn't been scratched, maybe played excessively, etc.
Thanks for your comments.