Mailing List Archive
tlug.jp Mailing List tlug archive tlug Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: [tlug] [C&C] AAC is lossy, FLAC is lossless
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:06:38 +0900 (JST)
- From: Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [tlug] [C&C] AAC is lossy, FLAC is lossless
- References: <d8fcc0800707231552h1673496bo7518ddc7a863cfa9@mail.gmail.com> <20070724090044.f9f5a88e.gstewart@bonivet.net> <d8fcc0800707240627r4f2c28a5g56442c6715639f9a@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Josh Glover wrote:
On 24/07/07, Brett Robson <tlug@example.com> wrote:
People often say they can't hear the difference but that's wrong. Even if they are not consciously aware of it the music sounds different, it has lost air, shine, sparkle and pump. That sounds like weasel words but these have real meaning to audio engineers.
No, I know exactly what you mean. Good code also has these properties, and sometimes it is very difficult to qualify *how* it is missing in bad code, just that it is. :)
Having been both a recording engineer and a computer programmer, I'm going to respectfully disagree with this. Even outside the crazy audiophile thing, the audio world is filled with an amazing amount of woo-woo. And while there are a number of people who really do know and understand the technical details about audio in its various forms, most of the people in the industry have ears influenced more by predjudice than by reality. (By the way, don't take this to mean that you ought not hire them if you want to produce an album that sounds really, really fantastic. They can do that.)
Good code is much easier to measure. There are no metrics for it that are more than marginally useful, of course, but if you plop it in front of a group of decent programmers who have some sort of understanding of the problem and know the idioms of the language, their level of mystification or understanding will quickly tell you how good it is.
On 24/07/07, Godwin Stewart <gstewart@example.com> wrote:
However, how do you know that your HD won't fail between now and next time you need to re-encode your audio stuff? Will .wav still be supported then? Will your HD's interface for that matter?
1. Failure: I back up.
Right. In fact, I expect that both the HDs on which I have my CDs will fail before I have to re-encode. Which makes worrying about the interface unnecessary; the data just moves from drive to drive over the course of time as the interfaces change.
I want to pay Amazon[1] a pittance to store my data for me, but I don't want them peering inside.[2]
What, you think you have CDs that they don't already have? :-)
cjs -- Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> +81 90 7737 2974 Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com
- References:
- [tlug] [C&C] AAC is lossy, FLAC is lossless
- From: Josh Glover
- Re: [tlug] [C&C] AAC is lossy, FLAC is lossless
- From: Godwin Stewart
- Re: [tlug] [C&C] AAC is lossy, FLAC is lossless
- From: Josh Glover
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: RE: [C&C] The Advantage of 8-Track Tapes . . . . . (was: Re:[tlug][C&C] AAC is lossy, FLAC is lossless)
- Next by Date: Re: [tlug] [C&C] AAC is lossy, FLAC is lossless
- Previous by thread: Re: [tlug] [C&C] AAC is lossy, FLAC is lossless
- Next by thread: Re: [tlug] [OT] AAC is lossy, FLAC is lossless
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links