|
|
Posted by NRen2k5 on 09/30/05 18:39
On 9/30/2005 3:36:17 AM, "audiohead" wrote:
>Any loss of sound quality? NO!!!!!!!!
No, but since the original file was a lossy WMA, the sound quality isn't great.
>Once the file is in a lossless format you can encode at a high bit and
>sampling rate, and actually improve the sound quality!!!
No. You can't improve the sound quality. You only have the same quality as the original file but with a higher bitrate / sampling rate / whatever. (Actually, it will sound a bit worse, if you're going back into a lossy format.)
>The trick is
>to not recompress at anything lower than 1:4. Better yet...keep it
>lossless ie., apple lossless or wav.
Apple Lossless and WAV are not great examples to give.
1) Apple Lossless is decent but not amazing; locked to Apple's software and hardware.
2) WAV isn't compressed.
I'd say all things considered, FLAC is the best lossless compression format out there, for several reasons.
1) FLAC has good compression ratios. Monkey's Audio is best in this regard, but FLAC is not far behind.
2) FLAC does not use as much CPU time to decode as Monkey's Audio.
3) FLAC is as robust as other lossless codecs which don't have as good compression ratios. It goes without saying that it's more robust than Monkey's Audio. An error in a Monkey's Audio or LPAC file may make the file completely undecodable. An error in a FLAC will just make a hiccup.
- NRen2k5
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|