|
|
Posted by vlad on 11/28/07 09:31
On Nov 28, 1:21 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> > 128Kbps is highly lossy with today's technology.
>
> 'Today's technology' has eff all to do with it.
>
> ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
> desired result. Advances in 'technology' will not ever affect that fundamental
> principle.
>
> Provided that all compression schemes were *coded competently*, the trade-off in
> perceived audio performance vs bit rate would be virtually identical. And it is
> indeed quite close to that. Some methods of perceptual encoding may favour
> perceived better results with certain styles of music than others at the usual
> cost of performing worse with other types.
>
> Mark my words, audio compression will be almost non-existent in 10 years time.
> The genuine advances in technology that DO exist in respect of ever higher
> network speeds and ever lower cost mass storage will render audio compression
> almost superfluous.
>
> Graham
I hope, you did not mean lossless compression. Even now Apple
lossles in iTunes compresses original CD to 53-46% of original size.
Using lossless compression in data transfer means increasing capacity
if the channel by 100%. At the same time, if CD's would use lossless
compression now we would have 2.5 hours of sound on CD vs. 75 min now.
I think in a future losless codecs will scratch more percents and
become more effective.
vlad
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|