Posted by Don Pearce on 11/29/07 16:46

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:42:21 -0500, Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org>
wrote:

>nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) writes:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:09:22 +0000, Eeyore
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Randy Yates wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> > [...]
>>>> > ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
>>>> > desired result.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression schemes ...".
>>>
>>>Fair enough.
>>>
>>>How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver ? I've never investigated. I imagine
>>>it can't be that much.
>>>
>>>Graham
>>
>> I don't think the non-lossy ones are strictly codecs - just data
>> compression and restoration systems.
>
>Lossless data compression is formally a type of "source coding," so
>codec (meaning "coder/decoder") is a perfectly accurate term for the
>process.
>
>A/D conversion is a type of quantization, which also falls under the
>classification of source coding, so the application of codec is accurate
>in this sense as well.

Sure, I know all that; but that is kind of against the spirit of the
word.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

• Next in forum: Re: WMA gets taken Down By The River
• Prev in forum: Re: WMA gets taken Down By The River
• Thread view: Re: WMA gets taken Down By The River

[Reply to this message]