|
|
Posted by Randy Yates on 11/29/07 16:50
nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) writes:
> 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.
How so?
--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|