|
|
Posted by Randy Yates on 11/29/07 17:55
nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) writes:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:37:31 -0500, Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
>>nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:50:28 -0500, Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>> Because, as Graham has pointed out, under that terminology a Zip file
>>> would be a codec, and that isn't really what codecs are all about.
>>
>>A zip file is a file. It isn't a codec any more than an mp3 file is a
>>codec.
>>
> Don't split hairs - you know what I mean.
That wasn't my intention, and I do not know what you mean. That is why
I am engaging in this conversation. To speak of files obfuscates the
matter, in my opinion, and I was attempting to make things clearer.
>>However, the Lempel-Ziv algorithm is indeed a source coding algorithm
>>and in that sense can be called a codec.
>
> And there, in a nutshell, is the problem with the definition. An audio
> codec is something that does stuff with - specifically - audio. It
> makes use of the qualities and features of audio to enable compression
> that would not be valid for - eg - pictures or documents.
But you didn't say "the Lempel-Ziv algorithm is not a type of audio
codec." If you had, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but I
still might not completely agree. Since it operates on any type of
data, it could be used for audio as well. Its performance would be
bad, but the issue is one of qualifying rather than quantifying.
To return to the original point, I assert that ANY source
coding/decoding algorithm can be legitimately called a codec.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|