Posted by Don Pearce on 11/29/07 16:54

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.

d

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

[Back to original message]