Posted by Don Pearce on 11/29/07 18:03

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:55:42 -0500, Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org>
wrote:

>>>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.
>

No, you really weren't. You were just point-scoring.

>>>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.

This is an audio group. When we talk about codecs on a group like this
we are talking about audio codecs. If we were simply talking about
file compression we wouldn't use terms like codec.

d

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

[Back to original message]