Phil Leigh;470527 Wrote: > Hi Howard... > > The gist of the article is "sort of" OK, but the whole point of the > psychoacoustic algorithms in lossy codecs is to try and throw away stuff > we either can't hear or don't care about (at least that's the theory). > So, using non-musical signals is by definition going to throw up all > sorts of "issues" because the algorithms aren't designed for those > signals... >
Gotcha. Makes a lot of sense, but didn't occur to me. If he had used music as a source, would the result be the same? Phil Leigh;470527 Wrote: > Hi Howard... > > As for the footnote... > The (biased) way I read it was "I appear to be somewhat grudgingly > conceding that lossless codecs really are lossless, but I'm going to > toss in this little nugget about vulnerability to 'transmission errors' > because that will leave a little fear and doubt hanging in the air..." > > Clearly the author doesn't understand that flac actually does have CRC > checksums... and that WAV doesn't have any extra magic "redundancy" > built into it that makes it more robust! > > I think he is getting confused with the reed solomon coding for bursty > error handling on CD's... I wonder why? Got it. I guess I was paying more attention to the graphs than what he wrote and missed his tone. Of course I know nothing about the Reed Solomon thing. I'm counting on folks like you to keep me straight :-) Thanks for the answers. It really helps a lot of us in the forums. Howard -- Howard Passman Can I go home now? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Howard Passman's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16674 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69548 _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/ripping
