I don't think you guys should worry too much about messing up old decoders,
but no matter what you choose to do FLAC MUST REMAIN LOSSLESS.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM, flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org wrote:
Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
flac-dev@xiph.org
To subscribe or
Marcus Johnson wrote:
I don't think you guys should worry too much about messing up old decoders,
What about the hardware decoders?
but no matter what you choose to do FLAC MUST REMAIN LOSSLESS.
That has always been and will remain goal #1 for FLAC.
Erik
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15.03.2013 12:09, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Marcus Johnson wrote:
but no matter what you choose to do FLAC MUST REMAIN LOSSLESS.
That has always been and will remain goal #1 for FLAC.
FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, so lossy FLAC
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:42:10PM +0400, lrn1...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, L could also stand for Lossy. Should have named it
FLLAC - LL for Loss-Less.
But anyone who knows the difference between lossy and lossless will know
which one the L in FLAC stands for.
Everyone else can continue
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 03:22:24AM -0400, bumblebritche...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you guys should worry too much about messing up old decoders,
Old decoders are everywhere, and not always easy to update or replace.
For example: DVD players, in-car audio servers, broadcast facilities.
