Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: lossless audio format vs lossy audio format (Read 3826 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lossless audio format vs lossy audio format

Compared with lossy audio format, what is the advantage and disadvantage of lossless audio format? First, I list my opinion as follow:

Advantage:
1.The same sound quality as the original music, much higher than lossy format.

2.Higher encode and decode speed.

3.Easy to convert to other lossless or lossy format, and without any data loss.

Disadvantage:
1.Much biger file size.

That are only my opinion, I hope you can give me more ideas! Thank you very much!
Let's make things better!

lossless audio format vs lossy audio format

Reply #1 –
It's not always true that it's faster to encode and decode lossless.  It takes me more time to encode a FLAC file than any of the lossy formats I use.

You pretty much listed each advantage/disadvantage I can think of.  Well maybe another advantage to lossy would be more portable support.  Really though a well encoded lossy file is probably going to be transparent to you just like a lossless will so unless you have a lot of hard drive space or you just don't trust lossy codecs then lossy are OK for listening.
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

lossless audio format vs lossy audio format

Reply #2 –
Quote
2.Higher encode and decode speed.

High en-/decoding speed is not a feature of lossless codecs in general.

For instance, there is a lossy codec called Musepack which is very fast and on the other hand there are lossless codecs like LA and OptimFrog which run quite slowly.

Edit: alright, DreamTactix291 was faster. 

lossless audio format vs lossy audio format

Reply #3 –
  • Lossless is for archival - posterity.
  • No killer samples to contend with.
A well tuned encoder and proper settings should give transparency in all but unusual circumstances therefore sound quality should virtually be a non-issue.

I use both. I rip my discs meticulously once and maintain them losslessly and make lossy copies as needed.

Loss-less is future proof. Look at SHN, (and whenever it came out) those same files can be converted to FLAC/Wavpack/Monkey's Audio and then to the lossless MPEG-4 encoder in a couple of years and lose nothing.

tec

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'](Sorry. My internet connection went down before I was able to post this lastnight.)[/span]

lossless audio format vs lossy audio format

Reply #4 –
Quote
2.Higher encode and decode speed.

Quote
It's not always true that it's faster to encode and decode lossless.

Quote
High en-/decoding speed is not a feature of lossless codecs in general.

I suspect the OP meant "Higher encode and decode rate."  Will he ever return and let us know?

-- Rick
------- Rick -------
--------------------

lossless audio format vs lossy audio format

Reply #5 –
Quote
Advantage:
1.The same sound quality as the original music, much higher than lossy format.

"Much higher" is a dubious statement.  Many lossy codecs (given the correct settings) will produce output which is usually not audibly distinguishable from lossless.  It is true to say that lossy codecs usually add non-zero noise (lossless adds zero of course).  The difference, even if inaudible, is advantageous.

A couple disadvantages:
- Lossless codecs usually consume more battery power on portable devices.
- Aside from uncompressed formats (e.g. .wav pcm files), lossy codecs (mp3 in particular) are more widely supported.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

lossless audio format vs lossy audio format

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote
2.Higher encode and decode speed.

Quote
It's not always true that it's faster to encode and decode lossless.

Quote
High en-/decoding speed is not a feature of lossless codecs in general.

I suspect the OP meant "Higher encode and decode rate."  Will he ever return and let us know?

-- Rick

Sorry, I am late. But in china, It's very early in the moring!

I meant encode and decode speed of lossless format were usually faster than the speed of lossy format. But now I am afraid I am not right! Some lossy formats also have a fast speed, such as MPC. And Some lossless formats also have a slow speed, such as la.

Thanks for your help!
Let's make things better!

lossless audio format vs lossy audio format

Reply #7 –
If you have the hard drive space, lossless encoding from your cds to store the music, and lossy encoding for the circumstance of use is an excellent idea. Many people on this forum do that.  The advantage is the hard work of ripping/encoding is done one time (assuming the medium the lossless rips are stored does not go bad), and you can choose whatever lossy format you want, created from the stored lossless files.
you will make mp3's for compatibility reasons.
 

lossless audio format vs lossy audio format

Reply #8 –
Quote
If you have the hard drive space, lossless encoding from your cds to store the music, and lossy encoding for the circumstance of use is an excellent idea. Many people on this forum do that.  The advantage is the hard work of ripping/encoding is done one time (assuming the medium the lossless rips are stored does not go bad), and you can choose whatever lossy format you want, created from the stored lossless files.

That's what I do.  In addition to MD's points, every time you transcode from/to a lossy format a little bit of fidelity is lost.  (Like making a copy of a copy)  If you archive a lossless format, though, then if some super-duper new format comes out you can regenerate your original, pristine, perfect copy wav file and encode into the new format without any generation-type losses.

As far as "If you have the hard drive space" goes, if you think about it, hard drive space is about 60-cents a gigabyte right now.  ROM, the space needed to save a FLAC image of a CD is about 1/2 GB.  That's less than 30-cents.  Even buying your CDs at the CDNow Preferred Buyers Club for $9, the extra 30-cents for the hard drive space is a negligible percentage.

-- Rick
------- Rick -------
--------------------