However, given the extra processing required to ‘unpack’ the data on replay, does FLAC really sound as good?
in theory FLAC is lossless
Hi, I was just wondering here.... Is it possible for developers to create a special version of the FLAC encoder, such as VBR FLAC? We all know that MP3 is limited to 320kbps, but FLAC is not. What if someone created or modified the existent FLAC algorithm to support VBR FLAC... I mean, you could get a VIRTUAL LOSSLESS file, if that thing could store VBR at its maximum consistency, that is... 32kbps for silence and up to 1411kbps for dramatic samples... we would be able to get real small file sizes... just an idea!We could think of a new concept of lossless... REAL LOSSLESS that is what we have now with FLAC... and VIRTUAL LOSSLESS, that is, in terms of audio quality is exactly the same but the dramatic samples are stored without discarding any of its information!
I mean, you could get a VIRTUAL LOSSLESS file, if that thing could store VBR at its maximum consistency, that is... 32kbps for silence and up to 1411kbps for dramatic samples... we would be able to get real small file sizes... just an idea!
oh i see... but you're cutting short... virtual lossless would be something definitely without any kind of artifacts, contrary on current lossy schemes...this virtual lossless would be "lossy" anyway and not able to restore data bit by bit back as FLAC usually does. I think the better definition for this is... to have a lossy data compressor without any artifact present.
Quote from: countryman on 13 November, 2006, 08:50:49 AMin theory FLAC is losslessNot just in theory mate. Lossless is lossless in reality too. Stop being dumb. I don't want another "lossless isn't lossless" thread again. It either is or it isn't, and it very much is. Consider for a moment the absurdity of claming that lossless isn't lossless. This can be proven mathematically, so you're saying that mathematics is bollocks.
This is in fact transparency without detecting artifacts cause no psymodel is used here
You really should have done some reading before posting such a question!I would reiterate SebastianG's response that lossless is better in the fact that it is smaller and has good support for storing metadata.There will be no audio quality difference.
I understand the theory why FLAC is as lossless as wav.
What I was asking, was if the extra processing introduced any quality change.
Anyway, it’s time you returned to your crayoning…
Main Entry: loss·lessPronunciation: 'los-l&sFunction: adjective: done or being without loss (as of power or data) <lossless data compression> <lossless power transmission>