[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:12:44 -0800, Edmund wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:08:09 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:35:39 -0800, Edmund wrote (in article
):

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:08:58 +0000, Chuck Finley wrote:

I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive
space was still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is
encoded at 320 and 192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can
improve the sound of CD quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering
what effect they would have on compressed music. Would some kind of
up-sampling device have to be added to the DAC for this? Thanks.

Clever sneaky marketeers forced the whole word with a speech defect,
MP3 is by no means is compression, it is reduction. This idiocy let to
even further speech defects because now we have to make distinction
between compression -which in all kinds of different branches per
definition IS lossless and the reduction scheme from MP3. Since MP3 has
thrown away data I would not bother to try to make it better again, the
quality is gone forever. In MP3 language, puncturing a tire is
compressing it.

Edmund

While you do have a point, MP3 does meet the digital definition of
compression.

That IS the speech defect I am talking about!
If that IS the new definition that definition is plain wrong and
misleading. Never before in no other branch compression ever meant
throwing away data or material.

It's neither new or misleading. the discrimination between "lossy" and
"lossless" compression, means exactly what it says. Lossy compression makes
files smaller by discarding what someone (or something - such as an
algorithm) has decided to be non-essential information. Lossless compression,
OTOH means that the file has been made smaller by using a less verbose coding
scheme of some type. An example of lossless compression would be the ZIP
format on one's PC. If anything were missing on an expanded copy of a ZIP
file of say, Photoshop, would mean that Photoshop would not and could not
run.

If you end up with less data ( or gas in another area ) then you did
not "compress" it, then you reduced the data by throwing away data and
information.

That's why it's called "lossy compression". In gasses, compression is
compression in it's purest form. Nothing is discarded, but the gas has been
processed to take up less volume by eliminating the empty space between gas
molecules. Often this results in the gas becoming a liquid (like with propane
or LNG), but sometimes not. If you merely vent-off a volume of gas to make
the remaining take up less space, that's not compression, that's merely
reducing the volume (like filling a water bottle and letting the excess run
down the drain). Now if you could throw away a certain volume of, say,
propane, and still have the same amount energy in what's left as you did
before the gas's volume was reduced, then that would be an analogy of digital
compression. Remember in audio, we're don't measure the final sound in those
terms. We measure the perception of that sound at our ear/brain interface.
Remember, the file itself (whether it be a digital audio file or a record
groove) is NOT the sound, it is merely a representation of that sound. If
much of the original waveform has been discarded to make the digital file
representing the audio take up less media storage space, and most of the
listening audience doesn't perceive that anything is missing, then whatever
compression scheme was used was successful.

I suggested before not to call the MP3 reduction- "compression" because
it isn't. Lets call it what it is and forget this idiotic "Lossy Compression"
which is a contradiction in terminus and "lossless compression", compression
always was lossless per definition and I mean the right definition not the
raped one.

You are talking apples and oranges. Language is a living thing. The day that
we can't accommodate new meanings for existing words, is the day that the
language starts to die. Might as well go back to Roman-era Latin...

Using the proper terms for things makes it easier to understand.

Understanding context can also help make words easier to understand.