[Edmund[_2_]]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:45:05 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

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.

I am sure you understand that this addition -lossy vs lossless- is a
result of the misleading term "compression" for something that isn't
compression but reduction.

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.

You got it!

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.

Indeed and physics say that is simply not possible, neither in gas nor
data files.

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.

No if the input file is different that the output file, it is not
compression.


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...

I do know that language is a living thing, and by all means change the
meaning of words to make it more clear for everyone.
Do NOT change the meaning of words to make it more complicated or misleading.

So let us audio lovers all use the proper terms from now on and hopefully
in a few years from now everyone forgot the stupid term Lossy compression
which is a contradiction in terminus, and use "reduction" or "lousy compression"
for reduction schemes.


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

Understanding context can also help make words easier to understand.

You know very well I do understand the context perfectly.


Edmund