[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:25:06 -0800, Edmund wrote
(in article ):

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:
snip

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 can be said to be "reduction" (the "standard' music
compression data rate in MP3 is 128 KBPS is 11:1. That means that more than
90% of the original waveform is actually discarded). But Lossless schemes
such as ALCS (Apple Lossless Compression Scheme) and FLAC (Free Lossless
Audio Compression) are not "reductions" as the original waveform is preserved
in the round-trip process.

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!

Yes, I do "got it." and I see no reason to play at semantic games. "A rose by
any other name", and all that.

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.

Well it is possible in data files because we're not dealing with actual
matter, we are dealing with information. It's nothing new. Let's say we have
two secretaries, both taking dictation of a letter from a single speaker. One
takes the dictation long-hand, and the other uses standard stenographer's
shorthand. When the final letter is typed-up, both should be identical, but
the long-hand dictation might be 5 or 6 pages long while the shorthand
version might be two pages. Both say exactly the same thing and nothing has
been lost but one form of coding the dictation is far less verbose than the
other even though it is represented by far less data.

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.

Not if the input file is different that the output file, it is not
compression.

But compression is useless without a complementary de-compression. It's a
round-trip process.

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.

I don't see that anyone has done that. Most people don't care what audio
compression scheme is used for their music as long as it works and allows
them to fit more music into a finite physical space - such as the fixed
memory size on an iPod. Those of us who do care, seem to understand the
concepts involved at least well enough to know the difference between lossy
and lossless compression schemes.

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.

I'm sorry, I simply don't see a problem here.


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.

That's not my point. My point is that everyone involved with music
compression algorithms from those constructing them, to the teenager ripping
CDs to iTunes understands from the context what lossy and lossless
compression schemes mean. There is simply no need to change the universally
accepted nomenclature at this stage of the game. At least that's my opinion
on the subject anyway.