Search results

Video compression codecs for BD are very good, most of the time it would be very difficult to tell the difference at normal viewing distances. Same for audio, the compression codecs used now are amazing. But, these codecs were created to solve space problems. If there isn't a problem that needs...

This is what bugs me to no end. I've seen this bandied about several times and it is complete nonsense. If you have a lossy compressed signal and it isn't revealing "flaws" in the source that an otherwise losslessly compressed (or uncompressed) signal would reveal, then I would say that's a...

It is specious because lossy data compression does nothing to make a signal sound better, unless you have the ability to hear and actually like the sound of compression artifacts. If that's the case lets just all go with 98kbps MP3s and be done with it. I have to wonder if some are confusing...

The kindest thing I can possibly say about that argument is that it's specious. If I weren't concerned with being kind I would say it's complete nonsense.

The discussion is in response to Mr. Harris's assertion regarding the inclusion of a lossless track : "But it doesn't really matter that it does. There is little to be gained." Now with these latest comments, it appears that the inclusion of a lossless track has gone from a negligible gain to...

Mr. Harris, with all due respect, I hope you are not honestly trying to sell digital audio compression as some kind of sonic benefit. The only benefit to be had is a reduced file size. If there is enough space for a lossless file, then there is no benefit.

It surprises me to see you say this. What is gained is the difference between a compressed and uncompressed signal. It doesn't matter what the age or the quality of the audio is.