goDel Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, zkom said: But if you're going to be doing transcoding from lossy format to lossy format you're going to be losing quality each time so it can add up. fixt You can transcode lossless to lossless infinite amount of times without loss. because thats what lossless means: no loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingformung Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Just now, goDel said: fixt You can transcode lossless to lossless infinite amount of times with loss. because thats what lossless means: no loss. You mean without Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zkom Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Thanks, fixed the post also. Well, if you copy infinite amount times anything you're eventually going to lose your data no matter how high quality you're error correction algorithms and media are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxien Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 55 minutes ago, darreichungsform said: Yes but the change doesn't result in a loss of information. E.g. all redundancy in da file is removed ackchuyally but no information no matter if audible or not when converted to sound cumming outta yo speaker is lost motherfucker that's the intent and seems to be the case, yeah. 24 minutes ago, rhmilo said: Uhm, no, from an information point of view, nothing is changed at all. Let’s say we have a WAV file consisting of, say, a sequence of ten ones. The corresponding FLAC file consists of three symbols that mean “10”, “times” and “one”. Because of the way files work, the second takes up less disk space than the first. BUT the second means nothing to our ears. Before we can perceive it as music it has to be converted back into the original sequence of ten ones. Meaning, the audio that gets played is the exact same for a WAV file as it is for the corresponding FLAC file. perhaps they are literally the exact same and the only difference is in how the information is being stored and read and transmitted, but the information is 100% exactly the same underlying. if this is the case then good news that we may get Star Trek style transporters some day to zip us from planet surfaces to star ships a few miles above. however, run this little thought experiment with me if you'd all like: take a raw WAV file of whatever, the sounds of darreich and friends farting on a train for hours perhaps, and let's call it DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000001.WAV, and convert it over to a FLAC., DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.FLAC (add some fun metadata if you want now that it's a FLAC!) and you'll hear no difference. take the original DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000001.WAV and 'convert' it to a WAV of the exact same bit depth/resolution/etc. copy it, essentially. this should be literally an exact copy. DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002.WAV. convert the DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.FLAC back into a WAV and compare it to DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002.WAV. DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.FLAC = DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002.WAV....this has been done and can be done and proven. zero differences between the files, except the DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.WAV file is smaller than DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000001.WAV was or smaller than DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002.WAV is. redundant data has been removed so the file sizes are different, but the audio content is proven to be untouched. these are facts and can be shown to be true (from what i've read from people smarter and more knowledgeable of the data conversion, software, etc., than myself) but now let's take this farther: take DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.WAV (this had been a FLAC, is now again a WAV proven 'equal' to the original). but convert that over to a FLAC then back to a WAV then back to a FLAC then back to a WAV and continue. let's do it, say, a hundred times. or a thousand, or a billion times. (and also let's assume there's zero software mistakes made each time, there's somehow a check at each step to be sure of this) and we get DARRFTRAINFARTS_1000000000F.FLAC. compare it to the first FLAC. is it still the same? it should in theory be the same as DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.FLAC, right? once converted the very first time, the 'redundancy' should all be removed...but if i do this twice, on my own files i get differences between the file sizes of the FLAC (i assume and admit that this very likely is simply metadata, not related to any audio. i'm not smart enough to do the stuff to compare the audio only). so what happens if i do it a billion times? is truly NOTHING lost here? i don't know, i've never tried it of course. i've looked and i've never seen that anyone has tried such a thing. but if you told me it actually did degrade the audio slightly, eventually, i wouldn't be surprised. why? because the original audio is being compressed and altered, even if it's in the VERY slightest way, it is being touched. conversely, if you told me that there was proven to be zero degradation between DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.FLAC and DARRFTRAINFARTS_1000000000F.FLAC then that would track with what has been shown and proven. very possible that this is the case and is the intent. this is just a thought experiment, not arguing for sure one way or the other. and comparatively copying over the original WAV, DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000001.WAV a billion times (assuming a confirmed zero software mistakes at each step) you SHOULD get the literal exact same wave file when you compare DARRFTRAINFARTS_1000000000.WAV to the original. because NOTHING is changed at each step. only way to know for sure is to try it. who wants to code up and execute this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YangYing Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Actually goDel should edit back their post so that darreichs post makes sense imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak of the week Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 HOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Or we could compress this thread, lossy. Decompress. Repeat X times. And end when we get the tekst of Hamlet. Convert to mp3. Burn to CD and then listen. 4 minutes ago, MIXL2 said: Actually goDel should edit back their post so that darreichs post makes sense imo Their? Guess I'm the goDel Twin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingformung Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Let's discuss pronouns first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tokn Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 If IDM doesn't sound better in WAV/FLAC maybe mainstream does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, darreichungsform said: Let's discuss pronouns first Today, I'm feeling bigender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YangYing Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 No don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingformung Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 : ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pizza Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 convert any song into the smallest mp3-file possible and it turns into IDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARPA Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Everyone knows IDM sounds best if transcoded from 24bit wav to 64kbps mp3! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Mughnus Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 IDM sounds best converted to binary and then read out sensually by Sir David Attenborough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diatoms Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aencre Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 This thread made me put on Alvin Lucier's I am sitting in a room. Which, funnily, I only have a lossy rip of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whosebrian Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Flashbulb sounds better in mp3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limo Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 3 hours ago, auxien said: only way to know for sure is to try it. who wants to code up and execute this? Or you could look at the algorithm, verify that is indeed lossless and get on with your day. It’s just math, after all. And just as 1 + 1 = 2 even after you’ve tried it a billion times, so too the FLAC algorithm is lossless very single time you run it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drillkicker Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 I listen to music on YouTube mostly and can't hear a difference. I've converted Sunn O))) down to 4 kb/s and still couldn't hear a difference for them. Maybe they should just sell their albums in that quality and save everyone a lot of HD space. Something something rotational velocidensity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kakapo Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 The average age of watmm is now well over 50. You should be more worried about prostate cancer than lossy vs lossless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingformung Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 takes away more space than 18 still da same man I'm against prostate cancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 8 minutes ago, darreichungsform said: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 takes away more space than 18 still da same man I'm against prostate cancer it depends on what font size you use though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.