3 ms·
We are not really talking about lossy codecs here, though, are we?
by anyfoo 9y ago
We are not really talking about lossy codecs here, though, are we?
- trevyn 9y agoAh, my mistake. But perhaps you could consider 24/192 -> 16/48 a lossy codec in this context; the same argument does apply, for the same reasons.
- anyfoo 9y agoThat way it does make sense, editing might require higher fidelity than we can perceive in the final project to avoid artifacts.
- kuschku 9y agoActually, the article is not talking about it, but the topic very much is lossy codecs. Specifically, if 24/192 AAC is worth it compared to 16/44.1 AAC (and the answer to that is yes, although the answer to 24/192 WAV is no)