4 ms·
I'm wondering... For the most efficient lossless audio format in existence now, is it still inefficient with respect to what a human can actually hear? For exam
by testplzignore 7y ago
I'm wondering... For the most efficient lossless audio format in existence now, is it still inefficient with respect to what a human can actually hear? For example, can it store frequencies above what a human can hear (20 kHz)? Are there opportunities to make it more efficient, assuming that we only care about humans? Can a FLAC file store a sound that only a dog could hear? If so, maybe the bandwidth is even lower than 50KB/s.
Or going in the opposite direction - do our hearing neurons transmit data that the brain throws away? If so, then the bandwidth goes higher than 50KB/s.
- dsr_ 7y agoLossless encodings don't throw anything away that was present in the original source file; if you start with a recording chain that can store 200,000 samples per second from an adequate microphone, you can resolve 100KHz - epsilon frequencies. Typically, though, the source files that pass through lossless encoding have previously been limited to 22KHz. Lossy encodings, on the other hand, all work on the basis of a model of perceptibility that throws away information deemed less perceptible.