3 ms·

You're conflating audio (dynamic range) compression with data compression. Dynamic range compression is an artifact of the mastering process. It very much can b

You're conflating audio (dynamic range) compression with data compression. Dynamic range compression is an artifact of the mastering process. It very much can be done well or done poorly. Lossless data compression like FLAC isn't something that can be done "wrong". It's just encoding redundancies in the audio samples to save space. It's lossless so it will spit out the exact audio as was originally encoded.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
I was writing a reply along the same lines, when I realized that we're both misreading the comment. The original point: lossless compression is not worth it, lossy is OK. The counter-claim: only when the lossy compression is done well. This is not about audio compression.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Thank you, but it is about audio compression. You don't use this type of compression on text files. So, I'd agree with the other commenter in that I'm not talking about dynamic compression with hard/soft knees/attack and what not. Lossy compression done badly is horrible listening experience. It's all swishing and swooshing almost like being underwater. The top end is just all mushed together kind of like when you have a head cold and everything is all swimming sounding in your head.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    There's some real confusion here. There is: * dynamic range compression, referred to above as "audio compression" (confusingly) * psycho-acoustic aka "lossy" data compression * lossless data compression The last two have nothing to do with the first.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      >* dynamic range compression, referred to above as "audio compression" (confusingly) Because when you're in a recording/editing session it is referred to as compression. As is in, "we need to use some some audio compression for that last bit". Anyone within earshot would not think someone is suggesting throwing that last bit throw an MP3 encoder.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

I was writing a reply along the same lines, when I realized that we're both misreading the comment. The original point: lossless compression is not worth it, lossy is OK. The counter-claim: only when the lossy compression is done well. This is not about audio compression.

dylan604 5y ago
Thank you, but it is about audio compression. You don't use this type of compression on text files. So, I'd agree with the other commenter in that I'm not talking about dynamic compression with hard/soft knees/attack and what not. Lossy compression done badly is horrible listening experience. It's all swishing and swooshing almost like being underwater. The top end is just all mushed together kind of like when you have a head cold and everything is all swimming sounding in your head.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  There's some real confusion here. There is: * dynamic range compression, referred to above as "audio compression" (confusingly) * psycho-acoustic aka "lossy" data compression * lossless data compression The last two have nothing to do with the first.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    >* dynamic range compression, referred to above as "audio compression" (confusingly) Because when you're in a recording/editing session it is referred to as compression. As is in, "we need to use some some audio compression for that last bit". Anyone within earshot would not think someone is suggesting throwing that last bit throw an MP3 encoder.