3 ms·
They claim it to be visually lossless. There's also a term for audio, but I forgot the exact terminology. Things like this is applying lossy compression caref
by KolenCh 5y ago
They claim it to be visually lossless.
There's also a term for audio, but I forgot the exact terminology.
Things like this is applying lossy compression carefully with lab test on real humans to claim that under an A/B test an average human would not discern the difference.
But it still doesn't mean it should not be taken with a grain of salt.
In any case, it is objectively inferior (and subjectively might not matters.)
On top of my head one thing I'd question is generation loss (but if I am serious in the market of this kind of display I should study more carefully what their claim really is.)
But this is enough a technical detail for anyone to say "they only achieve XxY resolution at Z FPS with DSC" because the theoretical bandwidth isn't there and make do with lossy compression.
- foo_barrio 5y agoI believe "transparent" is the term used when claiming a lossy audio codec is indistinguishable to a lossless one by a human for some definition of an average human. For example I believe aac was considered transparent for most pop music at 160kbps for stereo, 16-bit @ 44.1khz (CD quality). So iTunes selling 192-256kbps was considered more than enough.