4 ms·
One particular reason why you might want to preserve the lossless original is because: what if you want to re-encode it later? Including wireless transmission v
by JohnBooty 4y ago
One particular reason why you might want to preserve the lossless original is because: what if you want to re-encode it later? Including wireless transmission via Bluetooth.
I don't have great hearing, and I don't try to pretend to hear the difference between one well-enoded lossy file and the next. I can't.
However, audio that's been through multiple lossy encoding steps is generally not good.
> Sorry, I meant that not being able to discern any difference is literally the definition of useless.
This seems rude.
- wheels 4y agoThat you think you might later re-encode is absolutely an argument for lossless formats. I'm not arguing that there's no use for lossless formats. The comments I was originally replying to was questioning why they're not universal. The reason they're not universal is because you need a special reason for them to make any sense. > This seems rude. I meant it tautologically: literally the definition of useless is a difference which has no measurable impact.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago> This seems rude As the recipient: I've decided to cut @wheels some slack. You should, too. It's difficult to tell whether your online interlocutor is really a jerk, or just guilty of occasional jerk-seeming behavior. Who of us can say they've never done the latter?