4 ms·
Yes! Software that decodes, then re-encode naively/lazily is essentially doing double lossy encoding. Reminds me of the early MP3 days, when people would down
by silisili 2y ago
Yes! Software that decodes, then re-encode naively/lazily is essentially doing double lossy encoding.
Reminds me of the early MP3 days, when people would download 96kbps files, then reencode to 320mbps to 'improve the quality'.
- Waterluvian 2y agoLol I did all kinds of nonsense like that. I got Adobe Premiere in 8th grade and had no clue what I was doing.
- koolba 2y agoNah we would download 128kbs files, and then reencode them as 16kbps to octuple the number we could fit on our Diamond Rio.
- phire 2y agoI don't think I ever got below 64kps in my own testing before the audio quality fell apart. I was using a Palm PDA, so I found a player that supported ogg. That allowed me to push to 48kps (or maybe even 32kps) with "acceptable" quality.
- aitchnyu 2y agoAh the teenage angst flareup if our device cant support variable bit rate encoding.
- robinsonb5 2y agoIn a former life as a printer I did once have a customer print out a 72dpi image and scan the printout at 300dpi, to increase its resolution.
- underdeserver 2y ago320mbps sounds like a lot :)
- silisili 2y agoOops, obviously meant kbps there. Though using the same logic described, just imagine the quality of 320mbps!
- brokenmachine 2y agoIf we're being pedantic... 320 milli bits per second? 0.32bps. That's not that much.