Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 151
  1. #76
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    it doesn't lose its original sound properties even it is compressed a little, that is the point of lossless! meaning that even with a little compression, lossless is supposed to sound the same like uncompressed audio and retain all the original sound properties.
    why don't you look up FLAC and then look up lossless and come back. it is supposed to lose some quality of sound, that's the problem with any compression. why we have different types of compression is due to different sort of settings. if someone doesn't care or notice changes, then they may do fine with a higher form of compression. which is why MP3 is so popular and so crap at the same time. people don't usually care.

  2. #77
    Fire the space harpoons!
    TidalPhoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your urinary tract
    PSN ID
    TidalPhoenix
    Posts
    12,277
    Rep Power
    121
    Points
    22,029 (0 Banked)
    Items New User TitleUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    why don't you look up FLAC and then look up lossless and come back. it is supposed to lose some quality of sound, that's the problem with any compression. why we have different types of compression is due to different sort of settings. if someone doesn't care or notice changes, then they may do fine with a higher form of compression. which is why MP3 is so popular and so crap at the same time. people don't usually care.
    Lossless compression doesn't lose quality of sound as the algorithms employed allow the archive to reconstruct to an identical copy of what was compressed. Just like if I zipped a raw file photo image and then unzipped it again it would be a perfect replica of what it was before compression.

    Or am I missing the point you are making?

    ​aka Sparc

    Entropy isn't what it used be

  3. #78
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    66,528 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TidalPhoenix View Post
    Lossless compression doesn't lose quality of sound as the algorithms employed allow the archive to reconstruct to an identical copy of what was compressed. Just like if I zipped a raw file photo image and then unzipped it again it would be a perfect replica of what it was before compression.

    Or am I missing the point you are making?
    Was going to say something similar.

    I you use Foobar install this plugin then compare the CD to your FLAC rips
    http://www.foobar2000.org/components...foo_bitcompare


  4. #79
    Super Elite
    Silver&black_Attack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,114
    Rep Power
    64
    Points
    2,930 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    If you are a sucker for sound quality, a compact disc still sounds better than digital. And i'd know because i do both, i shuffle between an ipod or a go gear or a sansa and then back to cd, no doubt the cd provides the richest sound field. The convenience argument given in favor of digital is true, but personally i think it is a little overdone. I mean how many times do you have to swap a disc, if you are watching a movie, you'd only have to do it after you have completed watching the movie, if you're listening to a cd record, you'd only do it after you have completed hearing it. It's not like you are swapping discs every fifteen minutes. I guess i'm just used to swapping discs over all these years, and i don't see the issue in swapping them now, it's just the same way like in the past.
    I can tell the difference if it's compressed a lot, ive ripped my own CDs and now they are in the closet, the sound quality isn't as good as CD, but the versatility of making playlist quickly and taking my music on the go does it for me.
    If it's an album i really like, i try to get a FLAC rip of it.

  5. #80
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,187
    Rep Power
    31
    Points
    15,220 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    why don't you look up FLAC and then look up lossless and come back. it is supposed to lose some quality of sound, that's the problem with any compression. why we have different types of compression is due to different sort of settings. if someone doesn't care or notice changes, then they may do fine with a higher form of compression. which is why MP3 is so popular and so crap at the same time. people don't usually care.
    it is you who needs to look up the meaning of lossless and then come back. "lossless" is supposed to lose some quality of sound? this half-baked knowledge isn't getting you anywhere i'm afraid.

  6. #81
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TidalPhoenix View Post
    Lossless compression doesn't lose quality of sound as the algorithms employed allow the archive to reconstruct to an identical copy of what was compressed. Just like if I zipped a raw file photo image and then unzipped it again it would be a perfect replica of what it was before compression.

    Or am I missing the point you are making?
    any sort of compression loses quality. FLAC is just used for people who may want to recreate the original at some point in time. it doesn't mean that FLAC won't lose quality of sound.
    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    it is you who needs to look up the meaning of lossless and then come back. "lossless" is supposed to lose some quality of sound? this half-baked knowledge isn't getting you anywhere i'm afraid.
    ...ok. let's look it up.

    "Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data."

    "Lossless compression is used in cases where it is important that the original and the decompressed data be identical, or where deviations from the original data could be deleterious."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compression

    and well, ironically, you approve that the quality is lessened so you yourself see the difference but cannot understand why it is there.

  7. #82
    Fire the space harpoons!
    TidalPhoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your urinary tract
    PSN ID
    TidalPhoenix
    Posts
    12,277
    Rep Power
    121
    Points
    22,029 (0 Banked)
    Items New User TitleUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    any sort of compression loses quality. FLAC is just used for people who may want to recreate the original at some point in time. it doesn't mean that FLAC won't lose quality of sound.
    ...ok. let's look it up.

    "Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data."
    If you reconstruct something to be exactly what it was before you compressed it then you have lost nothing. While FLAC also supports a lossy compression, when it's lossless then it's exactly that, lossless. The audio file gets decompressed back to its original and played - no loss of audio quality. To be honest what bit of 'perfectly reconstructed' would suggest anything other.

    ​aka Sparc

    Entropy isn't what it used be

  8. #83
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,187
    Rep Power
    31
    Points
    15,220 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    any sort of compression loses quality. FLAC is just used for people who may want to recreate the original at some point in time. it doesn't mean that FLAC won't lose quality of sound.
    ...ok. let's look it up.

    "Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data."

    "Lossless compression is used in cases where it is important that the original and the decompressed data be identical, or where deviations from the original data could be deleterious."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compression

    and well, ironically, you approve that the quality is lessened so you yourself see the difference but cannot understand why it is there.
    experts always quote wiki in the end right. yeah i couldn't have looked up that myself . thx for that, but you are still misunderstanding the term in the literal sense. lossless (like flac codec) is not supposed to lose any original sound data, even after the compression process. it is supposed to retain all sound properties of the original uncompressed file without any data loss, it's called lossless for a reason. it is the reason why it is preferred for ripping over lossy mp3 when audio quality is critical.

  9. #84
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TidalPhoenix View Post
    If you reconstruct something to be exactly what it was before you compressed it then you have lost nothing. While FLAC also supports a lossy compression, when it's lossless then it's exactly that, lossless. The audio file gets decompressed back to its original and played - no loss of audio quality. To be honest what bit of 'perfectly reconstructed' would suggest anything other.
    there are issues with compression as opposed to raw uncompressed. e.g. when it is decoding (what rene may be experiencing)

    "
    Decoding


    • Another disadvantage of the Huffman coding is that the binary strings or codes in the encoded data are all different lengths. This makes it difficult for decoding software to determine when it has reached the last bit of data and if the encoded data is corrupted -- in other words it contains spurious bits or has bits missing -- it will be decoded incorrectly and the output will be nonsense.



    Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_12088084_di...echniques.html"

    and i wasn't able to find much about lossless audio but the same principles should apply, look at this guide about lossless vs uncompressed:

    "There is no better codec than 8 Bit Uncompressed as it contains no compression. It’s not visually lossless or mathematically lossless but completely lossless."

    http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...at_wright.html

    whenever there is compression, there is loss in quality. heck, this actually implies that even if it can recreate the file, you want to source your uncompressed data because you will get some sort of a loss when recreating even from a lossless format. which makes sense because there is data in there that you are removing in order to make space. it's not just trash.

    if you want proof of this, run your audio files on VLC, run the uncompressed file and look at the bit rate, then run the FLAC and look at the bit rate. if they are different (average) then you are getting less quality.

  10. #85
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    66,528 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    You need to compare the decoded streams not the encoded streams.
    That plugin in foobar I linked to does such a thing.
    Last edited by keefy; 08-05-2014 at 23:09.

  11. #86
    Elite Guru
    NYFAN75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NC
    PSN ID
    NYFAN75
    Age
    39
    Posts
    5,502
    Rep Power
    109
    Points
    38,099 (0 Banked)
    Don't mean to hijack the thread but I am planning on getting a PS4 in a few months and I am curious what HDD you guys recommend?? I want to install a new one before I even turn the system on and have something that will have a lot of space as I am considering DD

  12. #87
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    it would be the decoded bitrates.

    here's more: http://www.audiostream.com/content/f...dventures-flac

    http://www.audiostream.com/content/d...wish-come-true

    and this is why uncompressed is an option, it's not the same.

  13. #88
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by NYFAN75 View Post
    Don't mean to hijack the thread but I am planning on getting a PS4 in a few months and I am curious what HDD you guys recommend?? I want to install a new one before I even turn the system on and have something that will have a lot of space as I am considering DD
    i don't think PS4 supports SSD speeds...i think it might be SATA 2, if it's SATA 3, definitely make sure yours is too.

    i googled a bit and couldn't find a confirmation. would be sweet if it supports SATA 3. either way, make sure your HDD is 5400, why? because the speeds aren't much of a difference between 7200 and even 10,000 (when looking at heat consumption, higher price and possible errors) though i'm going by what the experience was of others with the PS3.

    make sure it's a laptop HDD, that is less than 9mm. i think PS3 slim was less than 9mm so i assume PS4 is as well since it's about the same size or less even.

    google around what size PS4 HDDs are or how small the HDD tray is. it's a pain getting these HDD because you don't know what to get.

  14. #89
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    66,528 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    it would be the decoded bitrates.

    here's more: http://www.audiostream.com/content/f...dventures-flac

    http://www.audiostream.com/content/d...wish-come-true

    and this is why uncompressed is an option, it's not the same.
    The latter link seems more like an advert than an actual article about lossless quality.

  15. #90
    Miqo'te Bard
    Yuuichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    8,174
    Rep Power
    77
    Points
    17,807 (0 Banked)
    Items New User TitleProtect yourselfFull Metal AlchemistFangDark Souls CoverDemons Souls CoverBattlefield 3Title StyleUser name style
    You should not get DD, at least not now. You are paying the same retail price for DD as if you went to a store and got a physical copy. You would need to upgrade your HD, sure it may seem insignificant at first but games add up. If DD where cheaper than physical I would say go for it, but right now being same price I can not justify.
    I have twitter to https://twitter.com/GamerYuichi , Also started youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMu7yRGCz8QrTyxaNVR3Tqw I don't always twitch, but when I can you can find my noobness http://www.twitch.tv/yuichimccry,




  16. Likes thanatos144 likes this post
  17. #91
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,187
    Rep Power
    31
    Points
    15,220 (0 Banked)
    damn omar you're still arguing against facts, when you've been given the explanation, by two posters no less . still trying to convince yourself that lossless is supposed to have loss of quality? flac's bitrate would end up a few hundred kbits/s less than a cd in uncompressed pcm (1411.2 kbits/s), but it is not supposed to have any perceivable loss of quality due to it being a lossless codec. lossless flac is supposed to retain all the sound properties of the original uncompressed file, even in its compressed state. i've never seen anybody before argue against this. on the audio forums i visit , this view is unanimous among people that lossless is supposed to mean no perceivable loss of quality from the original file. omar there is no further explanation i have to give you on this, maybe you are fond of your theories. nvm.

  18. #92
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    The latter link seems more like an advert than an actual article about lossless quality.
    i know, i just meant to show that they added the option later because of the issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    damn omar you're still arguing against facts, when you've been given the explanation, by two posters no less . still trying to convince yourself that lossless is supposed to have loss of quality? flac's bitrate would end up a few hundred kbits/s less than a cd in uncompressed pcm (1411.2 kbits/s), but it is not supposed to have any perceivable loss of quality due to it being a lossless codec. lossless flac is supposed to retain all the sound properties of the original uncompressed file, even in its compressed state. i've never seen anybody before argue against this. on the audio forums i visit , this view is unanimous among people that lossless is supposed to mean no perceivable loss of quality from the original file. omar there is no further explanation i have to give you on this, maybe you are fond of your theories. nvm.
    that's just the issue, i don't consider perceivable lossless as raw uncompressed.

  19. #93
    Apprentice
    vinny_pizza79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Patchogue, NY
    PSN ID
    vinny_pizza79
    Posts
    343
    Rep Power
    13
    Points
    3,855 (0 Banked)
    If it's anyone's concern, I will get the next call of duty game as DD since I'm tired of always trekking to his room for the disc! That will be a matter of convenience.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

  20. #94
    Elite Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    25
    Posts
    10,517
    Rep Power
    93
    Points
    52,879 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    WAV OR GTFO

    *only buys music in WAV form or if desperate for a song MP3 320Kb might settle*

  21. #95
    Master Guru
    TDbank24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Age
    29
    Posts
    6,891
    Rep Power
    69
    Points
    39,244 (0 Banked)
    I don't think i'll ever change my stance on digital distribution. If i can buy a physical disc i will. If i'm forced to buy digital i might but once gaming goes full digital i really think i'm done. It's not like i don't have plenty of games to play already that will hold me over for years to come. I just hate the idea of going digital. I can't think of one benefit to it.


  22. #96
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TDbank24 View Post
    I don't think i'll ever change my stance on digital distribution. If i can buy a physical disc i will. If i'm forced to buy digital i might but once gaming goes full digital i really think i'm done. It's not like i don't have plenty of games to play already that will hold me over for years to come. I just hate the idea of going digital. I can't think of one benefit to it.
    you can't think of one benefit? i'm skeptical of your intentions.

  23. #97
    Apprentice

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    The state of Natural
    Posts
    185
    Rep Power
    16
    Points
    3,057 (0 Banked)
    I share the same thoughts, it is convenient but I just think that people are too focused on that and don't see the whole piece of the pie. There are cons with DD only. But I don't think the game industry is going to blow up as big as the movie industry so physical media will always be present as far as movies go. But then again the movie industry is older than the games industry so they might try to pioneer something with dd only or dd exclusives, but I just think its a bad idea when looking at the big picture. I say offer it if people show interest but don't force it, and don't make it the only way its going to be. It sort of started with DLC and look what happened with that. Now you buy less of a game, and now you are seeing more and more micro transactions. And yeah you can play your ps4 games on the go but now that I think about it holly $#@! Gamestop wants to start taking your finger print when you trade in a game....WTH?!! seriously? take a fingerprint? to trade in a game? Im about to just say forget the whole industry. why do we have to go through that crap just to do something as simple as just play a freaking video game? Well,,,good thing gamestop isn't the only game in town..maybe there's light at the end of the tunnel after all. so add that to a con with physical media, along with...picking up the box and taking the game out/putting it back in. But that really sucks about gamestop. I think in the last ten years ive traded 3 games in but still a lot of people cant afford all the games they want when they come out and that's just dumb to make them give a fingerprint like they did something wrong. I just seems off. very odd.


    Quote Originally Posted by TDbank24 View Post
    I don't think i'll ever change my stance on digital distribution. If i can buy a physical disc i will. If i'm forced to buy digital i might but once gaming goes full digital i really think i'm done. It's not like i don't have plenty of games to play already that will hold me over for years to come. I just hate the idea of going digital. I can't think of one benefit to it.
    Last edited by Disgustipated; 08-06-2014 at 07:28. Reason: i just thought of something!!!

  24. #98
    Administrator
    Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    PSN ID
    rokushakubo
    Posts
    12,932
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    6,813,331 (100,956 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Awards PSU+ Patriot
    Quote Originally Posted by TDbank24 View Post
    I don't think i'll ever change my stance on digital distribution. If i can buy a physical disc i will. If i'm forced to buy digital i might but once gaming goes full digital i really think i'm done. It's not like i don't have plenty of games to play already that will hold me over for years to come. I just hate the idea of going digital. I can't think of one benefit to it.
    No disc swapping and having access to your whole library via remote play are two benefits holding sway over me at the moment.

    As I said, I LOVE physical copies; dig up any of the old threads on the matter and you'll see me advocating it to the days, but tech has changed and now I can't see any benefit of physical copies in relation to how I consume games. I don't trade my games in so the trading issue is moot and they just take up space. We'll see though...I still haven't fully decided which avenue to take but its looking like DD may claim me this gen.

  25. #99
    Dedicated Member
    thanatos144's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Stuart, Florida, United States
    PSN ID
    thanatos144
    Posts
    1,167
    Rep Power
    13
    Points
    11,042 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
    No disc swapping and having access to your whole library via remote play are two benefits holding sway over me at the moment.

    As I said, I LOVE physical copies; dig up any of the old threads on the matter and you'll see me advocating it to the days, but tech has changed and now I can't see any benefit of physical copies in relation to how I consume games. I don't trade my games in so the trading issue is moot and they just take up space. We'll see though...I still haven't fully decided which avenue to take but its looking like DD may claim me this gen.
    Not all games remote play.
    141.12

  26. #100
    Dedicated Member
    thanatos144's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Stuart, Florida, United States
    PSN ID
    thanatos144
    Posts
    1,167
    Rep Power
    13
    Points
    11,042 (0 Banked)
    I am a physical guy. First because I dont like having to wait the download time to play a game and second because I do not trust that my game will always be there to download if something happens. They do not promise that it will be there. I am old enough to remember TV's before remotes so maybe I am just not so lazy that I can't get my fat ass up off my bed and change a disc. That convenience is not worth the retail price of a game that I dont physically own. Also I like the idea of being able to loan a game out or trade it in if I want...Though I never trade games seeing as you get $#@!ed when you do But I like having that option. Also it helps me NOT soaking up my HDD space. Why? with play as it installs I can always delete my game data and reinstall later this is a vast improvement over the PS3. Also believe it or not most broadband in this country has a limit to how much you can download before then choke it down and since games are so large now it is not worth the broadband width loss. I really do hope they never go digital only because that would just be a loss. It is like spitting in the eyes of the consumers by not giving them a choice.
    141.12

  27. Likes Ezekiel likes this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.