home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!stuartw
- Newsgroups: rec.audio
- Subject: Re: Compressed audio better than noncompressed?
- Message-ID: <1992Jul27.003939.1881@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>
- From: stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford)
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:39:39 GMT
- References: <1992Jul20.155356.12452@phillip.edu.au><1992Jul24.074842.15614@lugb.latrobe.ed
- u.au> <22742@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <MONTA.92Jul24121920@image.mit.edu>
- Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.
- Lines: 30
-
- monta@image.mit.edu (Peter Monta) writes:
-
- >In article <22742@oasys.dt.navy.mil> curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch) writes:
-
- >> My guess is that you can probably do something like 8:1 loss free
- >> compression on CD's but designing and building the hardware to do this
- >> in real time is currently too expensive.
-
- >If you really mean "loss free", i.e., the original 16-bit data is
- >reproduced, then this is impossible. Any audio recording on CD has
- >an entropy larger than 2 bits/sample.
-
- why?? ( no, really, I would like to hear you're reason... )
-
- >> ... As I understand it, both the DCC and MD compression algorithms
- >> eliminate some sounds based on the human ears ability to here them
- >> because of masking effects.
- >> ...
- >> So, I'm just wondering when people will start claiming that
- >> compressed audio sounds better than non-compressed becauses
- >> it has been purified?
-
- >Enhancement isn't the goal of these algorithms; they attempt to
- >minimize the loudness of quantization noise, so to the extent that
- >the compressed audio is indistinguishable from the non-compressed,
- >these algorithms are good. Enhancement/restoration is an interesting
- >topic, but it's separate from source coding.
-
- >Peter Monta monta@image.mit.edu
- >MIT Advanced Television Research Program
-