Originally posted by microcode
View Post
The job of lossy compressor is not to DISCARD data, but to encode at a given bitrate. You can discard inaudible data WITHOUT compressing anything so does it mean that would also be a lossy compressor? Really?
Its quality depends on how it achieves that, and yes usually it discards inaudible data for quality, but that is to fulfill its goal, it is NOT THE GOAL, it's a means to an end.
Originally posted by microcode
View Post
We have two codecs: Foo and Bar. We compress some signal, both at 256kbps. Their job is to discard inaudible data, right?
Foo discards all inaudible data.
Bar discards less inaudible data, because it has less redundancy in its algorithms and encodings -- it's simply "better" at encoding the same information.
Which codec is better?
According to YOU, Foo is superior, since well, the job is to discard inaudible data, and Foo does that and discards MORE DATA than Bar. Which is obviously wrong.
Now replace Foo with mp3, and Bar with AAC and we suddenly turned this into reality.
Tell me again how mp3 is superior to AAC because, obviously, discarding data is the goal of a lossy codec so mp3 is simply the best lossy codec!
Originally posted by microcode
View Post
Originally posted by microcode
View Post
So Opus is worse since it discards less bandwidth.
Your logic, not mine.
Originally posted by microcode
View Post
Originally posted by microcode
View Post
I did say, however, that AAC is better than Opus, at least at high bitrates (i.e. 256kbps or more). Opus is obviously king at low bitrates, but I don't care about that.
tl;dr: the job of a lossy codec is to encode at a given bitrate. How it achieves that (by discarding inaudible data) is NOT the job or goal, it's simply a means to an end.
Comment