Who uses forums anymore?
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Also, to quote the Wikipedia article on mp3, "[the mp3 format] provides [...] audio data in a much smaller size by discarding portions that are considered less important to human hearing." Based on that, I'd say that un- and re-encoding them a few times won't make much difference because the losses fall outside the human hearing range.
[17:32:45] * xar sets mode: -oooooooooo algorithm ban chris cipher newby stdio TehUser tnarongi|away vursed warz[17:32:54] * xar sets mode: +o newby[17:32:58] <xar> new rule[17:33:02] <xar> me and newby rule all
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 30, 2008, 10:38:22 amI'd bet that you're currently bloated like a water ballon on a hot summer's day.That analogy doesn't even make sense. Why would a water balloon be especially bloated on a hot summer's day? For your sake, I hope there wasn't too much logic testing on your LSAT.
I'd bet that you're currently bloated like a water ballon on a hot summer's day.
a 320 FLAC is about the same size as a 128 mp3. Huge? I think not.
(22:15:39) Newby: it hurts to swallow
If you encoded it at a lower bitrate, wouldn't it become lossy? I thought FLAC was supposed to always be lossless, but I don't see how you can encode the same amount of data in less space after running out of entropy
What it has will be lossless, however it will have lost a bunch of data encoding it.Hence why you can have low quality FLAC songs.
But if you lose data, then it's not lossless. That's the definition of lossless!