Previous Page | Next Page

by starerik at 2:32 PM EST on January 1, 2015
How would a digital file degrade in quality over time? Am I misunderstanding something here?
by TheUltimateKoopa at 3:03 PM EST on January 1, 2015
Here's a poor representation of what is meant.

Let's say FLAC has has a 100% quality, and outputs at 100% quality. Convert a FLAC to FLAC (which is obviously lossless), it's 100% of the 100% quality kept, which is 100%. Do this again, and it's still 100%.

But, what if you was to convert that a lossy format (like MP3) reduces the quality by about 2%?
Convert to MP3 = 98%
2nd conversion = 96%, then 94%, 92%, 90% ... and so on. After 100 conversions of the same file to MP3, the quality would be just 14% of what it was for the original file.

Of course, these aren't actual values, it's more of a relative thing. The point being "quality is lost after every conversion". Even if it's slight. If the quality loss is just 0.1%, then after 1000 conversions, the quality is equal to 0.999^1000 which is 37% (0.37).
by Stilt Village at 4:25 PM EST on January 1, 2015
MurraySkull, yeah, I figured that because they were used in the pre-rendered videos they would be unavailable. Contained in the same file or something like that.

The level results is the only one I'm confused about, since the K-temple level results theme is there.

Glad to hear that the start-up music is at least possible to get. By the way, if anyone has the game and wants to hear it all the way to the end, a guy at DK Vine found out that you can just eject the disc and it will keep playing.

edited 9:33 PM EST January 1, 2015

edited 9:34 PM EST January 1, 2015
by RebeccaSugar at 5:17 PM EST on January 1, 2015
So, basically- it degrades /only/ after a conversion to any format, unless the original format is lossless itself, I.E you convert an .mp3 to wav and it degrades in quality a little bit?

As in, you convert an .m4a to .mp3 and it degrades a bit as well, yet if you convert .wav to .flac it doesn't lose quality.

Correct?


I'm still learning here.



by nothingtosay at 6:12 PM EST on January 1, 2015
Yes, that's correct. There's some old copypasta that occasionally shows up on the Internet about MP3s degrading in quality over time while sitting on your hard drive, but it's totally untrue. I assume it was intended as a joke, but you never know with the magical, idiotic things some people believe about audio. The point of lossless compression is to archive without quality loss from the source, but it can add no quality to something whose source is lossy. And so bxaimc thinks it's a bad idea to convert game music streams to FLAC since they're almost invariably lossy in the first place.
by Kurausukun at 2:59 AM EST on January 2, 2015
No, that's not correct. If you convert anything to a .wav or any other lossless or uncompressed format, there will be no quality loss whatsoever--the sound data will be exactly the same as the original file. The only way to degrade quality is to convert something to a lossy format; if you convert a .flac file to a .mp3 file, for instance, it will lose quality; if you convert that .mp3 file into another lossy format, like .idsp, let's say, the quality will degrade even further. It's called lossless because it doesn't affect the audio quality.
by marcusss at 4:51 AM EST on January 2, 2015
Also should you convert mp3 or any other lossy audio back to wav and then from wav to flac it won't magically sound better either :P

As long as wav is from a lossless source it should retiain its quality when encoded into another lossless source like ape, flac m4a (lossless). m4a can be lossy as well by the way starik like in itunes. Same goes for aac etc..

edited 9:59 AM EST January 2, 2015
by nothingtosay at 5:51 AM EST on January 2, 2015
Oh yeah, sorry, when I said "that's correct" I was saying that to the second part of what RebeccaSugar said, not the first paragraph. MP3 to WAV has no quality loss, didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying it did.
by RebeccaSugar at 12:46 PM EST on January 2, 2015
Awesome!

Thanks for the quick lesson!
by TheUltimateKoopa at 2:44 PM EST on January 2, 2015
I do hate it (read: find it unnecessary and pointless) when people simply take a 128 kbps MP3, convert to FLAC and act like it's better quality.

Also, simply taking a 32000 Hz audio and just making it 44100 Hz, doesn't improve the quality, it'll still sound like 32000 Hz, right? If anything, won't it sound worse? Since the factor is precisely 441/320, that means there'll be 1.378125 samples in the 48000 Hz file for each sample of the 32000 Hz file... which is.... nonsense, IMO.

Previous Page | Next Page
Go to Page 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Search this thread

Show all threads

Reply to this thread:

User Name Tags:

bold: [b]bold[/b]
italics: [i]italics[/i]
emphasis: [em]emphasis[/em]
underline: [u]underline[/u]
small: [small]small[/small]
Link: [url=http://www.google.com]Link[/url]

[img=https://www.hcs64.com/images/mm1.png]
Password
Subject
Message

HCS Forum Index
Halley's Comet Software
forum source
Generated in 0.0126s;