173.193.202.116
This Post Has Been Edited by the Author
In Reply to: RE: Sorry, wrong nomenclature posted by Charles Hansen on June 06, 2017 at 22:19:11
You might also find amusing some brief back and forth on the SOS forum,
between the author Hugh Robjons and readers. Compare his approach with the evangelical tone stuck here by Sphile staff. Quite a stark comparison. Kind of reminds of the difference between the research and sell side on Wall St.
Hugh Robjohns:
"I read a whinging article from someone who works for Linn Records about it the other day, basically complaining that it was a money-making machine, extracting royalties and licensing fees from almost every step of the chain, from music producer, through distributor and on to end consumer.
That's certainly true -- but that's what businesses try to do! The music industry is on its uppers and this is a scheme which is trying to find a new source of revenue."
Comment:
Why work with lossy, proprietary formats at all?
HR:
"Ideally it would not be a proprietary format, but they have invested money developing the technology and they wouldn't have done so without expecting a return."
Reader:
"Why work with lossy, proprietary formats at all?"
HR:
"It is certainly proprietary, and that obviously brings 'issues' of the viability of widespread support. But I think calling it 'lossy' is misleading. All of the actual audio information is stored loss-lessly. The only lossy aspect is employed in reducing the sample rate for rates over 96kHz.
I detect some scepticism for the format... and I can understand that! I'm less than convinced that it will become a mainstream format, despite the interesting technical aspects that underpin it"
Reader:
"This format has not been shown to sound better in any meaningful or statistically significant way."
HR:
"Can't argue with that..."
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2017, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Take5 ]