Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
-a horrid green start screen that looks like it aimed at 4 year olds
- to get to the desktop you click a f##king button
- the start button takes you back to that horrid screen
utter tulip
So they've reinvented Bob again and forgotten all the lessons from 16 years ago.
-a horrid green start screen that looks like it aimed at 4 year olds
- to get to the desktop you click a f##king button
- the start button takes you back to that horrid screen
I was under the impression that uncompressed and lossless compression result in the exact same quality when played back, as the lossless compression results in the same file as uncompressed (hence the name 'lossless') when decompressed for playback.
This is correct. It should be bit for bit identical.
I was under the impression that uncompressed and lossless compression result in the exact same quality when played back, as the lossless compression results in the same file as uncompressed (hence the name 'lossless') when decompressed for playback.
The following article seems to support that assumption (though not read every single word), but are you saying CD quality is better than lossless compression such as FLAC?
Another point that seems relevant is that tests show that human hearing can't really distinguish differences in quality above 320kbps for MP3 and many can't tell significant differences at much lower bitrates:
It may be cheap but it's inconvenient when it gets full and you have to upgrade or get extra ones.
You don't store video uncompressed...
Yes but my ears are better than my eyes. Oh and if your server is running anything decent (like unraid) adding more hard disk space simply requires buying a bigger disk or three.
It may be cheap but it's inconvenient when it gets full and you have to upgrade or get extra ones.
You don't store video uncompressed...
Video and audio are two different things obviously, if you want quality audio then store uncompressed or get to be an old fart and not be able to tell the difference.
Best idea. CDs can be ripped (for free and legally) at better quality than MP3 (e.g. FLAC or Apple Lossless) so worth having as a baseline for anything that emerges to replace MP3.
Why rip to any compressed format lossless or otherwise? Storage is cheap, don't compromise.
Just installed it in a VM, Virtualbox on me Mac, what a POS, Win7 with Apple IOS stylee add ons, M$ well playing catchup here and miles off the beat...
Just installed it in a VM, Virtualbox on me Mac, what a POS, Win7 with Apple IOS stylee add ons, M$ well playing catchup here and miles off the beat...
Leave a comment: