Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Click here to return to the 'Surprised no one has replied to this…' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Surprised no one has replied to this…
Authored by: brainzelda on Feb 08, '06 12:30:22PM

That's exactly the point. When the aac was first ripped at wherever Apple rips its music, it used an algorithm(codec) to compress the cd to aac. That in itself result in quality loss because the algorithm inherently removes data from the original wave. That's why an aac is much smaller than the original wave. When you burn that aac to a cd and rip it again, it loses even MORE data since youre using a similar algorithm again. The original data lost is not recoverable. Everytime you rerip you're losing more and more data. That's why people try to stay away from reencodes of files already encoded in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Surprised no one has replied to this…
Authored by: el bid on Feb 10, '06 01:44:57AM

This is strictly accurate, but the argument against recompression is easily overstated.

Audio compression systems combine lossless compression with psychoacoustic compression. For present purposes we can ignore the lossless element. The psychoacoustic compression is carried out differently with different compression systems, but is essentially based on the same set of rules derived from our understanding of how the human ear hears. Eg, ignore all data above such and such a frequency. Eliminate data for particular frequencies occurring at the same time as other particular frequencies, because they'll be masked anyway. And so on.

AAC -> WAV/AIFF incurs no loss -- we're simply expanding the compressed data

WAV/AIFF -> MP3 will technically lose data, but (providing the squash isn't too tight) will mostly be throwing away data that isn't there anyway, because it's operating by much the same filter/masking rules as the original AAC compression.

el bid

[ Reply to This | # ]