> > > FLAC has a minor compression but not as much as MP3s. Much much much better than > > MP3, > > > that's for sure. > > > WAV -> around 1400 kbps > > > FLAC -> between 950 kbps and 1100 kbps (depends on the encoder choices) > > > > This is like comparing jpeg and png. > > > > MP3 is a lossy compression which means it doesn't contain all the data of the > > original file. While FLAC is eeer... name is speaking for itself: Free Lossless > Audio > > Codec... Free Lossless... Lossless... Think about a zip file! you can go from raw > to > > zipped and back from zipped to raw without any data being loss. This is what > lossless > > means. > > It'll still be somewhat smaller than a WAV file. Complex songs do make large FLACs, > but for simple sample stuff, there won't really be much of a difference. > > Plus remember, MAME, hard drive, impunity, etcetera.
Sure. I do not contest that point. I made that post because he seemed to confuse compression of data on one hand, and data preservation on the other hand. These two concepts are independent.
|