• Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    They’re deemed “lossless” because there are no data losses - the word actually comes from the broader domain of data handling, specifically Compression were for certain things - like images, audio and video - there are compression algorithms that lose some information (lossy) and those which don’t (lossless), for example JPEG vs PNG.

    However data integrity is not at all what your average “audiophile” would be talking about when they say there are audio losses, so when commenting on what an non-techie “audiophile” wrote people here used that “losslessness” from the data domain to make claims in a context which is broader that merelly the area were the problem of data integrity applies and were it’s insuficient to disprove the claims of said “audiophile”.

    • black0ut@pawb.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      By your definition, PNG isn’t lossless because it’s not an exact representation of every single photon of a picture that was taken. You’d need infinity pixels in order to be completely faithful to the “analog” thing that you’re trying to picture, in the same way you’d need infinity points to completely translate an analog wave to digital.

      When you compress anything with FLAC, you will get the exact same thing you compressed out, so there is no data loss.

      Of course, that wave which you compress will not be faithful to the analog thing, but that’s just a limitation of digital computers.

      • Krudler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Not really infinite points since energy is quantized. In a crazy particle physics sense analogue data is effectively the same as digital, when resolutions match.

    • Krudler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Fake it 'till you make it is not applicable to scientific or technical discussions.