antilogoboss

1. Mr Big Lossless Machine

.Lossless and lossy compression are terms that describe whether or not, in the of a file, all original data can be recovered when the file is uncompressed. With lossless compression, every single bit of data that was originally in the file remains after the file is uncompressed. All of the information is completely restored. This is generally the technique of choice for text or spreadsheet files, where losing words or financial data could pose a problem. The Graphics Interchange File is an image format used on the Web that provides lossless compression. On the other hand, lossy compression reduces a file by permanently eliminating certain information, especially redundant information. When the file is uncompressed, only a part of the original information is still there (although the user may not notice it).

Lossy compression is generally used for video and sound, where a certain amount of information loss will not be detected by most users. The image file, commonly used for photographs and other complex still images on the Web, is an image that has lossy compression.

Using JPEG compression, the creator can decide how much loss to introduce and make a trade-off between file size and image quality. To be fair you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most jokes will go over the typical viewers head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volta literature, for instance.

The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny - they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots-of course they wouldn't appreciate for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase 'Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,' which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagine one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. How I pity them. And yes by the way I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo.

Mr Big Lossless Machine

And no you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) before hand. Add My Comment.

It took a long time for me to work up any enthusiasm for the original digital consumer format, the CD. Coming from an all-analog perspective, first-generation CDs and CD players in the early 1980s didn't light my fire. The problem wasn't that they sounded 'bad,' it was that CDs robbed music of its soul and emotional connections. LPs' sound engaged you; the CD's sound was too easy to ignore. People put music on, and started reading, talking, working, anything but actually listening to music.That's why I waited six years to buy my first player, when the players and discs were much improved. Mind you, CDs were from the get-go uncompressed digital, but that didn't help matters.

Six years later the CD was the same as it ever was, but the analog-to-digital converters used in recording/mastering, and the CD players' digital-to-analog converters were much improved. That's where most of sound improvements came from.

The CD, the original uncompressed consumer digital format.Steve GuttenbergBy the early 1990s recording engineers and producers' aesthetic had evolved; they learned how to get the best sound out of digital. CDs were sounding good; not the same as analog, not by a long shot, but the CD was good enough to be embraced by the majority of audiophiles.By the early 2000s the started to erode digital's quality gains. The CD format was still unchanged, but the record companies were determined to crush the soft-to-loud dynamic range of live music down to almost nothing, so the sound was 'loud' all the time.

Dynamic range compression was all the rage, but the CD format's data was uncompressed.In other words, while the format was the same as it ever was, the music's soft-to-loud dynamics were smashed flat before they were encoded to the disc. So by the time people were bemoaning the nasty sound of lossy MP3s, the recordings' sound quality was already compromised.

And if anything, it's even worse now. If the original recording sounds bad, the potentially better-sounding release formats-CD, FLAC, and LP-can't sound any better.When the record companies again allow engineers and producers to make the best-sounding records they can, we might start to really hear great sound. But listening to a recording as a FLAC or Apple Lossless file can't undo dynamic range compression or overzealous equalization. Sure, some good-sounding recordings are still being made, but the overall quality levels are low.So while lossless audio compression (FLAC or Apple Lossless for example) can be 'expanded' to produce an exact digital duplicate of the original audio stream, that's not necessarily the same thing as sounding exactly like an uncompressed WAV file or a CD. To my ears lossless files add a glare or edge to the music and flatten the soundstage. Please don't misunderstand, I think FLAC or Apple Lossless sound perfectly fine, just not on par with a CD, when played on a high-end audio system.