2
I see a "lossless format" like FLAC defined often as one in which there is no loss of quality compared to the source file from which it was converted.
But does that mean that the original quality is (at least theoretically) accessed when the lossless audio file is played or just when it is re-converted (restored) to the original format?
(Or is it some difference there between lossless formats from this point of view?)
5
Just like all compressed files, it needs to be uncompressed to be used.
The only difference with lossless compression is that the compression/uncompression process does not "lose" values to make the file lighter.
This means that the algorithm is able to get back all the original information from the compressed files.
For example in audio, mp3 codec will ignore some frequencies (the ones not audible) and only pick some measures of the original signal.
The result is that you lose some information when you play this kind of file.
nex84
Posted 2016-02-23T12:51:28.857
Reputation: 603
2
But does that mean that the original quality is (at least theoretically) accessed when the lossless audio file is played or just when it is re-converted (restored) to the original format?
There is no difference between the two. In order to play back the audio the data must be uncompressed before it is sent to your audio card. Exactly the same happens when you convert it back to the original format. The resulting bits and bytes are the same.
JvO
Posted 2016-02-23T12:51:28.857
Reputation: 883
I understand the difference between the two different ways (lossy vs lossless) of getting a smaller file. I was thinking that maybe uncompressing might take too much time etc. Your statement that all compressed files need to be uncompressed to be used clarifies things for me. – None – 2016-02-23T14:01:15.790