James Haigh <[email protected]> > Note that 50% is silly, lossless compression is asymptotic. I 2nd Martin, > once you have high-density entropy, there's little more 'air' to > squeeze-out. 10-20% would be worth it if it helps adoption, although it's > worth studying how close we already are to the asymptote of entropy. How > much would be saved? How long would it take? Is it really worth it?
There is more to compression than simple compression. Are there any other features that are missing from FLAC? I am thinking, here, about JPEG 2000. The increase in compression over JPEG (1992) is quite modest. What sells the format is other features such as combining lossy and lossless in a single standard (by flipping the wavelet), Region of Interest to store different parts of the same picture at different qualities, the ability to send a lossy image first and then progressively refine it until it is lossless, etc. Direct audio analogies of these features don't seem appealing, but is there something else? Dennis has suggested 32-bit float audio. As this is becoming popular in production, accommodating it would aid convenience. > Can wavelets be applied to lossless sound compression? I've seen that > they're used for JPEG 2000, Dirac, and was planned for Tarkin, all of which > image compression standards. But what about audio? Good question. Provided the expectation is an improvement of only 10% to 20% then this would be a useful research exercise. Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
