• macniel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Not the one you are arguing with, but at which sampling rate and resolution did you rip your CD(44,1 kHz and 16 bit)? Just because it’s a WAV files doesn’t mean it’s a one to one copy.

    • can@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Okay fair point, but if you rip at 44.1 kHz and 16 bit audio is it not the same file?

      Edit: and either way, wouldn’t it still be lossless.

      • ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        There’s a technical loss going from an analog to digital format just because of the fact that it’s a sampling of the sound wave. Similar to why Pi has no end and you could never calculate the exact measure of a circle, it can get as close as necessary for human consumption, but will never be the pure wave form. Thing is that even an analog format like vinyl isn’t a guaranteed perfect recreation just because of micro changes created any number of things that could cause a cutting head to be just a fraction out of line with the original.

        What’s absurd about the whole argument is this notion that if you take a bit perfect copy of something and duplicate it that somehow inherently something is lost. Somewhat interesting way to consider it, we as living beings do that whole code duplication thing countless times a day just by cellular division as part of living, and for the most part it works without a hitch even without the error correcting code that computer systems have. With digital replication at least it’s simple enough to say that sequence A equals sequence B, therefore they are identical.