Gallictic
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2011
- Posts
- 6
- Likes
- 0
Hi guys, I'm still trying to discover the various types of sounds and how they all work together on a whole so go easy on me.
Throughout my quest for knowledge, I've seen thousand and thousands of posts saying the lossless (FLAC) is the best way to go and we lose sound quality with lossy music ect ect.
My question is how is lossless better than lossy. This is not a debate about convenience or portability. I want to know why do we need to listen to something that extends beyond the human range of hearing frequencies (20 Hz - 20 kHz).
To my understanding, most high end lossy algorithms cut off frequencies that cannot be heard by humans (320kbps mp3 cuts off at around 20 kHz) .
Is that just wrong?
If its right then why do we need lossless if we cannot really hear the frequencies anyway and they are just taking up space? Am I just missing something here?
TL;DR
Why lossless over lossy when looking at frequencies?
Cheers!
PS: If you need clarification on what im asking then I'll be glad to clarify. I wrote this in a hurry.
Throughout my quest for knowledge, I've seen thousand and thousands of posts saying the lossless (FLAC) is the best way to go and we lose sound quality with lossy music ect ect.
My question is how is lossless better than lossy. This is not a debate about convenience or portability. I want to know why do we need to listen to something that extends beyond the human range of hearing frequencies (20 Hz - 20 kHz).
To my understanding, most high end lossy algorithms cut off frequencies that cannot be heard by humans (320kbps mp3 cuts off at around 20 kHz) .
Is that just wrong?
If its right then why do we need lossless if we cannot really hear the frequencies anyway and they are just taking up space? Am I just missing something here?
TL;DR
Why lossless over lossy when looking at frequencies?
Cheers!
PS: If you need clarification on what im asking then I'll be glad to clarify. I wrote this in a hurry.