Author Topic: MO4, instead of MO3 (lossless) ?  (Read 10681 times)

Lau

  • Guest
MO4, instead of MO3 (lossless) ?
« on: 14 Jan '06 - 17:48 »

Zarggg

  • Posts: 1242
Re: MO4, instead of MO3 (lossless) ?
« Reply #1 on: 17 Jan '06 - 23:13 »
MO3 already has a lossless option.

Lau

  • Guest
Re: MO4, instead of MO3 (lossless) ?
« Reply #2 on: 18 Jan '06 - 21:53 »
Yes, but it is far better than delta compression. MPEG4 ALS is the result of years of effort by compression experts.

Dotpitch

  • Posts: 2871
Re: MO4, instead of MO3 (lossless) ?
« Reply #3 on: 18 Jan '06 - 22:28 »
Would it make that big a difference when compressing short samples of a single instrument, and would the extra compression justify the integration of yet another decoder in the mo3-decoder?
http://www.un4seen.com/forum/?topic=4172.0

Lau

  • Guest
Re: MO4, instead of MO3 (lossless) ?
« Reply #4 on: 20 Jan '06 - 09:55 »
Would it make that big a difference when compressing short samples of a single instrument,

or big sample of many instruments ?  ;)

and would the extra compression justify the integration of yet another decoder in the mo3-decoder?
http://www.un4seen.com/forum/?topic=4172.0

raina

  • Posts: 1163
Re: MO4, instead of MO3 (lossless) ?
« Reply #5 on: 20 Jan '06 - 10:14 »
Would it make that big a difference when compressing short samples of a single instrument,

or big sample of many instruments ?  ;)

and would the extra compression justify the integration of yet another decoder in the mo3-decoder?
http://www.un4seen.com/forum/?topic=4172.0

That's some nice quoting right there. Make a comparison whydontcha, and we'll see if it would be worth it.