iTunes 3

[AK-47]

Originally posted by Somebody


So why don't you go do that? If you're capable of doing it, shouldn't you be putting up? And if you're not capable of doing it, then how can you know that what you want is possible and that lack of will is the reason it isn't happening?

Well, first of all. I am not in a financial position to invest the time necessary to fully develop this type of method, and to be quite honest, I don't have a whole lot of intrest in doing so. I suppose lack of ambition is a big part of me not doing more research and devolepment.
And how I know that what I want is possible, is because I am a physicist, and I have a very good understanding of physical propertys, and mathematical equations, and this is mainly what these sorts of things consist of. There are certain laws involved that can't be bent, or broken. I'm sorry that I am no authority on teaching, and that it's difficult for me to put it in to words that the average person would understand. It would be possible for me to explain, but it would take a great deal of time longer than what I am willing to spend on this subject. This has already gone way beyond what I originally intended. Besides it is pointless for me to argue this anyway, because time will give the argument for me. Those of you who are into computers, and keep up to date on new technology, will see soon enough that much better compression methods will be created. There are new methods in the works as I speak.
I would suggest that you surf the web and read up on some of the research and development that is currently in progress. I think that you will be surprised with the direction that they are going, and how far along they already are.

 

[vixapphire]

Originally posted by AK-47



Well, first of all. I am not in a financial position to invest the time necessary to fully develop this type of method, and to be quite honest, I don't have a whole lot of intrest in doing so. I suppose lack of ambition is a big part of me not doing more research and devolepment.
And how I know that what I want is possible, is because I am a physicist, and I have a very good understanding of physical propertys, and mathematical equations, and this is mainly what these sorts of things consist of. There are certain laws involved that can't be bent, or broken. I'm sorry that I am no authority on teaching, and that it's difficult for me to put it in to words that the average person would understand. It would be possible for me to explain, but it would take a great deal of time longer than what I am willing to spend on this subject. This has already gone way beyond what I originally intended. Besides it is pointless for me to argue this anyway, because time will give the argument for me. Those of you who are into computers, and keep up to date on new technology, will see soon enough that much better compression methods will be created. There are new methods in the works as I speak.
I would suggest that you surf the web and read up on some of the research and development that is currently in progress. I think that you will be surprised with the direction that they are going, and how far along they already are.

um, i think that what you are saying in this post, i.e. new methods are currently under development, rings differently than the tone of your earlier posts, in which your words implied that someone could/ought to have come up with these new methods already, like, yesterday. in your current post, you seem to have backed off of that argument, since you are conceding that the development of newer, better methods requires substantial investment of time and money, coupled, of course, with the experience and knowledge developed up to that point. obviously, no one is going to disagree with that. but i don't think it's surprising that many readers found your earlier statements a little odd, if not strangely arrogant. but i'm not one to deny anyone their opinions!

 

[AK-47]

Originally posted by vixapphire


um, i think that what you are saying in this post, i.e. new methods are currently under development, rings differently than the tone of your earlier posts

I'm sorry, but I havn't backed off of my earlier statement. I still stand behind it 100 percent. I, myself am not a multi billion dollar sofware develepment corporation, with a team of hundreds of engineers, and developers. There for, I am in just a little bit different of a situation than they are. They should have developed better compression methods (yesterday). And there is a difference between somthing that is being researched, and is in the development stage. that somthing that has already been developed. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[vixapphire]

Originally posted by AK-47



I'm sorry, but I havn't backed off of my earlier statement. I still stand behind it 100 percent. I, myself am not a multi billion dollar sofware develepment corporation. There for, I am in just a little bit differnt of a situation than they are. They should have developed better compression methods (yesterday)

looking at things in that way, why haven't those "multi billion dollar corporations" (oh no! not the "evil corporations" again!) released to the public the technology for teleportation and cars that perform like a corvette but run on electricity... or even water, and emit no pollution (air, noise or other)! hmmm... i'm not sure i'm buying your argument for the simple reason that, if it were possible - i.e., if someone had the goods or the ingredients to create the goods so easily, and creating those goods was their business, the market advantages to be gained by going for it and developing and marketing as quickly as possible the goods would outweigh any nefarious schemes to hold their boot on the neck of human technological progress. could you imagine: they could take all their earnings and buy television commercials with which to promulgate their evil ideas and brainwash the masses, enslaving them with the comforts of modern living!

I just don't think that people - particularly those people that form and grow businesses into multi billion corporations (esp. corporations that are publicly held) - are irrational in the way your theory appears to require them to be. i'll only mention the word "enron" here to cite the fairly obvious point that it and its ilk were essentially criminal enterprises, in the same way that ivan boesky etc. were in the 80's, and they are anomalous in our economy. perhaps your theory more accurately represents how technological development might have worked in monopolist/command & control economies like the soviet union and eastern europe before the fall of communism, but to follow it seems like a recipe for mediocrity and/or outright failure in a competitive market economy like america's. remind me why any crackerjack engineer would want to stay at a mediocre company that would bury his/her innovative work, rather than go to (or form) a company that would bring that work to market faster, generating more profit for the engineer and the company?

 

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by AK-47



Well, first of all. I am not in a financial position to invest the time necessary to fully develop this type of method, and to be quite honest, I don't have a whole lot of intrest in doing so. I suppose lack of ambition is a big part of me not doing more research and devolepment.
And how I know that what I want is possible, is because I am a physicist, and I have a very good understanding of physical propertys, and mathematical equations, and this is mainly what these sorts of things consist of. There are certain laws involved that can't be bent, or broken. I'm sorry that I am no authority on teaching, and that it's difficult for me to put it in to words that the average person would understand. It would be possible for me to explain, but it would take a great deal of time longer than what I am willing to spend on this subject. This has already gone way beyond what I originally intended. Besides it is pointless for me to argue this anyway, because time will give the argument for me. Those of you who are into computers, and keep up to date on new technology, will see soon enough that much better compression methods will be created. There are new methods in the works as I speak.
I would suggest that you surf the web and read up on some of the research and development that is currently in progress. I think that you will be surprised with the direction that they are going, and how far along they already are.

Gimme a break. This is asinine. How did we get to this fluff?
First it was argued that MP3 to AAC would not see a degradation in quality. It will.

Second you argued that the digital artifacting of going from one codec to another was the fault of the original codec programmers. But, as I pointed out above, the amount of information that would need to be embedded into a compressed file to prevent artifacting is larger than the original gains of compression... who would do that?

Thirdly you argue that it is a matter of computer power. But artifacting is not a result of the limits of computing power. It is a basic fact of all lossy compression schemes. All of them. Inherently.

And Lastly you claim that these magical codecs are already being developed. This is plain BS.

Lets be real specific here. According to you there is a developer somewhere who is working on a codec which will allow you to take a source file and run multiple iterations of encoding/deconding on it with no artifacting whatsoever?

I looked on google for such a codec but was unable to find any information on it. Perhaps your "very good understanding of physical propertys[sic], and mathematical equations" will enable you to get google to pull up some information that this "average person" was unable to find. If so, could you please post this information here.

Thank you.