I don't think you guys should worry too much about messing up old decoders,
but no matter what you choose to do FLAC MUST REMAIN LOSSLESS.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM, wrote:
> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Worl
Marcus Johnson wrote:
> I don't think you guys should worry too much about messing up old decoders,
What about the hardware decoders?
> but no matter what you choose to do FLAC MUST REMAIN LOSSLESS.
That has always been and will remain goal #1 for FLAC.
Erik
--
---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15.03.2013 12:09, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Marcus Johnson wrote:
>> but no matter what you choose to do FLAC MUST REMAIN LOSSLESS.
>
> That has always been and will remain goal #1 for FLAC.
FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, so "lossy F
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:42:10PM +0400, lrn1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> That said, "L" could also stand for "Lossy". Should have named it
> "FLLAC" - "LL" for "Loss-Less".
But anyone who knows the difference between lossy and lossless will know
which one the L in FLAC stands for.
Everyone else ca
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 03:22:24AM -0400, bumblebritche...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I don't think you guys should worry too much about messing up old decoders,
Old decoders are everywhere, and not always easy to update or replace.
For example: DVD players, in-car audio servers, broadcast facilities.
