Aceticon
My point being that unlike the misunderstanding (or maybe just mis-explanation) of many here, even a digital audio format which is technically named “lossless” still has losses compared to the analog original and there is no way around it (you can reduce the losses with a higher sampling rate and more bits per sample, but never eliminate it because the conversion to digital is a quantization of an infinite precision input).
“Losslessness” in a digital audio stream is about the integrity of the digital data itself, not about the digital audio stream being a perfect reproduction of the original soundwaves. With my mobile phone I can produce at home a 16 bit PCM @ 44.7 kHz (same quality as a CD) recording of the ambient sounds and if I store it as an uncompressed raw PCM file (or a Wav file, which is the same data plus some headers for ease of use) it’s technically deemed “lossless” whilst being a shit reproduction of the ambient sounds at my place because the capture process distorted the signal (shitty shit small microphone) and lost information (the quantization by the ADC in the mobile phone, even if it’s a good one, which is doubtful).
So maybe, just maybe, some “audiophiles” do notice the difference. I don’t really know for sure but I certainly won’t dismiss their point about the imperfect results of the end-to-process, with the argument that because after digitalization the digital audio data has been kept stored in a lossless format like FLAC or even raw PCM, then the whole thing is lossless.
One of my backgrounds is Digital Systems in Electronics Engineering, which means I also got to learn (way back in the days of CDs) how the whole process end to end works and why, so most of the comments here talking about the full end-to-end audio capture and reproduction process (which is what a non-techie “audiophile” would be commenting about) not being lossy because the digital audio data handling is “lossless”, just sounds to me like the Dunning-Krugger Effect in action.
People here are being confidently incorrect about the confident incorrection of some guy on the Internet, which is pretty ironic.
PS: Note that with high enough sampling rates and bits per sample you can make it so precise that the quantization error is smaller that the actual noise in the original analog input, which de facto is equivalent to no losses in the amplitude domain and so far into the high frequencies in the time domain that no human could possibly hear it, and if the resulting data is stored in a lossless format you could claim that the end-to-end process is lossless (well, ish - the capture of the audio itself into an analog signal itself has distortions and introduces errors, as does the reproduction at the other end), but that’s something quite different from claiming that merely because the audio data is stored in a “lossless” format it yields a signal as good as the original.
Strictly speaking, as soon as an analog signal is quantized into digital samples there is loss, both in the amplitude domain (a value of infinite precision is turned into a value that must fit in a specific number of bits, hence of finited precision) and on the time domain (digitalization samples the analog input at specific time intervals, whilst the analog input itself is a continuous wave).
That said, whether that is noticeable if the sampling rate and bits per sample are high enough is a whole different thing.
Ultra high frequency sounds might be missing or mangled at a 44.7 kHz sampling rather (a pretty standard one and used in CDs) but that should only be noticeable to people who can hear sounds above 22.35kHz (who are rare since people usually only hear sounds up to around 20kHz, the oldest the person the worse it gets) and maybe a sharp ear can spot the error in sampling at 24 bit, even though its miniscule (1/2^24 of the sampling range assuming the sampling has a linear distribution of values) but its quite unlikely.
That said, some kinds of trickery and processing used to make “more sound” (in the sense of how most people perceive the sound quality rather than strictly measured in Phsysics terms) fit in fewer bits or fewer samples per second in a way that most people don’t notice might be noticeable for some people.
Remember most of what we use now is anchored in work done way back when every byte counted, so a lot of the choices were dictated by things like “fit an LP as unencoded audio files - quite luterallyplain PCM, same as in Wav files - on the available data space of a CD” so it’s not going to be ultra high quality fit for the people at the upper ends of human sound perception.
All this to say that FLAC encoded audio files do have losses versus analog, not because of the encoding itself but because Analog to Digital conversion is by its own nature a process were precision is lost even if done without any extra audio or data handling process that might distort the audio samples even further, plus generally the whole thing is done at sampling rates and data precision’s fit for the average human rather than people at the upper end of the sound perception range.
Yeah, but the way things are going soon it will be cheaper to buy a B-52 to live in than a house.
By that definition all “Industrial Associations” would not be capitalist.
Personally I would be wary of telling people they should trust the words of the spokespersons of most of them.
There are more than one way in which the elites and near-elites organise to advance their interests and IMHO The Guardian is very much The Voice Of The English Upper Middle Class.
The Guardian absolutely is capitalist (neoliberal, even). Just go check back on their campaign against Corbyn (a leftwinger who won the Labour Party leadership from the New Labpour neoliberals some years ago) which included such memorable pieces of slander like calling a Jewish Holocaust Survivor an anti-semite because of him in a conference about Palestine comparing some of the actions of the government of Israel with those of the Nazis, this done in order to slander Corbyn by association since he was in the same panel in that conference.
Also you can merely go back a few months to see how The Guardian supported Israel well into their Genocide (though they seem to have stop doing it quite as eagerly in the last few months).
Last but not least they very openly support in British elections the Liberal Democrats (who are neoliberals) and the New Labour faction of the Labour Party (also neoliberals) and very often have pro-privatisation articles on UK subjects and are never for bringing things back into public ownership even when privatisation has failed miserable to give better services or lower prices.
I lived in Britain for over a decade and read The Guardian for most of it, so maybe The Guardian’s political slant is clearer for those familiar with British Politics.
I do agree on The Intercept and Democracy Now! though.
Can’t really speak for the others with any knowledge.
Whilst that is indeed true for the population in general, politicians are a bunch of people self-selected on being the kind who wants power.
That kind of personality is generally less trustworthy (and more on the sociopath side of the spectrum) than the general population.
There’s actually a study published ages ago in the Harvard Business review about corporate CEOs (so, not politicians but in many ways similar) which found that the ones who got the job not because they sought it but because of other reasons (for example, the CEO died and they were the next in line) actually performed better (as measured by the performance of the companies they led compared to the rest of their industry) than CEOs who had sought that position and, even more interestingly, the most self-celebrating showoff CEOs were the worst performing of all (from my own participation with politics I would say those would be the closest in personality to top politicians).
Further, there are various pretty old sayings (back from the time of the Ancient Greeks and the Romans) about the best person to get a leadership position being the one who doesn’t want a leadership position.
So I would say that most politicians in parties with higher chances of getting power (so, in most countries, the two largest parties) are crooked (not specifically corruption - such as getting money to pass certain laws of using certain companies for government contracts - but more generally using power, privileged information, influence and connections to benefit themselves even to the detriment of those who voted for them: a good example of crookedness but not corruption is how some US Congressmen use insider information they get in some Congressional Committees to profit in stock market trading).
As a person who actually lived in the UK and read The Guardian for maybe a decade, in my opinion it’s a neoliberal propaganda outlet and it’s definitely (not just opinion, actual fact) pretty much just maned (last I checked all journalists but 2) by people from a high upper middle class and upper class background (what in the UK is called “Public School Educated”, which curiously doesn’t mean a State School, it means an expensive private school).
All you have to do is look back at the Snowden Leaks - The Guardian did leak the Snowden information but not soon after the Newspaper Editor there who was part of it got kicked out and the coverage of it changed 180 degrees, to the point that whilst the UK Government was busy retroactively making legal all that eavesdropping (unlike the US, were some of it was rolled back) The Guardian was mute about it.
(Whilst I believe The Guardian had genuine Leftwing and pro-Democracy journalists - and last I checked, it still has two of them - they’re the exception rather than the rule as the natural tendency of both its Board and most of its staff is Neoliberalism in very much the same vein as the NYT as well as massivelly pro-System - with their coverage of The Royals being fawning to the point of servilism - which is why the Editor who published Snowden got kicked out as soon as the focus on it moved out)
It also has had some real extreme Fashion-following Upper Class Identity Warrior articles over the years, like the one from a self-proclaimed Feminist criticizing men who use sex dolls (I! Kid! You! Not!) totally oblivious to how her article was in exactly the same pattern as used a decade or two earlier to criticize homosexuality.
Last but not least (I have material here to go all day, but lets not) don’t get me started on how they were a massive part of the campaign to slander Corbyn (a leftwinger who some years ago got elected leader of the Labour party, taking it of the hands of the Neoliberals who led it for 2 decades), a campaign which overwhelmingly relied on anti-semitism accusations, done together with UK based Israeli-linked Jewish groups and which was so ridiculous that they literally accused a Jewish Holocaust Survivor of being anti-semite for comparing some of the actions of Israel with those of the Nazis (this was some years ago) and thus taint Corbyn by association as they were both on the same panel in a conference.
(The present day Zionist Genocide and the use of such anti-semitism accusations to slander critics of their mass murder, really gives us some perspective on the true nature of such slander and those who use it. The anti-Corbyn campaign on which The Guardian so eagerly participated was very much an early trial run of the use by Israel - with again The Guardian eagerly participating, though they’ve stopped it after a while - of such Identity Politics to shore up support for and deflect criticism of their Genocide)
They’re slippery posh twats at The Guardian who don’t just straightforward lie like populists do and instead use cherry-picking, half-truths and other deceit techniques in their “opinion making” (some of their journalists have openly admitted that their work is making opinion), basically like the New York Times but with the benefits of a more elegant style of dialectics, argument building and word usage that comes for having had a posh education at so-called Public Schools.
The UK NHI doesn’t work well because the neoliberal parties in successive governments (both the Tories and New Labour) have been defunding it so that they can - like Thatcher did with the railways - once its quality has fallen due to lack of funds claim that it’s bad because of Public management whilst it would be much better if it was Private because the Private Sector is much more competent, and privatise it.
Just like the US has fatcats that are perfectly happy to mass murder people for personal profit, so does the UK (and the British Political System is almost as bad as the American, so it’s definitelly sold to the highest bidder) and plenty of those jhave wet dreams of the country having 13% of its GDP flowing through a Private Healthcare sector like the US were they can make billions of pounds doing exactly the same as the fatcats do in US Healthcare.
Source: I lived in Britain for over a decade.
By the way, you “read that the UK NHI doesn’t work very well” is exactly because the UK media is overwhelmingly owned by tax avoiding billionaires who are part of the above mentioned fatcats who see themselves as profiting massivelly from Britain having a Healthcare System like the US. It’s not by chance that the level of trust of Britons in their Press is one of the lowest in Europe.
The exact same kind of tactics were deployed by Tatcher back when she wanted to privatise the Railways with the result that satisfaction with the Railway system in the UK is now even lower than when there was a public operator even after Thatcher defunded it to claim “Public is Bad, Private is Good” to amass enough public support to privatise it.