Tekkie Quesion..
Posted: 25 Mar 2004, 17:02
Anyone...what is an .ape file?
I'm on soulseek browsing and have run across this type file.
Thanks
BP
I'm on soulseek browsing and have run across this type file.
Thanks
BP
Never use the words 'lossless' and 'compression' in the same sentence. Doesn't work....elguiri wrote:Its just a lossless form of music file compression as opposed to e.g MP3 , where you lose some of the sound spectrum and cant get it back once you uncompress the file.So it would make it a good choice for music files as you will always get the original sound , when restored.dont know the compression ratio to original file size though.
Using the internet:Black Planet wrote:Anyone...what is an .ape file?
I'm on soulseek browsing and have run across this type file.
Thanks
BP
Not necessarily: Zip compression usually squashes things to around 50% without any loss of data.Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Never use the words 'lossless' and 'compression' in the same sentence. Doesn't work....
If it DOES work, the ratio will be 1:1
Geeks.markfiend wrote:Not necessarily: Zip compression usually squashes things to around 50% without any loss of data.Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Never use the words 'lossless' and 'compression' in the same sentence. Doesn't work....
If it DOES work, the ratio will be 1:1
e.g. I've just tested on a .txt file: original size 1MB (1135310 bytes) zipped file size 472K (480581 bytes). 42.3% of original size and no data lost.
You're only jealousJohnny Boy wrote:Geeks.
Agree with ya on the TXT file, but that is because there is a lot of info in a TXT file that you can get rid of WITHOUT losing info (spaces, for instance), while with music, you can only try to compress when you have exact the same data on left and right channel...which is very rare. There are always very slight differences, and when you start compressing, you always have data loss, no matter what Monkey or others say...markfiend wrote:Not necessarily: Zip compression usually squashes things to around 50% without any loss of data.Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Never use the words 'lossless' and 'compression' in the same sentence. Doesn't work....
If it DOES work, the ratio will be 1:1
e.g. I've just tested on a .txt file: original size 1MB (1135310 bytes) zipped file size 472K (480581 bytes). 42.3% of original size and no data lost.