this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
522 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
62073 readers
4762 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would say its more like 60hz refresh vs 90. The difference isn't super huge but when you notice it, you can't un-notice it, so it's almost better to stay ignorant to it. You still get the same core information, but god damn if 90hz/FLAC isn't smoother
Mp3's just don't sound good to me. It's a very old format that was pretty much the first of it's kind. Audio compression (while I don't like it) has improved greatly over the years. I saw another user bring up OGG OPUS and it's really impressive what it can do. I was able to compress a song to fit on a floppy disk while still being listenable. It kind of sucks that formats like mp3 and jpg are the standard when open formats that are major improvements over older formats fail to recieve significant adoption. AAC 320 is the 60/90 difference to me. I was shocked how close a 320 kbps m4a file is to CD quality flac.
I personally enjoy PNG image format for my compressed web images, but I'll be damned if JPG isn't "good enough" while also being magnitudes smaller, especially when I have to start embedding things as base64 encoded text in outlook and teams at work, or when I don't want my screenshots folder at home taking 2TB of disk space (Spectacle can change image format).
PNG is really designed for images that are either flat color or use an ordered dither. I mean, we do use it for photographs because it's everywhere and lossless, but it was never really intended to compress photographs well.
There are formats that do aim for that, like lossless JPEG and one of the WebP variants.
TIFF also has some utility in that it's got some sort of hierarchical variant that's useful for efficiently dealing with extremely-large images, where software that deals with most other formats really falls over.
But none of those are as universally-available.
Also, I suppose that if you have a PNG image, you know that -- well, absent something like color reduction -- it was losslessly-compressed, whereas all of the above have lossless and lossy variants.
JPG is absolutly fine for web based images. I was thinking more of jpeg-xl. Smaller files size and identical quality to jpeg. Also it supports lossless too. WebP is also good but I don't like that it's developed by Google.