Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The quality is dogshit though.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It sounds the same

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You might have ear-aids.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

WHAT

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

AAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just upsample it before playback then

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:pe#pojam:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Smart.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

for the compression rate it offers the quality is great. the first few iterations of mp3 weren't that great either. the quality of this approach will keep improving. but encoding/decoding requires a lot of resources and the model is ~300MB. whether it makes sense depends on the application. e.g. if you're storing a a million hours of audio recordings from court sessions or interviews, the quality is good enough at 6 kb/s (that's bits, not bytes. 64kb/s for comparable m4a) you now only need 3TB storage instead of 30TB.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's fair but it's not gonna save space on my phone right this second so I'm going to discard it snobbishly regardless :!marseyindignant:.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.