Talk:Audio compression

yes, it should ---

This page has nothing to do with speech compression.

There are two meanings to "audio compression", one of them level or loudness compression, i.e. dynamic range reduction, and the other bit rate reduction.

Speech compression is mostly different, in that audio compression uses sophisticated perceptual coding methods, and speech compression uses mostly least-mean-squares compression methods, which work well for speech because of the very limited gamut (mathematically speaking) involved in the spoken voice. Suggesting a merge is wrong on multiple counts, and would, frankly, constitute such a level of misinformation as to constitute vandalism in my opinion. Woodinville (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

^Agreed! I tried to change this earlier today simply to state "Audio Compression" is a term for compressing audio first and foremost, and the compression of adio data can also be called audio compression in layman's terms, but the way the wiki page has it, it reads as though "Audio Compression" is the main entry. This is absolutely unnecessary, and it re-writes standard usage. The reason I even came here to change it in the first place, is that i just watched a dosumentary on MP3 players that sited the terms wrong, and when I went to wiki to offer a reference [funny, isn't it?] I realized they had simply copy and pasted the wrong usage from here. i simply changed it to INCLUDE "audio compression" on the DRC page and i was rudely scolded and the entry removed by a previous author and basically told to get lost if I wasn't going to "learn how we do it here". Very Troll like and territorial. Worse than vandalism, elitism. To treat me like that when I am a professional audio engineer for 30 years making a very simple and quite obvious correct addition, is simply not in anyone's interest. When wikipedia starts letting common usage slip because we have trolls that are territorial over these pages, then what is the point? I fully believe in peer review, but some guy claiming to be an expert that sits HERE all day watching over his pride and joy, is NOT peer review. He also deleted some VERY ACCURATE additions to the description of the MP3 format, which were otherwise incomplete, and are now how he had it before. He didn't even add any of the details I included, even though ALL of them were very concise, accurate and well phrased. This is simply spite. He said "please don't come and change things based on personal opinion without citations like you did in the DNR page ..." He did not add "neds citation", he did not cite any of his own additions, he simply walked all over me and told me to get lost. Nepotistic, elitist and quite dysfunctional. My first offering of help to this project, adding much needed detail to his incomplete and thus incorrect entry, but it gets abused like that. I'll go back to being an actual studio engineer with a life. It seems this topic is just being roosted by a territorial admin that doesn't know all the things they claim to. Good luck with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.45.209 (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)