I think the design of some lossless encoders was based on lossy ones - oddly. Basically do a lossy encoding, then find the differences between the original and the reconstructed versions - then find a way to encode all of that in an efficient way.
The overall result is usually a significant compression compared with PCM encoding or typical CD encoding. There might be more processing required for FLAC or similar lossless encodings than PCM. An assumption nowadays is that processors are fast enough, and also that memory is now a lot cheaper than in previous years.
Of course digital compression in this sense is not the same as dynamic compression - which often renders even tolerable recordings totally lifeless.
The overall result is usually a significant compression compared with PCM encoding or typical CD encoding. There might be more processing required for FLAC or similar lossless encodings than PCM. An assumption nowadays is that processors are fast enough, and also that memory is now a lot cheaper than in previous years.
Of course digital compression in this sense is not the same as dynamic compression - which often renders even tolerable recordings totally lifeless.
Comment