Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@InfinityHell666 says : There's a ton that you missed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_file_format>> <<@Florianski says : The Opus Codec is truly magical. You can encode with around 100-120 kb/s and it sounds absolutely undistinguishable from the lossless source file, even if you listen on high end audio gear.>> <<@SteepSix says : I have no issue with 320kbps MP3 and my audio collection is mostly just that. Lately tho I've been considering M4A and FLAC as I do detect a quality difference - however small... Truly tho it really has always come down to convenience; What will play on anything? MP3 for audio, and now MP4 for video, has become a universal standard... You can confidently give either of those file types to literally anyone and know they will work whatever device they're using to access them. This consideration has always come a very close second to quality, and has sometimes overtaken it.>> <<@suchyraz says : 😁>> <<@CaptainDangeax says : The most important thing is, can my player play the file? The common is mp3. So all my playlist is mp3>> <<@2handsome398 says : I use Flac for archiving cds, MP3 for everyday use, and Opus for speech heavy things like audiobooks.>> <<@emuhill says : I went with TTA for lossless audio. It produces some what smaller files than FLAC. Although it probably doesn't have much of a future.>> <<@tommik1283 says : The worst format ever has to be Monkey's Audio. Ridiculously slow codec, so inefficient. Thanks god is more or less dead today... Long live FLAC!>> <<@radornkeldam says : Lossless audio formats aren't really about "sound quality". They just compress the original digital audio signal so that, when decoded, the output stream (be it PCM, DSD or whatever), is bit for bit identical to the input. Of course this implies perfect quality as there won't be any difference between the losslessly compressed file and the original uncompressed stream. But when testing the results of lossless compression, you don't go and listen to the file to check it's "quality", but, instead, you just use a binary comparison tool on the decoded streams, similarly to how you can diff any file. There's no high or low quality when it comes to lossless codecs. They either are lossless or they are not, in which case they fail in doing their job. A single inaudible 1-bit difference in the least significant part of one sample means it's not lossless and thus, it fails. Lossy codecs, on the other hand, are the ones concerned with "sound quality", as they are modeled and their encoders tuned to satisfy human perception in a number of ways, and the extra data they can shave off compared to lossless compression is based on working with the shortcomings of human hearing. They are PERCEPTUAL, and the way you assess their "quality" is indeed with by listening with your ears (or those of experienced listeners, for that matter). There are two aims here. The highest possible goal of a lossy codec is complete transparency, meaning that a human hearer should be unable to PERCEIVE any difference between the original signal and the lossily compressed one even in a double blind (ABX) listening test under ideal circumstances (quiet room, no external noise, good audio equipment, trained ear...). This may be achieved with a well designed format and a well tuned encoder provided with enough bitrate to do it's job. In practice this doesn't affect the average music listener, so for lower bitrates the goal is usually not total transparency, but achieving enough fidelity for a wide range of audio signal types (speech, music, AV soundtracks, etc) and music genres (rock, classic, electronic, etc...) in a way that, although may fail to achieve complete transparency, at least won't be too obvious or annoying to the listener, like introducing flagrant artifacts or muffling the sound too much, etc. So there's not just quality levels, but quality types, the highest being complete transparency and then, under that, a range of levels of transparency and pleasantness.>> <<@radornkeldam says : I don't think FLAC was initially released by the Xiph Foundation, but, rather, it was first released independently, and, later, the project was adopted by Xiph and they took over maintaining it. I certainly remember using FLAC before it became part of Xiph, and later seeing the anouncement about it becoming so.>> <<@lap456 says : Just saw the video; I didn't konw you looked at video codecs and files alreday. I must have missed that video since it was mixed in with over 100 more not let wathced videos. The Blu-ray video on DVD-R thing I give is do that iade of codecs not always fiting the file types. Hif is like jpeg but holds more photo data. Dot CDA is just what computers show ecah track on an Audio CD since Audio CDs have no ture file system. CD-Rs have an file system used by the burner to keep track of where the data goes on the disk. This is how the Sony Palystation konws an boot laged game is trying to ran. Since the CD-R disk is missing the codec that the Palystation looks for.>> <<@Foysalispbroadbandmetrowifi says : I am using FL STUDIO and PC 192KHz for my Music Studio, Layer 6 Audio presentation layer. Also this Linux RHEL 192KHz Audio, Thank you so much.>> <<@lap456 says : Yuo may what to do one of video formats since riping an Blu-ray Video disk with Make MKV is alot like riping an Audio CD with an app like ITunes. Also trying to paly an AVI file coded in Divx using an tool that dosen't understand Divx has no iead on what to do. It's kind of like burning an DVD-R in format used on Blu-ray Video disks. Only an Blu-ray player cound read that disk eventhough it's an DVD.>> <<@allhailalona says : excellent vidoe! thank you! I must say I was under the impression that .opus was the best of the best... But I think I'll simply use mp3 from now on...>> <<@devarionarias says : This video is a great explanation of how all these file formats work and what they are. I've been working with many of them for years and still learned a couple of new things. Thanks, Chris!>> <<@TrizziEhgan says : Most streaming/delivery: MP3 & AAC Apple Music, Deezer & Qobuz: Huh?>> <<@rfvtgbzhn says : 5:21 that sounds like it was originally created for OS/2.>> <<@rfvtgbzhn says : Bit depths above 16 bits are just a waste of space for a finished audio file. 65,536 levels is already way more than what the human ear can distinguish.>> <<@rfvtgbzhn says : When I got my 1st computer, everything was just wav. Simple times.>> <<@robumf says : What most people don't consider is the quality of the speakers that is being use If you using pore speakers like what was being used on transistor radios and many cheap electronics. Surprisingly you can get by at 32 kbs. After realize the simplest DVD has register and you can apply math, including a random generator As an experience I place 25 hours of music on a 8mb DVD brought the video to 1mbs except for menus for video and using MPEG-2 48kh.>> <<@thomasbates110 says : While the content is obviously a grown up level of complexity, these videos give me a strong vibe of sitting cross legged on a primary school carpet watching a video tape on a crt tv on a trolley. It feels nostalgic and I love it>> <<@Jonius says : Also didn't cover CBR and VBR for bitrate, but I guess that's not a file format thing>> <<@Lothyde says : Mp3 shouldn't be alive today, it's obsolete. The quality of mp3 at 320kbps is comparable to Opus at 160kbps.>> <<@Souls4Roca says : Chris... serious question, did you stop aging like 10 years ago?>> <<@themrflibbleuk says : Good info. However I’ve been triggered by Kbps, what’s Kelvin (temperature) got to do with anything?>> <<@vampire9545 says : Funny saying flack but not wave 😆>> <<@morn14150 says : this video is very educational, thank you :)>> <<@rtx2080ubermacht says : my dude got 1M views? last time i watched u were 2k and never thought u would grow honestly. keep up. love the nerdy vibes>> <<@asificam1 says : I like FLACs so that I can recreate my CDs if needed, this is handy so I can compress them into any lossy format that may come or be needed for any device with only 1 generation of loss rather than say going from an MP3 to an OGG Vorbiz or OPUS and getting more losses.>> <<@crylune says : The difference between something like MP3 and FLAC is very audible... on good equipment. If your headphones have the tonal balance of a drunkard and are as resolving as dumping your head into water, of course you won't hear any difference. Hell, you don't need to spend thousands on audiophile gear to hear it. A $300 Sundara or Sennheiser HD 600 is enough to open your eyes and ears.>> <<@crylune says : FLAC & WAV my beloved.>> <<@morejelloplease says : Youtube audio is pretty good, when you goto the artist "topic" page, they are usually wav files straight from the artist/record label. HOWEVER, when compared to a CD, the CD wins hands down, every time.>> <<@omnicolor573 says : Neat>> <<@raphaelvilleneuve9162 says : Wonderfully instructive video!>> <<@ultralaggerREV1 says : Hear me out. Whether it’s .wav or .mp3 or whatever, I can’t even tell the difference with quality, the audio sounds the same>> <<@theonewhostonks says : thanks! learned a lot>> <<@pepe6666 says : thats a great overview. very well put together and very clear. cleared the fog quite a bit. thanks for putting MQA as proprietary and lossy. its turned out to be a scam. it uses the least significant bits to encode FFT of high frequencies. thats its thing. but its got distortion and its 'authenticated' light doesnt do anything & neither does its quality assurance stuff. also the mp3 thing we can tell the difference even if we're old, because mp3 encodes a primitive representation of the frequencies, not just shave off the high frequencies. when ya know what to look for ya can hear it cos it still distorts the low frequencies.>> <<@imoutodaisuki says : MP3 can die. I've done testing myself and OPUS is hands down one of the best lossy compression available. Smaller file size, and crazy good transparency. You need to use extremely low bitrate to make it sounds trash. Much much lower than the MP3.>> <<@MrSparkefrostie says : Only thing i would like to add was variable data rates (i only remember this on mp3) and was usually to my ear better than the full 320 as it would not introduce a static sound during quiter parts of a song>> <<@SakuraHougetsu28 says : Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us, I recently started my journey as an anime video encoder but wasn't really sure which audio codec to use, you helped me to clear my questions>> <<@markridlen4380 says : I highly recommend a video called "Digital Audio Show and Tell" by Monty Montgomery. I think everyone should watch it. I watch it about once per year to refresh my knowledge.>> <<@JimJWalker says : I believe it was around 2012 that I officially left 44.1K and moved to 48K in music production (24bit of course). Disk space being a non-factor, and the death of CDs being the big reasons. Plus, music usually ends up to video at some point. 44.1K just doesn't make sense in 2024.>> <<@pawełsegrawgry says : piano2.ogg>> <<@Azdingue says : Thanks for the amazing video and explanation ❤>> <<@belphegor_dev says : There are zero reasons to not use lossless these days. Storage is cheap and so is fast Internet.>> <<@mavromatis says : I think WavPack was from 1988 and not 1988. That would be way too early for such kind of release :D>> <<@SASTSimon says : I use aac for music i download and flac for music i make>> <<@Lukilliano says : I'd be interrested in a algorithm comparison of a few of these, you could do that with explanations, compress-decompress and then compare the waveform or possibly even analysis of the raw data of the compressed files and seeing what edits do to a decompressed sound>> <<@superkaboose1066 says : Very well said, thanks>> <<@Nitsu29 says : Opus my beloved>>