really? i don't know why but when you see him in videos with all his qwerks he almost seems like he would be inept at pretty much anything, example of not judging a book by its cover i guess?
@@mdask4810 Lossy compression works by discarding data and lossless compression works by grouping data instead of letting them be like that, expect it like JPEG and PNG, and for uncompressed, expect it like BMP
You idiot peace of shit, go see a doctor, what kind of stupid thing is human ear can't hear 30 fps. Really, i mean 30 fps and human ear. Its not 30 fps but 24 fps cinematic audio
The reason for the 44.1kHz CD sampling rate was due to the digital recording technology available at the time that CD was being established. At that time, digital recorders were expensive. However, a more affordable method was to convert the digital signal into a video signal and record that on video tape. Mathematically, a 44.1kHz sampling rate works out evenly when you record the signal as PAL (if it had been NTSC it would have been 44.05kHz).
Not even close lol. I mean unless you are strictly analog and occasional 2.8224MHz 1Bit listener (DSD) just pashing sample rates that every human can hear and then some.
AAC should be standard rather than mp3 if it offers higher quality at lower bitrate. In a lot of cases, it would result in smaller filesize while maintaining similar or higher quality than its mp3 counterpart.
It's probably based around an algorithm that cuts out less data, so even if it's better quality at a lower bitrate the relative size will be about the same. That said mp3 is shit, it's popular becouse it was already popular and majority of people listen to music on a 2 dollar headphones and don't even know the difference between sound file formats. If you do have like a entry level auudiphile sound system you should be able to tell about 7-8/10 sound formats of your music just by listening.
*No* lossy format should be standard. Why would you want the standard for audio files to sound like shit? I understand the need for lossy formats like MP3... *Twenty Years Ago* ... There is no need for crap formats like that these days when storage space is so inexpensive. The standard should be lossless. FLAC for those that want small file size. WAV for original content.
@@janX9 I have a FLAC album that is 500mb, I have the same album on 320kbps MP3 and it is 49mb....with a 1tb hard drive dedicated to only music I could store 2,000 FLAC albums or 20,000 MP3 albums...alot of people have data caps, either on their phone or ISP...if you were to stream your home library...it's much less efficient to stream FLAC, or even download FLAC....It's the same reason I have a 4k tv but stream netflix in 1080p...people have different internet speeds and hard drive space...having options is always better than limiting things to the superior format.
Next step above 320kbps -> is 420 kps Ogg vorbis anyway but then you have to a cd - ripper that still support the format. For me it was the lowest I could get so sound reminded of cd quality but if the recording has been already pro -acc and loudnessed then the effort is futile and you can actaully hear no differeence in 320 kbps mp3 . One such ablant cd is Agneta Fälskogs A cd which is done in ACC i presume and any ripping get you the cd sound even at low bitrate.
Mine are whatever format and all vinyl dont say much since the might be cheap so the just relese the acc-pro version or loudnesswar cd version on vinyl.. good vinyl is vinyl before year 1992 when they decided to on purpose kill vinylrecords.
Agreed mine are also whatever format I just thought I would add that for comedic effect. I generally try to get whatever file was as close to the original mastering if I can sometimes a 320kbps mp3 sometimes a FLAC or WAV file, or sometimes vinyl. Your opinion is much appreciated thank you!
I just posted a comment about that. They rick rolled us again... Also, FiiO is releasing a 3rd gen of the X3 and it should be in stores in the next week or 2 as they get to retailers. Not to sound like an ad, but I might buy one. The audio from my S5 absolutely sucks.
JEdit23 yeah it's fiio x1 ..I have the same black..I use them with fiio ex1 earphones and it's heaven in my ears. Fiio us definitely one of the best brands for audiophiles out there.
I have been playing clarinet for 10 years and I am currently getting a degree in music. Listening to music and training my ears is kind of my job and something I love to do regardless of having to do it for school. I will go to the far corners of the internet if it means finding high quality FLAC files of music I am looking for, because even though I use an iPhone (which cannot officially use FLAC even though iOS 11 technically supports it and will play it if you use a workaround), it means I have archives and am future proofing. I personally, even with my trained ear, cannot necessarily discern a difference between a FLAC file and the same track converted to a 320Kbps MP3. My high-quality Sennheiser headphones plugged into my Marantz receiver helps a lot with making nitpicks, but considering I do most of my music listening in the car over Bluetooth or CarPlay anyway, it makes absolutely no difference to me. HOWEVER, I check to make sure my music is not peaking (distorting at certain points) before converting. In my experience, even music I have ripped off of CDs myself using Exact Audio Copy have points where they peak. So, when I am converting to MP3, I am not just making the file smaller to more conveniently fit on my phone, I am also making it the way I want using a lossless version as a base so I am not making edits to something that has already lost data. I may not be able to tell the difference between FLAC and 320Kbps MP3, but I can tell the difference between 320Kbps and 128Kbps. You may not be able to tell and that's okay; it doesn't mean you have a bad taste in music or anything like that--your ears are probably just not as trained as others who are musically trained or listen to music as a hardcore hobby (or you use crappy Apple headphones. Stop that). Also, in the future, who knows if MP3 will be relevant anymore? Maybe FLAC will become a relevant format for the general public, or maybe a better format than MP3 will get into the mainstream--who knows. As long as I have a collection of lossless music, I can convert it to essentially whatever I want.
I'm a 16 year old tubist, and I have to say that when it comes to differentiating between audio files I'm pretty good. Listening to high quality audio through high quality headphones sounds amazing, but it makes it harder to notice the difference in audio quality. Listening through my shoddy razer headset however, really showcases the difference. It doesn't sound better. They sound bad, but it becomes was easier to tell because the high quality audio tends to sound worse because the headphones try to process all the information and they just can't. But I'd rather not be able to tell the difference than hate the experience.
So true. Just to add, AC3 is also about to expire ... if I'm not mistaken the last patent will expire within maybe 2-3 months. Also, kinda sucks that Opus wasn't mentioned (lossy codec better than all three lossy codecs mentioned)
No, they did not do proper research. The MP3 patent owners terminated patents on April: www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audiocodecs/mp3.html This www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_MP3_MPEG-2_H_264/ was around for a while now, this www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/16/mp3_dies_nobody_noticed/ was published 5 days before video posting,
I'm glad this video exists. Ever since the introduction of MP3 to the market, it has turned music quality into garbage. And I was even more sad when I was hearing radio stations actually play mp3 files like if the FM interference was not bad enough.. smh! If any of you have ever heard a low bitrate MP3 through surround sound speakers will understand that the sound instead of having a nice smooth reverb, it sounds all gibberish and noisy. Especially when listening to music with crisp high hats like Metal or Rock music. Mp3, lacks quality in that regard although I must say, using a proper encoder, sometimes it's hard to distinguish between 320kbps Mp3 or WAV / FLAC. But from a producer standpoint when using effects and what not, Mp3 or other lossy formats should be avoided at all costs. Mp3 is the equivalent to JPG whereas FLAC / WAV is the equivalent to PNG / BMP. I can understand back in the day when memory was low and expensive, it was a viable option to store music in mp3 or other lossy format, but nowadays with Terrabyte hard drives, MP3 should be dead. I am currently trying to locate every single song I ever downloaded in FLAC or WAV for optimum sound reproduction.
@@mglzyn Lol. Renaming an mp3 to wav and expecting a change in quality is like renaming an Indian woman to Samantha and expecting her to be American. That’s not how it works. Once a file is in mp3, the quality will always be mp3. It’s like taking a beautiful clean sheet of paper (wav), and crumble it up (mp3). No matter how much you try to smooth out the creases, the paper will never be as smooth.
@@Bassotronics one more question, so does this mean the only perfect quality audio files of a song would be the original .wav version? any other ones have been compressed?
I already replied to a comment with most of this info, but I also wanted to put it here. As an (self-claimed and poor) audio enthusiast, IMO the main reason to have lossless music is to have the freedom to convert it to the lossy file type of your choice. By storing a lossless version of your music, it's basically an archive providing you much more flexibility. I convert my FLAC collection to 96kbps Opus for my phone, since it saves so much space it's insane (and I can't really hear a difference honestly), but I can also convert it to v0 MP3 for players which don't support Opus, while avoiding generation loss. While this technique calls for more "stationary" storage (obviously because I'm storing lossless files), it let's me put so much more music in a 64GB microSD than 320kbps MP3 could ever, while, like I already said, avoiding generation loss from converting one lossy codec to another. Also, Android natively supports Opus files with the "ogg" extention since Android 6, so even better. This also allows for a "future-proofing" of your collection. You may be using MP3 now, but what about the future? A different codec may be the industry standard (hopefully Opus lol), in which case you'll have to convert to it. Over time, another codec may pop up, and you'll have to convert once again. The effect of the generation loss will stack, and you're left with an artifact-ridden music file after several rounds of conversions. Lossless files avoid this by being, well, lossless. No matter how many codecs become the new standard, we can convert right from the source audio, therefore preserving the quality as long as we keep the lossless file. And if new lossless codecs become the standard, well...that's too easy. So yeah, for me the main reason for me to have my collection in lossless isn't for the improvement in quality. Seriously, I even ABXed 96kbps Opus against FLAC and couldn't hear the difference (I hope it's because I have untrained ears rather than bad hearing D:). But it's because of the archival concept and it's ability of allowing more format flexibility.
Cak3Lies no offense, but you probably have either a very entry level audio set-up or bad hearing. it's common to not be able to distinguish between flac and lossy at high bit rates, but not at 96khz
You mean kbps? KHz is something completely different. Anyways, I know that in most lossy formats 96kbps is audibly different, but have you listened to Opus at this bitrate? It blew me away the first time I listened to it. Opus shines in the lower bitrates, which is why my MP3 V1 colection has been replaced with it. If you want to hear it for yourself, I can upload some comparisons if you'd like.
Cak3Lies Removing parts of music (or applying lossy compression to it) results in moving the listener less. I haven't ever teared up over any "emotional" songs encoded in lossy formats, but I have over those encoded in FLAC. FLAC for direct playback today, tomorrow, and the future!
I have some input: For very low bitrate audio, I recommend using opus (with .ogg container), it sounds MUCH better than AAC at bitrates around or below 64kbits/s. In fact, the audio is listenable all the way down to 16kbps!
flac for storing the music long term, convert into whatever file format your player requires. Nothing sounds as bad as multiple lossy compression algorithms applied after each other…
Tbh the biggest different I feel between lossy and lossless music is it seems the instruments are played apart on different tracks in perfekt harmony and not just put into the same lane into eachother
You missed Opus. This is the most used audio format. Even now the sound from this video is compressed in Opus. Opus is the best lossy audio format. It is used in VP9, AV1 videos. Also in almost all VOIP apps.
Always love how flac retards leave out the compression. Even funnier Mp3,flac,lossy/lossless are the same at any bitrate, they arint the original. bitrate isnt the same a bits . uncompressed wav playback is 1440MBps( 1400 MBps = 1400 Megabytes =11200000 Kbps flac/mp3 you need this bitrate to match the original) quality is pointless a 900kps lossless compressed flac has 1% of the songs data.
AAC is still best for lossy audio - It depends on person (kids can hear above 16KHz but older people cant hear 15KHz) - Maybe Bone Conduction is solution to restore hear at 16KHz)
It's not like there is any useful information up that high. It's such a low level, having to travel through air. To the microphone, then from a speaker to an ear. And it's not like the sounds up that high are at loud levels right at their source.
How much difference is there in 320 kbps MP3 & AAC? I didn't notice anything when I compared the same song in both formats, although 128 kbps is significantly poorer than 320 kbps
@@nachiketpargaonkar8646 I think aac preforms better at lower bit rates. I use 160k for music and they sound great on a $200 pair of Sony earbuds(wf-sp800n) and 2 JBL partybox 100 speakers
@@psp420bam That is possible since AAC is considered lossless format & converting 320 kbps to 128 kbps involves much compression, the dynamic range reduces. Maybe the high quality earphones/headphones differentiate better in these.
>Be me. >Watching vid. >Enjoying audio file shenanigans. >Suddenly hear fans ramping up on the computer. >wft.jpeg >Open Task manager. >Google/RUclips using %54 of 4 core 3.9 Ghz processor. >Look at RUclips vids. >See 4k on the settings button. >Look at my screen. >Look at 4k button. >Mfw I only have a 1080p monitor. >Thanks RUclips for trying to burn up my computer and reminding me I am a mid-tier peasant.
Allehandroh DeLarge In the 4chan community, the more chins you have, the higher rank is bestowed upon you by your peers, so I thank you for your compliment. ;)
256 Kbps MP3 for convenience whether I'm out driving somewhere or at home but, every so often, I like to sit down and have a more active listening experience with my cassettes and vinyl. It's less an "audiophile" thing and more just harmless nostalgia that helps me relax.
"Their library is full of 128 kbps rips from RUclips" 😫 ughhh, I felt thaaaaat. Thanks for the video. I had a basic understanding of mp3, wav, and lossy and lossless files, but I did not know everything that you talked about. ^_^
RUclips uses aac at 128 kb. If you download from this site use this preset to avoid conversion and make your music sound worse... or download from those polish flac libraries lol, they have everything mainstream
I love listening to FLAC, even though I can't hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 320 or 256. It adds that extra excitement and speciality when I know that's I'm listening to lossless audio 😋
I can hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 audio format. I've tested many times between FLAC and MP3. FLAC audio are more clear and sharp also you can hear everything including small instrument clearly like hihat, cymbal, snare etc. I had to admit myself that FLAC are better than MP3!
J L No, there are! I wouldn't care what people say about audio format include you and I only choose the best audio format and suitable for me. Higher quality more better! 😏
@J L It also depends how you listen. They can be very hard to distinguish even on a high end set of speakers, but a pair of high end headphones definitely allow you to hear the subtle differences. Sennheiser HD650s are very revealing.
I used to do WMA lossless. Glad I did, knowing I lost nothing switching to FLAC. That's another huge advantage to storing your audio lossless. Flexibility.
.WAV - preserves nearly all of the quality as lossless. Great for music editing in precise manners. .MP3 - sacrifices original quality but saves lots of space(around 1/3 of the original file.) .FLAC & .ALAC - ALAC is for Apple. .FLAC is identical, but is more compatible and uses algorithms to predict sounds, therefore reducing file size with lossless quality. .AAC - What .OGG - ???? Linus doesnt even pronounce how its spelled. 👍 hopefully i took allot out of this video lil
MP3 compresses more than just 1/3 of the original file. The maximum bitrate of MP3 is 320 kbps. A CD quality WAV file is 1411 kbps. 320/1411 = 0,23 less, than 1/4. But if you use different bitrates (e.g. 256 or 192) you can save even more space. If you use a good MP3 encoder (e.g. LAME), then you are unlikely to hear any difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and the original WAV.
AAC stands for Advanced Audio Coding. At the same bitrate it gives better quality than MP3. iTunes offers music in AAC format. It is put into an MP4 container, so generally has the extension M4A.
.wav preserves "nearly" all of the quality? No, it preserves 100% of the data it is given. If there is ANY data loss, it happened before the final conversion/exportation to WAV.
Im glad that quality is consistently moving up because anything below really high resolution mp3 files sounds like ass with some headphones good enough to reproduce those details.
There are some stores like acoustic sounds that offer FLAC files straight from the master (so basically anything from 41khz, 16bit all the way up to 96khz, 24bit in my experience), but in most uses, FLAC is used to convert CD quality audio (41khz, 16bit) to a smaller filesize. So basically, each album on your HDD isn't 700mb but more like 450mb (depends on the track contents.) Audio enthusiasts do this not only to save space (removing redundant data, as stated in this video) but it also keeps all the original audio there from the CD. Also, FLAC is very popular on many pirate sites, hence its free codec status.
Quick additional Info to aac - there is an "sub-format" called stems by "native instruments". It saves the song with normal aac BUT in 4x stereo for each instrument (drums, bass, synth/guitar, vocals/fx). Main usage is djaying - but in comes incredible close to flac/wav/aiff in my a-b tests.
Regardless of what audio format is best, your ears are the best judge, I for one have a damn good ear and I can always tell if a song sounds like shit or not regardless of whether it's MP3 or WAV or whatever, don't put all your faith in the audio formats of your choice but put the faith in the listening experience with headphones on.
This video combines good information, with a very nice presentation, those guys linustech are funny and tells you everything that you need without wasting your time or boring you with no sense information.
I generally don't find a ton of difference b/w 320kbps MP3s and 1411kbps FLAC, so I choose the former b/c I'm anyway going to listen to music on my phone. P.S. 128kbps MP3s are an abomination that shouldn't exist.
Ive always been able to tell the difference in sound of a raw wav file (CD) and a compressed audio format.. Even with a very old cd player.. Yet, 320kb mp3 its just great and convenient..
@@masterlee1988 Its difficult to tell the difference, for me at least, between something 256kbps & up, BUT i agree all mp3 should AT LEAST be ripped in 320 or up, just not 128. Then again 128kbps is always better than nothing, ya know?
@@E-087 At the moment, Opus takes the cake for best codec. Music sounds pretty good even at bitrates as low as 64 kbps, plus it is free and open source.
@@E-087 So you're telling me that *you* can tell the difference between FLAC and MP3 320? That's pretty impressive. Most people cannot tell the difference. I'm not interested in lossy formats like AAC or MP3. FLAC is my codec of choice. I know that there are better codecs, but they aren't very practical.
well, I came here looking for a video to quickly explain audio formats to a friend, but I found the channel quite nice and I think I'll stay. learned a good thing myself too
On a (redbook-compliant) CD, the audio isn't "typically" stored at 1411kbps, it's *always* stored at that: 2 channels, 16-bit samples taken 44100 times per second: (2x16)x44100=1411200. And 128kbps YT rips? Nah, get on with the program, it's gotta be 128kbps YT rips of videos that have already been transcoded for the umpteenth time, for that extra digital glitchy juiciness! 1st generation upload rips, phooey!
I store my music in m4a thinking I'm storing great quality audios. As mentioned by many, I can't tell the difference between m4a and mp3 at high bitrates or even flac and wave. I use Spek to get a visual representation of the data and there is some data lost after conversion, but not able to differentiate while listening. Should I switch to FLAC?
It depends on your headphones, really. MP3 artefacts are more noticeable in better headphones. If you can't hear the difference, you're probably fine. Just don't look up videos of isolated artefacts, because I did, and now I can't unhear them.
.m4a “contains” either .aac or .alac (yes, despite them being their own, functional file types. Apple logic idk). From tests I've done though, .opus performs wayyy better than .mp3 and .aac, being able to go down to only a few percent of the original size while still sounding good (enough). .opus is essentially “lossless” at above 256kbps or so, go with that if you’re tight on storage. I usually go with .flac because it's lossless, has wide support and generally has the highest lossless compression ratio (although a really cool format called WavPack does better by a significant margin, and is also able to be played back both lossy (thus lower bitrate), and lossless by utilizing two files instead of one, one lossy and one complementary. But I haven’t come across it too much, so sticking with .flac for now). One last thing, .flac, .alac and .wav are all lossless formats, the only difference is that compressed formats need to be uncompressed to be played back, unlike .wav, so your player works just a little harder. Nothing to care about when just listening to music though
@@martin0499 I did notice a small difference in flac and mp3/m4a. So I'm switching to flac. And I just like it this way, even though the difference is small
Wow, I feel so dumb, but I really don't know much about sound, sound waves, etc - but I'm learning! I'm new to recording and when I was mixing down my songs to wav and then also to mp3, I didn't realize the mp3 had defaulted to the lowest quality file setting (not that I would have known that mattered!). I couldn't figure out why I was getting this constant hissing sound in my recording when it wasn't there in the wav file. It seriously sounded like trash. As soon as you mentioned the kbps settings, I went into my program, saw that it was at 64, changed it to 320 and problem solved. Thank you!
It is a not well known format (although it is the best). Earlier Android versions (e.g. Version 6) play it only if they have an OGG extension. I do not know if this has changed in newer Android versions. I use Foobar Mobile on my Android phone and it plays Opus perfectly.
@@pannonia77 According to Wikipedia, opus can now be played with the .opus extension natively on Windows 10 (≥1903) & Android (10). Mac & iOS require different containers than OGG, or something. Dunno, don’t care.
I have two copies of my audio files. I have one that has been ripped (dithered 24bit/88.2K if it is from vinyl) is stored in Flac. I used a multi-encoder to rip the same files to MP3 at the same time and use those when sending the files to my DAP, phone, or cloud storage for remote playback. That way, even if I have a house fire that takes out my entire Vinyl and CD collection, I still have a master copy of my collection on the master backup in the bank vault. It may seem paranoid, but it took me hundreds of hours to catalog, rip, CDs, and catalog, record and edit my vinyl.
Never been able to tell the quality difference even when trying on high-end audio equipment. In real world scenarios, MP3 is the way to go for most use cases.
Speaking as a DJ/producer I have to say the following: 1. mp3 and AAC sucks for everything but stuck in a videocontainer, although I don't get why people crave for 8k video but neglect audio quality 2. ALAC will never be a real option (only mac) 3. WAV is fine when you need audio master copies of your music but does not work well with audioprograms and DJ gear 4. FLAC and OGG Vorbis are best for playing as long as it has enough kb/sec (if less than 550 it's probably crap, I go for 800 kbs) Note: it's not because it says lossless that it actually is, you can go lower than mp3 if you wanted to. Best practice for a digital music collection: save your ripped (official) cd's as wav (absolutely lossless) you now have a 'master_collection', after that you recode them to flac or ogg and save them to your actual play_collection. If one of your flac or ogg's get corrupt (they sometimes do) you go back to your master_collection and recode the track again. This way you won't lose your tracks.
I listen at 110 db with a crispy clear sennheiser headphone. My friends doubt it to but I proved them wrong. Fact is, they couldn't hear it but I can, probably because there are about 10000 people on the planet that have perfect expert hearing capabilities and I'm one of them unfortunatly. I say unfortunate because I have to run away from most installations because of their horrid sounds. Most sound systems are just aweful.
I sometimes rip from RUclips as it is risky stealing music from websites (plus it is time consuming), or I use Flac, as I really love flac (compare acquiring the taste by gentle giant in mp3 to flac). I can hear up to 24,000 hz as well. I don't like those higher overtones as much.
Honestly I think 128kbps MP3 is just barely my standard to enjoy the music. It's like eating junk food, but below 128 is like eating junk food dropped to the dusty road and you still eat it. Lately I've been storing FLAC and 320kbps for MP3, but the lowest is 160kbps.
@@DrillEntertainmentNetwork It's the worst format, sounds worse than all the others. Feels like there's less room for the instruments to breathe, if that makes sense.
Nothing about Opus, which compresses better than almost any other format without quality loss, and which can now be played by most OSs now (phone or desktop). It’s even particularly good with voice, at *really* low bitrates.
Kilo is represented by a lower case "k". A upper case "K" normally means Kelvin. Lower case "b" means Bit and "B" means Byte. I don't know if there is a official way to represent "per" other than "/" but mph for example uses a lower case "p". Upper case "P" probably works as well though. And finally, a upper case "S" stands for Siemens (which is the derived unit of electric conductance, electric susceptance and electric admittance in the International System of Units (SI) - Wikipedia). Seconds are represented by a lower case "s". Therefore KBPS would be (Kelvin * Bytes) / (Siemens) kbps would be (kilo * bits) / second
Yes, I have a lot of 128 Kbits youtube rips becasue it's nearly impossible to find them in other ways. Also I have the rest of collection in mp3 at 192kbps with 48000Hz because space. Also screw music streaming.
MGMX today we have Bandcamp, Beatport, iTunes Store, Juno, Music.me, Qobuz, (+Deejay.de, Decks, Discogs for vinyls...) ... i think you can find +80% of your music here 😉
The stuff I like is so weird than none of that sites has them. Also others are rare recordings that was made in even lower quality, so even 128kbps is a dream.
Why store anything on your phone, when you can stream? Also, why would you carry your whole catalogue with you all the time even if you did store it...
Mug Nuf Then perhaps uncompressed isn't for everyone then. I don't carry my entire library, with 20GB mobile data a month I'm not concerned with file size to a large degree and I'd have to go to great lengths to find somewhere without a data signal here in England. I do appreciate not everyone shares my good circumstances though.
Streaming ist not always an option. Here in Germany for example, mobile internet is very expensive (3GB for about 20 euros a month, in contrast to that you get 20-30GB for the same money in austria or poland). So wasting your precious internet volume is not always an option. I'd rather go with a 64 or 128GB micro SD card, which should be more than enough at least for my music library ;)
As long as I have a car with only a CD drive and almost no possibility to connect an external device (besides a 3.5 mm audio jack, but I don't like that option very much), I'm stuck with the 700 MB offered by my CD RW. But the speakers in my car are quite good, at least that's something.
Compressed 96kbps MP3 is the BEST that all Audiophiles use. As a matter of fact, my new sound bar blows away my old 7.1 surround set up. Now I've become an expert in Audio compression. I know cause the internet told me so. ;)
Would have thought you would have gone into more detail to be honest, such as explaining MP3 V0 etc. Maybe you could have included things like VBR/CBR too
flac sounds so much better than mp3. Also, headphone reviews showing the reviewer using mp3 players and iphones trigger me. Of course the ipods sound just as good as $200 sennheisers on an iphone, lossy file in, trash sound out.
seasong Funny, I once had someone say the same thing about 4K video. I couldn't believe he couldn't see the difference. So sad about about people who can't hear the difference between mp3 and flac. Its as clear a difference to me as 740p vs 4K video.
kousaka san Yeah sorry but that's just placebo or you're using incorrect settings for mp3 compression. Maybe you listen to deathcore or something that involves 20 instruments? That would probably be noticeable between mp3 and flac - but this can be fixed with a decent DAC anyway. Also about your comment about 4K videos, not all people have the right monitors in order to experience it properly - this can also be applied to audio listening I guess.
AAC it's the codec, MP4 it's the container (and extension) that can include video, audio or subtitles, M4A it's the container (and extension) only for audio files
There's one newer lossy codec you didn't mention: Opus. It's designed to be the "one codec to rule them all". It's low-latency and low-complexity, has higher quality at lower bitrates than even AAC, and is open-source and patent-free like Vorbis. It's actually two codecs in one, a low-bitrate speech codec and a high-bitrate music codec. When encoding, one or the other can be selected manually, or hybrid can be used, which uses the music codec for frequencies above 8 KHz. This makes it the perfect codec for not just music, but VoIP as well. ...of course, it's still lossy, so you still need a lossless codec for archival.
downloading music and it’s a .exe
*seems legit*
basically your pfp
What's the worst that could happen, LOL
@@ricardo4943-k6b Same. Manjaro here :)
I always save my stuff as a WAV. Idk why, just works better with my editing
Rename it to .mp3
boom solved
the editing pleases me greatly
Electric Dennis for the win
I know, right?
It's things like this that make videos great
really? i don't know why but when you see him in videos with all his qwerks he almost seems like he would be inept at pretty much anything, example of not judging a book by its cover i guess?
too much effort was put into it
It's Taran that does the heavy work really.
0:41 - *LOSSY Compression*
...MP3
....AAC
.....OGG
|
2:38 - *LOSSLESS Compression* _music_
...FLAC
....ALAC
|
3:55 - *LOSSLESS Compression* _movies _
...Dolby True HD
....DTS HD
.....Dolby Atmos
|
4:30 - *UNcompressed*
...WAV
....AIFF
Thanks
uncut penis
What is meaning of lossy and lossless compression?
@@mdask4810 Lossy compression works by discarding data and lossless compression works by grouping data instead of letting them be like that, expect it like JPEG and PNG, and for uncompressed, expect it like BMP
What about m4a?
The human ear can't hear more than 30fps.
Ben Boyder Ha, joke's on you guys, I can see at 320 kb!
Welef Al Haj Saleh But... but... i can hear green... Does that count?
Ben Boyder By any chance, are you being fed console propaganda?
Jumpier Wolf eh my potato walks better than these... consoles you speak of. Can your "console" run Internet Explorer at 0.1 fps?
You idiot peace of shit, go see a doctor, what kind of stupid thing is human ear can't hear 30 fps. Really, i mean 30 fps and human ear. Its not 30 fps but 24 fps cinematic audio
The "old" MP3 player that they show is actually a current lossless model, FIIO X3-II which also works as DAC and it plays everything you throw at it.
DAC sound
how big is your DAC
@@kipchickensout it ain't floppy, that's for sure
@@nerd2544 are you saying you a have a 3.5" hard disk?
@@Mpivovitz nah mine is 8 inches 😎 old drives from the 90s :^)
Human legs can't hear more than 8GB of ram
Too many notes.
@@AlfieLikesComputers r/woooosh
@@AlfieLikesComputers r/woooosh
@@AlfieLikesComputers Arms cannot support more than 8 Mb of music, which means the spleen cannot interpret the Wav. file :P
@@AlfieLikesComputers Just me being moronic ;P Don't mind my antics.
I have crippling compression
Mats Mokkenstorm me too!
Mats Mokkenstorm I have osteoporosis
feminist: i have crippling oppresion
I have Stereoporosis
I've crplng cprsn
I always knew CDs were superior.
They all laughed at me....but I knew.
Not if they're bootlegs though.
Then use DVD or BD
The reason for the 44.1kHz CD sampling rate was due to the digital recording technology available at the time that CD was being established. At that time, digital recorders were expensive. However, a more affordable method was to convert the digital signal into a video signal and record that on video tape. Mathematically, a 44.1kHz sampling rate works out evenly when you record the signal as PAL (if it had been NTSC it would have been 44.05kHz).
Not even close lol. I mean unless you are strictly analog and occasional 2.8224MHz 1Bit listener (DSD) just pashing sample rates that every human can hear and then some.
cassette tapes and vinyls are more superior than cds
*_just make everything an .exe_*
Apple uses .dmg
Linkin_park_numb.exe
Isn't that a video format? 🤔
@@ВадимБаев-с9в video format lmao
ha ha ha. No!
.deb instead! :)
AAC should be standard rather than mp3 if it offers higher quality at lower bitrate. In a lot of cases, it would result in smaller filesize while maintaining similar or higher quality than its mp3 counterpart.
It's probably based around an algorithm that cuts out less data, so even if it's better quality at a lower bitrate the relative size will be about the same. That said mp3 is shit, it's popular becouse it was already popular and majority of people listen to music on a 2 dollar headphones and don't even know the difference between sound file formats. If you do have like a entry level auudiphile sound system you should be able to tell about 7-8/10 sound formats of your music just by listening.
@@wujekcientariposta so if mp3 is shit, what Isn't?
*No* lossy format should be standard. Why would you want the standard for audio files to sound like shit? I understand the need for lossy formats like MP3... *Twenty Years Ago* ... There is no need for crap formats like that these days when storage space is so inexpensive.
The standard should be lossless. FLAC for those that want small file size. WAV for original content.
@@janX9 I have a FLAC album that is 500mb, I have the same album on 320kbps MP3 and it is 49mb....with a 1tb hard drive dedicated to only music I could store 2,000 FLAC albums or 20,000 MP3 albums...alot of people have data caps, either on their phone or ISP...if you were to stream your home library...it's much less efficient to stream FLAC, or even download FLAC....It's the same reason I have a 4k tv but stream netflix in 1080p...people have different internet speeds and hard drive space...having options is always better than limiting things to the superior format.
@@Iwetbeds that's a good point.
Linus doing dubstep, I need that gif.
"Linus doing dubstep"
no comment
"dubstep"
*...*
It's trap my good friend.
It's trap. Dirty Audio m8
CaptainRetaliate - iOS Gameplays! Alien cookies my dude
Uploaded it 2 years ago on 9gag, 9gag.com/gag/aDwLR97?ref=android.s
source vid = "Tweeters, woofers and subwoofers" if I am not mistaken
Mine are all 320Kbps Mp3 files.
Next step above 320kbps -> is 420 kps Ogg vorbis anyway but then you have to a cd - ripper that still support the format. For me it was the lowest I could get so sound reminded of cd quality but if the recording has been already pro -acc and loudnessed then the effort is futile and you can actaully hear no differeence in 320 kbps mp3 . One such ablant cd is Agneta Fälskogs A cd which is done in ACC i presume and any ripping get you the cd sound even at low bitrate.
Mine are all vinyl.....
Mine are whatever format and all vinyl dont say much since the might be cheap so the just relese the acc-pro version or loudnesswar cd version on vinyl.. good vinyl is vinyl before year 1992 when they decided to on purpose kill vinylrecords.
that sentence gave me an aneurysm
Agreed mine are also whatever format I just thought I would add that for comedic effect. I generally try to get whatever file was as close to the original mastering if I can sometimes a 320kbps mp3 sometimes a FLAC or WAV file, or sometimes vinyl. Your opinion is much appreciated thank you!
Anyone else notice that the 'Old MP3 player' stock image is actually a pretty recent audiophile Fiio which is capable of playing FLAC?
it is more than recent i think it is fiio x1 or x3ii , one of those , I own the x3ii variant sounds amazing..
I just posted a comment about that. They rick rolled us again... Also, FiiO is releasing a 3rd gen of the X3 and it should be in stores in the next week or 2 as they get to retailers. Not to sound like an ad, but I might buy one. The audio from my S5 absolutely sucks.
JEdit23 yeah it's fiio x1 ..I have the same black..I use them with fiio ex1 earphones and it's heaven in my ears. Fiio us definitely one of the best brands for audiophiles out there.
I love that player. It sounds very good and you can find them at a pretty decent price.
2:06
did i just got rickrolled?
Y E S
Yep
Yup
Me who read this comment before watching the video:
No
I have been playing clarinet for 10 years and I am currently getting a degree in music. Listening to music and training my ears is kind of my job and something I love to do regardless of having to do it for school. I will go to the far corners of the internet if it means finding high quality FLAC files of music I am looking for, because even though I use an iPhone (which cannot officially use FLAC even though iOS 11 technically supports it and will play it if you use a workaround), it means I have archives and am future proofing.
I personally, even with my trained ear, cannot necessarily discern a difference between a FLAC file and the same track converted to a 320Kbps MP3. My high-quality Sennheiser headphones plugged into my Marantz receiver helps a lot with making nitpicks, but considering I do most of my music listening in the car over Bluetooth or CarPlay anyway, it makes absolutely no difference to me. HOWEVER, I check to make sure my music is not peaking (distorting at certain points) before converting. In my experience, even music I have ripped off of CDs myself using Exact Audio Copy have points where they peak. So, when I am converting to MP3, I am not just making the file smaller to more conveniently fit on my phone, I am also making it the way I want using a lossless version as a base so I am not making edits to something that has already lost data. I may not be able to tell the difference between FLAC and 320Kbps MP3, but I can tell the difference between 320Kbps and 128Kbps. You may not be able to tell and that's okay; it doesn't mean you have a bad taste in music or anything like that--your ears are probably just not as trained as others who are musically trained or listen to music as a hardcore hobby (or you use crappy Apple headphones. Stop that).
Also, in the future, who knows if MP3 will be relevant anymore? Maybe FLAC will become a relevant format for the general public, or maybe a better format than MP3 will get into the mainstream--who knows. As long as I have a collection of lossless music, I can convert it to essentially whatever I want.
even as someone who isn't even a professional but appreciates music I can confirm 128kbps sucks ass
This
The app “AudioShare” that’s available on the iOS store supports and plays FLAC files and also converts them to wav ect.
I'm a 16 year old tubist, and I have to say that when it comes to differentiating between audio files I'm pretty good. Listening to high quality audio through high quality headphones sounds amazing, but it makes it harder to notice the difference in audio quality. Listening through my shoddy razer headset however, really showcases the difference. It doesn't sound better. They sound bad, but it becomes was easier to tell because the high quality audio tends to sound worse because the headphones try to process all the information and they just can't. But I'd rather not be able to tell the difference than hate the experience.
Thats pretty gay
MP3's patent expired recently in the US, and it have been patent free since 2012 in the EU. Get them facts straight Luke :b
Morten Larsen I'd say that this was recorded before that became fact in the US, but even I'm not sure. If it is, blame the slow editing process.
So true. Just to add, AC3 is also about to expire ... if I'm not mistaken the last patent will expire within maybe 2-3 months.
Also, kinda sucks that Opus wasn't mentioned (lossy codec better than all three lossy codecs mentioned)
Morten Larsen my first thought
No, they did not do proper research.
The MP3 patent owners terminated patents on April:
www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audiocodecs/mp3.html
This www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_MP3_MPEG-2_H_264/ was around for a while now, this www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/16/mp3_dies_nobody_noticed/ was published 5 days before video posting,
Anton Bershanskiy it's possible that this video was made a while ago ;)
I'm glad this video exists. Ever since the introduction of MP3 to the market, it has turned music quality into garbage. And I was even more sad when I was hearing radio stations actually play mp3 files like if the FM interference was not bad enough.. smh!
If any of you have ever heard a low bitrate MP3 through surround sound speakers will understand that the sound instead of having a nice smooth reverb, it sounds all gibberish and noisy. Especially when listening to music with crisp high hats like Metal or Rock music. Mp3, lacks quality in that regard although I must say, using a proper encoder, sometimes it's hard to distinguish between 320kbps Mp3 or WAV / FLAC. But from a producer standpoint when using effects and what not, Mp3 or other lossy formats should be avoided at all costs. Mp3 is the equivalent to JPG whereas FLAC / WAV is the equivalent to PNG / BMP.
I can understand back in the day when memory was low and expensive, it was a viable option to store music in mp3 or other lossy format, but nowadays with Terrabyte hard drives, MP3 should be dead. I am currently trying to locate every single song I ever downloaded in FLAC or WAV for optimum sound reproduction.
Bro, I’m in the same boat lol. Getting rid of those nasty MP3’s. Such a joy to rediscover songs in top quality.
renaming a .mp3 audio to .wav in a paste improves the quality or you need to download the audio as .wav?
@@mglzyn
Lol. Renaming an mp3 to wav and expecting a change in quality is like renaming an Indian woman to Samantha and expecting her to be American.
That’s not how it works.
Once a file is in mp3, the quality will always be mp3. It’s like taking a beautiful clean sheet of paper (wav), and crumble it up (mp3). No matter how much you try to smooth out the creases, the paper will never be as smooth.
thanks so much for this teached me a lot man😂
@@Bassotronics one more question, so does this mean the only perfect quality audio files of a song would be the original .wav version? any other ones have been compressed?
techquickie's memes are getting pretty lit fam.
Talk about HEIF pls!
1
2
3
4
5
DSD: Exists.
Techquickies: I'm gonna ignore that.
Organya: Having fun?
I already replied to a comment with most of this info, but I also wanted to put it here.
As an (self-claimed and poor) audio enthusiast, IMO the main reason to have lossless music is to have the freedom to convert it to the lossy file type of your choice. By storing a lossless version of your music, it's basically an archive providing you much more flexibility. I convert my FLAC collection to 96kbps Opus for my phone, since it saves so much space it's insane (and I can't really hear a difference honestly), but I can also convert it to v0 MP3 for players which don't support Opus, while avoiding generation loss. While this technique calls for more "stationary" storage (obviously because I'm storing lossless files), it let's me put so much more music in a 64GB microSD than 320kbps MP3 could ever, while, like I already said, avoiding generation loss from converting one lossy codec to another. Also, Android natively supports Opus files with the "ogg" extention since Android 6, so even better.
This also allows for a "future-proofing" of your collection. You may be using MP3 now, but what about the future? A different codec may be the industry standard (hopefully Opus lol), in which case you'll have to convert to it. Over time, another codec may pop up, and you'll have to convert once again. The effect of the generation loss will stack, and you're left with an artifact-ridden music file after several rounds of conversions. Lossless files avoid this by being, well, lossless. No matter how many codecs become the new standard, we can convert right from the source audio, therefore preserving the quality as long as we keep the lossless file. And if new lossless codecs become the standard, well...that's too easy.
So yeah, for me the main reason for me to have my collection in lossless isn't for the improvement in quality. Seriously, I even ABXed 96kbps Opus against FLAC and couldn't hear the difference (I hope it's because I have untrained ears rather than bad hearing D:). But it's because of the archival concept and it's ability of allowing more format flexibility.
with that beeing said..flac all the way!
Cak3Lies no offense, but you probably have either a very entry level audio set-up or bad hearing. it's common to not be able to distinguish between flac and lossy at high bit rates, but not at 96khz
You mean kbps? KHz is something completely different. Anyways, I know that in most lossy formats 96kbps is audibly different, but have you listened to Opus at this bitrate? It blew me away the first time I listened to it. Opus shines in the lower bitrates, which is why my MP3 V1 colection has been replaced with it.
If you want to hear it for yourself, I can upload some comparisons if you'd like.
Cak3Lies Removing parts of music (or applying lossy compression to it) results in moving the listener less. I haven't ever teared up over any "emotional" songs encoded in lossy formats, but I have over those encoded in FLAC. FLAC for direct playback today, tomorrow, and the future!
I'll still use MP3. I don't really care since I can't tell the difference anyway.
humans cant hear more than 30cps (cowbell per second)
Even if Linus isn't the main speaker in the video, you can't escape the Linus
:)
GNU/Linux.
*Turns off Adblock.
Has to watch a 4 and a half minute long fricken ad....
*WTF RUclips*
Just refresh the page a couple times
ZincNut O shit a fellow Sly Cooper profile picture
Usually there's a button called Skip Ad dumbo
PotatoTalks Sometimes there are no "skip ad" button
TheyArePunishingYou
I have some input: For very low bitrate audio, I recommend using opus (with .ogg container), it sounds MUCH better than AAC at bitrates around or below 64kbits/s. In fact, the audio is listenable all the way down to 16kbps!
Is that why my friends on Discord sound so good at 64 kbits/s?
@@xFanexx_yes
alr time to add that to my list of codecs not to use so i can have the worst audio quality
1:15 nice to see some quality music - heavy metal
Holy shit!! Dream Theater - Awake and Metropolis Pt. 2?? A have to agree, that's some quality music right there!
No that’s dubstep
@@_bowlofsoup Good joke
I am playing Master of Puppets on my guitar right now btw
audiophile formats
audiophile porn*
so.. FLAC...
Why FLAC when you can WAV
Francis M because if you're just listening, FLAC accomplishes the same with much less storage used.
But m8, the mp3 decay
flac for storing the music long term, convert into whatever file format your player requires. Nothing sounds as bad as multiple lossy compression algorithms applied after each other…
.ape for storing music long term. about 10% smaller filesize for the same(lossless) quality.
TabalugaDragon It depends on the source.
This guy gets it
Exactly. I used to rip with windows media player. I ripped everything into WMA lossless. So glad I did, I since re-encoded to FLAC.
Tbh the biggest different I feel between lossy and lossless music is it seems the instruments are played apart on different tracks in perfekt harmony and not just put into the same lane into eachother
I re-re-really liked the editing (and script) on this one :)
Luke is better than Linus at this
Ak Mungroo ja
Also doesn't sound like he's high on helium either.
yeah, to me he explains stuff better, and he talks more clearly
*Luke is better at this than Linus
This minor change makes it more understandable. I had to read what you wrote three times to understand it.
@@gusjohnnson9641 Better at this than Linus, Luke is.
You missed Opus. This is the most used audio format. Even now the sound from this video is compressed in Opus.
Opus is the best lossy audio format. It is used in VP9, AV1 videos. Also in almost all VOIP apps.
"LOSLESS COMPRESSION" 2:54
It sounds like *magic*
Always love how flac retards leave out the compression. Even funnier Mp3,flac,lossy/lossless are the same at any bitrate, they arint the original. bitrate isnt the same a bits . uncompressed wav playback is 1440MBps( 1400 MBps = 1400 Megabytes =11200000 Kbps flac/mp3 you need this bitrate to match the original) quality is pointless a 900kps lossless compressed flac has 1% of the songs data.
@@theprofilmstudios
LMAO yup!
That is the reason why he wrote "Losless Compression".
And the people above are too slow to see. LOL
AAC is still best for lossy audio - It depends on person (kids can hear above 16KHz but older people cant hear 15KHz) - Maybe Bone Conduction is solution to restore hear at 16KHz)
KnightRiderKARR, it is not. Opus is better both in quality per bitrate, and in licensing.
It's not like there is any useful information up that high. It's such a low level, having to travel through air. To the microphone, then from a speaker to an ear. And it's not like the sounds up that high are at loud levels right at their source.
How much difference is there in 320 kbps MP3 & AAC? I didn't notice anything when I compared the same song in both formats, although 128 kbps is significantly poorer than 320 kbps
@@nachiketpargaonkar8646 I think aac preforms better at lower bit rates. I use 160k for music and they sound great on a $200 pair of Sony earbuds(wf-sp800n) and 2 JBL partybox 100 speakers
@@psp420bam
That is possible since AAC is considered lossless format & converting 320 kbps to 128 kbps involves much compression, the dynamic range reduces. Maybe the high quality earphones/headphones differentiate better in these.
Golden age of this channel
WE NEED THE BASSHEAD LINUS 1 HOUR. NOW.
Better yet, 10 hours. lol jk.
@@TaskForce77 where is it?
@@TaskForce77 it's alright bro
I’m going to do it
@@Minecraft101ToonLink check here in a few hours, its' uplading ruclips.net/video/JZyvPX1cKow/видео.html
>Be me.
>Watching vid.
>Enjoying audio file shenanigans.
>Suddenly hear fans ramping up on the computer.
>wft.jpeg
>Open Task manager.
>Google/RUclips using %54 of 4 core 3.9 Ghz processor.
>Look at RUclips vids.
>See 4k on the settings button.
>Look at my screen.
>Look at 4k button.
>Mfw I only have a 1080p monitor.
>Thanks RUclips for trying to burn up my computer and reminding me I am a mid-tier peasant.
Tom Wood we get it, you go on 4chan and have 4 chins
Allehandroh DeLarge In the 4chan community, the more chins you have, the higher rank is bestowed upon you by your peers, so I thank you for your compliment. ;)
256 Kbps MP3 for convenience whether I'm out driving somewhere or at home but, every so often, I like to sit down and have a more active listening experience with my cassettes and vinyl. It's less an "audiophile" thing and more just harmless nostalgia that helps me relax.
"Their library is full of 128 kbps rips from RUclips" 😫 ughhh, I felt thaaaaat. Thanks for the video. I had a basic understanding of mp3, wav, and lossy and lossless files, but I did not know everything that you talked about. ^_^
RUclips uses aac at 128 kb. If you download from this site use this preset to avoid conversion and make your music sound worse... or download from those polish flac libraries lol, they have everything mainstream
@@E-087 wdym by Polish flac libraries?
@@RB-83 piracy flacs from polish pages
I really appreciate your concise information about the differences between audio codecs. Great stuff.
I love listening to FLAC, even though I can't hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 320 or 256. It adds that extra excitement and speciality when I know that's I'm listening to lossless audio 😋
I can hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 audio format. I've tested many times between FLAC and MP3. FLAC audio are more clear and sharp also you can hear everything including small instrument clearly like hihat, cymbal, snare etc.
I had to admit myself that FLAC are better than MP3!
J L No, there are! I wouldn't care what people say about audio format include you and I only choose the best audio format and suitable for me. Higher quality more better! 😏
J L PS - I don't trust that thing or what so ever. FLAC are Hi-Fi category so MP3 320kbps are not enough for me and not clear audio
Do Your Homework You can download more high quality music in Deezloader because some song are premium and not same as RUclips version
@J L It also depends how you listen. They can be very hard to distinguish even on a high end set of speakers, but a pair of high end headphones definitely allow you to hear the subtle differences. Sennheiser HD650s are very revealing.
I used to do WMA lossless. Glad I did, knowing I lost nothing switching to FLAC. That's another huge advantage to storing your audio lossless. Flexibility.
.WAV - preserves nearly all of the quality as lossless. Great for music editing in precise manners.
.MP3 - sacrifices original quality but saves lots of space(around 1/3 of the original file.)
.FLAC & .ALAC - ALAC is for Apple. .FLAC is identical, but is more compatible and uses algorithms to predict sounds, therefore reducing file size with lossless quality.
.AAC - What
.OGG - ???? Linus doesnt even pronounce how its spelled.
👍 hopefully i took allot out of this video lil
MP3 compresses more than just 1/3 of the original file. The maximum bitrate of MP3 is 320 kbps. A CD quality WAV file is 1411 kbps. 320/1411 = 0,23 less, than 1/4. But if you use different bitrates (e.g. 256 or 192) you can save even more space. If you use a good MP3 encoder (e.g. LAME), then you are unlikely to hear any difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and the original WAV.
AAC stands for Advanced Audio Coding. At the same bitrate it gives better quality than MP3. iTunes offers music in AAC format. It is put into an MP4 container, so generally has the extension M4A.
Also you can hear the difference between 128kbps with 256kbps so I recommend to use the latter.
My sister works for .AFLAC. Really!
.wav preserves "nearly" all of the quality? No, it preserves 100% of the data it is given. If there is ANY data loss, it happened before the final conversion/exportation to WAV.
Im glad that quality is consistently moving up because anything below really high resolution mp3 files sounds like ass with some headphones good enough to reproduce those details.
.flac master race !!!!1!!
Guy Berryman No, DSD master race.
Guy Berryman where you buy flac files btw?
There's no difference between FLAC and DSD in Audio Quality.
Camilo Nieto Only place I know of is Bandcamp.
There are some stores like acoustic sounds that offer FLAC files straight from the master (so basically anything from 41khz, 16bit all the way up to 96khz, 24bit in my experience), but in most uses, FLAC is used to convert CD quality audio (41khz, 16bit) to a smaller filesize. So basically, each album on your HDD isn't 700mb but more like 450mb (depends on the track contents.) Audio enthusiasts do this not only to save space (removing redundant data, as stated in this video) but it also keeps all the original audio there from the CD. Also, FLAC is very popular on many pirate sites, hence its free codec status.
I love your calm approach to your subject!
Quick additional Info to aac - there is an "sub-format" called stems by "native instruments". It saves the song with normal aac BUT in 4x stereo for each instrument (drums, bass, synth/guitar, vocals/fx). Main usage is djaying - but in comes incredible close to flac/wav/aiff in my a-b tests.
0:40
When the acid hits
midi master race
interrupt generator master race
nice >:]
fr tho if you find a good Melody you can save the song from mp3: 4mb to midi: 4kb
midi is not even a file it is an instruction to how to play the notes , hence the size ;)
CODandponies .ogg is life
Regardless of what audio format is best, your ears are the best judge, I for one have a damn good ear and I can always tell if a song sounds like shit or not regardless of whether it's MP3 or WAV or whatever, don't put all your faith in the audio formats of your choice but put the faith in the listening experience with headphones on.
Your “libary” [just after 6:00] is missing the “R”. ~Antonio
Didn't the patents on mp3 just expire? I remember seeing something about it being technically free software now.
This video combines good information, with a very nice presentation, those guys linustech are funny and tells you everything that you need without wasting your time or boring you with no sense information.
90% of my playlist is ripped from RUclips.
get SMLoadr
RUclips does very strange things to audio... If you compare yt rips with pretty much anything else you‘ll notice the inferiour quality
I might have one or two songs out of the 1200 who are not form RUclips
Use Soulseek instead. You're welcome.
@@ILLEAGLExxx Is this the same as that virus filled limewire crap?
I generally don't find a ton of difference b/w 320kbps MP3s and 1411kbps FLAC, so I choose the former b/c I'm anyway going to listen to music on my phone.
P.S. 128kbps MP3s are an abomination that shouldn't exist.
Yeah, I agree with you about 128 kbps MP3s, MP3s should always be 320kbps IMO.
Ive always been able to tell the difference in sound of a raw wav file (CD) and a compressed audio format..
Even with a very old cd player..
Yet, 320kb mp3 its just great and convenient..
What music radio stations do you listen to? And what are their bitrates?
@@masterlee1988 Its difficult to tell the difference, for me at least, between something 256kbps & up, BUT i agree all mp3 should AT LEAST be ripped in 320 or up, just not 128. Then again 128kbps is always better than nothing, ya know?
Kami Stop cheery picking instead add something useful to the topic.
If anyone is wondering the name of the song at 0:38, its called Alien Cookies by Dirty Audio
1:15 - those are some damn good albums 🤘🏼🤘🏼
heavy metal is the best genre ever existed.
@@nickpratyaksh Hell yeah \m/
320kb/s mp3s are the sweet spot for most music
With headphones yeah. When you use big speakers you can hear the noise of mp3. The best lossy in my opinion is aac at 288 with variable bit rate
@@E-087 MP3 320 is indistinguishable to FLAC. Anyone who says they can tell the difference needs to be tested so we can prove them *Wrong!*
@@E-087 At the moment, Opus takes the cake for best codec. Music sounds pretty good even at bitrates as low as 64 kbps, plus it is free and open source.
@@janX9 well, suit yourself pal, but spotify or mp3 sounds bad in speakers, mainly in rock. As i say, aac at 288 vbr sounds as flac/cd
@@E-087 So you're telling me that *you* can tell the difference between FLAC and MP3 320? That's pretty impressive. Most people cannot tell the difference.
I'm not interested in lossy formats like AAC or MP3. FLAC is my codec of choice. I know that there are better codecs, but they aren't very practical.
well, I came here looking for a video to quickly explain audio formats to a friend, but I found the channel quite nice and I think I'll stay. learned a good thing myself too
1:15 BEST PART OF THIS FREAKING VIDEO
heavy metal is the best genre ever existed.
I think he meant Linus.
I think you meant 1:20
@@darthidiot7563 nah nothing beats seeing and justice for all
Shiiiiit, there are Dream Theater albums as well.
1: Pick random file you wanna compress and rename to .wav
2: Compress using FLAC
3: Become the undisputed king of the file compression business
It’s that even posible?!!?!?! Like, does the original file lose something or stays the same??
Axel Steiner oh yea, makes sense :’/
On a (redbook-compliant) CD, the audio isn't "typically" stored at 1411kbps, it's *always* stored at that: 2 channels, 16-bit samples taken 44100 times per second: (2x16)x44100=1411200.
And 128kbps YT rips? Nah, get on with the program, it's gotta be 128kbps YT rips of videos that have already been transcoded for the umpteenth time, for that extra digital glitchy juiciness! 1st generation upload rips, phooey!
This video has one of the best intros of Techquickie 😂
2:38 Some folks aren't satisfied... 😂
I store my music in m4a thinking I'm storing great quality audios. As mentioned by many, I can't tell the difference between m4a and mp3 at high bitrates or even flac and wave. I use Spek to get a visual representation of the data and there is some data lost after conversion, but not able to differentiate while listening. Should I switch to FLAC?
It depends on your headphones, really. MP3 artefacts are more noticeable in better headphones. If you can't hear the difference, you're probably fine. Just don't look up videos of isolated artefacts, because I did, and now I can't unhear them.
@@BurdFan thank you! I'll stick to m4a then 🙂
.m4a “contains” either .aac or .alac (yes, despite them being their own, functional file types. Apple logic idk). From tests I've done though, .opus performs wayyy better than .mp3 and .aac, being able to go down to only a few percent of the original size while still sounding good (enough). .opus is essentially “lossless” at above 256kbps or so, go with that if you’re tight on storage. I usually go with .flac because it's lossless, has wide support and generally has the highest lossless compression ratio (although a really cool format called WavPack does better by a significant margin, and is also able to be played back both lossy (thus lower bitrate), and lossless by utilizing two files instead of one, one lossy and one complementary. But I haven’t come across it too much, so sticking with .flac for now). One last thing, .flac, .alac and .wav are all lossless formats, the only difference is that compressed formats need to be uncompressed to be played back, unlike .wav, so your player works just a little harder. Nothing to care about when just listening to music though
if you can't hear it, there's no point really
@@martin0499 I did notice a small difference in flac and mp3/m4a. So I'm switching to flac. And I just like it this way, even though the difference is small
Wow, I feel so dumb, but I really don't know much about sound, sound waves, etc - but I'm learning! I'm new to recording and when I was mixing down my songs to wav and then also to mp3, I didn't realize the mp3 had defaulted to the lowest quality file setting (not that I would have known that mattered!). I couldn't figure out why I was getting this constant hissing sound in my recording when it wasn't there in the wav file. It seriously sounded like trash. As soon as you mentioned the kbps settings, I went into my program, saw that it was at 64, changed it to 320 and problem solved. Thank you!
What about Opus?
It is a not well known format (although it is the best). Earlier Android versions (e.g. Version 6) play it only if they have an OGG extension. I do not know if this has changed in newer Android versions. I use Foobar Mobile on my Android phone and it plays Opus perfectly.
@@pannonia77 According to Wikipedia, opus can now be played with the .opus extension natively on Windows 10 (≥1903) & Android (10). Mac & iOS require different containers than OGG, or something. Dunno, don’t care.
Hey, that makes me one of two dozen people! I _love_ Tidal.
I was the 24th like of this comment and I too love Tidal. The cycle is complete.
I had Tidal once, but their software was abysmal, as I recall. I’m sure it’s better by now.
Tidal Hifi rules! 🤘
I have two copies of my audio files. I have one that has been ripped (dithered 24bit/88.2K if it is from vinyl) is stored in Flac. I used a multi-encoder to rip the same files to MP3 at the same time and use those when sending the files to my DAP, phone, or cloud storage for remote playback. That way, even if I have a house fire that takes out my entire Vinyl and CD collection, I still have a master copy of my collection on the master backup in the bank vault.
It may seem paranoid, but it took me hundreds of hours to catalog, rip, CDs, and catalog, record and edit my vinyl.
FLAC is my favourite. Doesn't need tons of space, but sounds great. I rarely notice a difference between flac and wav.
They're completely interchangeable. That means you have never heard a difference.
@@soulefsoulafa8572 they are both lossless
Never been able to tell the quality difference even when trying on high-end audio equipment. In real world scenarios, MP3 is the way to go for most use cases.
Speaking as a DJ/producer I have to say the following:
1. mp3 and AAC sucks for everything but stuck in a videocontainer, although I don't get why people crave for 8k video but neglect audio quality
2. ALAC will never be a real option (only mac)
3. WAV is fine when you need audio master copies of your music but does not work well with audioprograms and DJ gear
4. FLAC and OGG Vorbis are best for playing as long as it has enough kb/sec (if less than 550 it's probably crap, I go for 800 kbs)
Note: it's not because it says lossless that it actually is, you can go lower than mp3 if you wanted to.
Best practice for a digital music collection: save your ripped (official) cd's as wav (absolutely lossless) you now have a 'master_collection', after that you recode them to flac or ogg and save them to your actual play_collection. If one of your flac or ogg's get corrupt (they sometimes do) you go back to your master_collection and recode the track again. This way you won't lose your tracks.
I have strong doubts you can tell the difference between 400 and 500+kbps Vorbis...
@@gordonfreeman5958 yes I can, that's what happens when you train your ears well for 23 years.
I listen at 110 db with a crispy clear sennheiser headphone. My friends doubt it to but I proved them wrong. Fact is, they couldn't hear it but I can, probably because there are about 10000 people on the planet that have perfect expert hearing capabilities and I'm one of them unfortunatly. I say unfortunate because I have to run away from most installations because of their horrid sounds. Most sound systems are just aweful.
*watches video*
*gets to ****0:37*
"Oh hey, Alien Cookies!"
Carisen I was searching for the comment about Alien Cookies😂👏
This is for the real audio files.
I sometimes rip from RUclips as it is risky stealing music from websites (plus it is time consuming), or I use Flac, as I really love flac (compare acquiring the taste by gentle giant in mp3 to flac). I can hear up to 24,000 hz as well. I don't like those higher overtones as much.
OK, but what program plays midi files?
Krešimir Jurilj Android can play them by default.
Windows Media Player too.
Remember that MIDI is "not really music"
I think if your listing to music off your phone you shouldn't worry about what format it is. As long is there not 128kbs mp3s
*they're
*you're
*as
What about 128kbs ogg vorbis
@@parthnigam916 from what I read from Google there about the same quality. May I ask why you'd choose ogg vorbis over mp3?
Honestly I think 128kbps MP3 is just barely my standard to enjoy the music. It's like eating junk food, but below 128 is like eating junk food dropped to the dusty road and you still eat it. Lately I've been storing FLAC and 320kbps for MP3, but the lowest is 160kbps.
Can you do a hardware vs software raid. I've looked all over RUclips and the LTT forums and couldn't find anything
software and hardware are entirely different things
Fuzzy Lobster excellent idea 😃
Fuzzy Lobster u mean decoding?
-(CoolNinjaBroGuy)- i want to know what the speed differences are and if its worth getting a raid card
Isn't hardware RAID kind of dying off? I mean real RAID cards...not the basic stuff that's on consumer motherboards. I ditched it years ago.
*WAV for studio*
*FLAC for vinyl*
*OGG for demo*
Uwu :3
OwO
mp3?
@@DrillEntertainmentNetwork dont use mp3
@@nightskye5208 why not?
@@DrillEntertainmentNetwork It's the worst format, sounds worse than all the others. Feels like there's less room for the instruments to breathe, if that makes sense.
Nothing about Opus, which compresses better than almost any other format without quality loss, and which can now be played by most OSs now (phone or desktop). It’s even particularly good with voice, at *really* low bitrates.
1411Kbps not KBPS...
Kilo is represented by a lower case "k". A upper case "K" normally means Kelvin.
Lower case "b" means Bit and "B" means Byte.
I don't know if there is a official way to represent "per" other than "/" but mph for example uses a lower case "p". Upper case "P" probably works as well though.
And finally, a upper case "S" stands for Siemens (which is the derived unit of electric conductance, electric susceptance and electric admittance in the International System of Units (SI) - Wikipedia). Seconds are represented by a lower case "s".
Therefore KBPS would be (Kelvin * Bytes) / (Siemens)
kbps would be (kilo * bits) / second
Wargon *Kelvin*Bytes*Petasiemens
love that unit
Wargon (Bits*2^10)/second
1:15 nice selection! XD
heavy metal is the best genre ever existed.
The editing in this video was nothing short of godly
When explaining ALAC, you could've just said "The A stands for Apple"
It actually stands for ass, because that's shit.
@ bruh it’s the same as flac😂
I like this editor :D he dossent let him self be controlled by the sosial construct :P
give that man some creeds !
Some great albums pictures at 1:15! Very nice
Yes, I have a lot of 128 Kbits youtube rips becasue it's nearly impossible to find them in other ways.
Also I have the rest of collection in mp3 at 192kbps with 48000Hz because space.
Also screw music streaming.
MGMX today we have Bandcamp, Beatport, iTunes Store, Juno, Music.me, Qobuz, (+Deejay.de, Decks, Discogs for vinyls...) ... i think you can find +80% of your music here 😉
The stuff I like is so weird than none of that sites has them. Also others are rare recordings that was made in even lower quality, so even 128kbps is a dream.
i like do that for friends, but my ears require FLAC only
@@TLRPhotographe all of those have issues💀
@@MasterGeekMX fr💀
Who's here after apple music announcement of lossless music?
5:13 you can pry my shitty youtube music from my cold, dead hands
Human hearing is measured in Hz (20Hz-20kHz) not fps.
They are illiterates
I think we have the memory capacity nowadays to discard the .mp3 format then, we can handle 42MB tracks.
Perhaps not thousands but a few hundred tracks anyway ☺
Why store anything on your phone, when you can stream? Also, why would you carry your whole catalogue with you all the time even if you did store it...
Mug Nuf
Then perhaps uncompressed isn't for everyone then. I don't carry my entire library, with 20GB mobile data a month I'm not concerned with file size to a large degree and I'd have to go to great lengths to find somewhere without a data signal here in England. I do appreciate not everyone shares my good circumstances though.
Streaming ist not always an option. Here in Germany for example, mobile internet is very expensive (3GB for about 20 euros a month, in contrast to that you get 20-30GB for the same money in austria or poland). So wasting your precious internet volume is not always an option. I'd rather go with a 64 or 128GB micro SD card, which should be more than enough at least for my music library ;)
As long as I have a car with only a CD drive and almost no possibility to connect an external device (besides a 3.5 mm audio jack, but I don't like that option very much), I'm stuck with the 700 MB offered by my CD RW. But the speakers in my car are quite good, at least that's something.
Compressed 96kbps MP3 is the BEST that all Audiophiles use. As a matter of fact, my new sound bar blows away my old 7.1 surround set up. Now I've become an expert in Audio compression. I know cause the internet told me so. ;)
Would have thought you would have gone into more detail to be honest, such as explaining MP3 V0 etc. Maybe you could have included things like VBR/CBR too
flac sounds so much better than mp3. Also, headphone reviews showing the reviewer using mp3 players and iphones trigger me. Of course the ipods sound just as good as $200 sennheisers on an iphone, lossy file in, trash sound out.
kousaka san or also when they review audio quality on phones or whatever using a free Spotify account. 🙄😒
192 kHz: Because fuck Nyquist theorem.
I use 24-bit @ 96000Hz (though you shouldn't be able to distinguish this with 48000Hz) and using MP3 @ 320Kbps sounds extremely similar to flac.
seasong Funny, I once had someone say the same thing about 4K video. I couldn't believe he couldn't see the difference. So sad about about people who can't hear the difference between mp3 and flac. Its as clear a difference to me as 740p vs 4K video.
kousaka san Yeah sorry but that's just placebo or you're using incorrect settings for mp3 compression. Maybe you listen to deathcore or something that involves 20 instruments? That would probably be noticeable between mp3 and flac - but this can be fixed with a decent DAC anyway. Also about your comment about 4K videos, not all people have the right monitors in order to experience it properly - this can also be applied to audio listening I guess.
OGG is a container format and it can embed audio in FLAC which is a lossless audio compression format.
TFW I have a tidal subscription
+1
ItsJosh18 same
ItsJosh18 makes us 4. but I would seriously cancel it if Google music had lossless
I feel so sorry for you bro.
What is TFW?
Explain an M4A to me smart people
basically AAC
PhambletonMR can be .alac too :)
Stores more data than mp3 at lower bit rates. AKA mp3 has been obsolete for a long time.
AAC it's the codec, MP4 it's the container (and extension) that can include video, audio or subtitles, M4A it's the container (and extension) only for audio files
**Gets ready to explain M4A files, but sees the overwhelming amount of information on the thread. Decides it’s not worth it.**
There's one newer lossy codec you didn't mention: Opus. It's designed to be the "one codec to rule them all". It's low-latency and low-complexity, has higher quality at lower bitrates than even AAC, and is open-source and patent-free like Vorbis. It's actually two codecs in one, a low-bitrate speech codec and a high-bitrate music codec. When encoding, one or the other can be selected manually, or hybrid can be used, which uses the music codec for frequencies above 8 KHz. This makes it the perfect codec for not just music, but VoIP as well.
...of course, it's still lossy, so you still need a lossless codec for archival.
Correct uhmmm...
You are right ☺
It is sad, i am into audio after my uncle passed away. 😭