4 ms·

I hope this one is next: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 Also, I hope that they adopt flac. Right now t

by est31 7y ago

I hope this one is next: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 Also, I hope that they adopt flac. Right now they seem to use lossy codecs.

vectorEQ 7y ago
they probably would refer to them as bandwidth saving codecs :D but you're right
chupasaurus 7y ago
Even though all music I have on my drives is in FLAC, I can't differ it almost always from Opus 160 kbps, which is what they're using now (but most of the stuff is reencoded from previous codecs).
- est31 7y ago
  Yeah I guess that most people won't be able to notice any difference except for the additional traffic needed. FLAC is probably mostly useful for "masters" you keep and re-encode to the currently best lossy audio format (opus at the moment). This way you avoid generational artifacts.
  - chupasaurus 7y ago
    That's obvious. I assume YT got lossless records from labels for their Music offering.
klodolph 7y ago
They don’t necessarily use the same codec for YouTube’s master copy and the one that you get served. From what I understand, you can upload whatever codec you want to YouTube, and presumably it gets kept in its original format, so it can be transcoded however you like for serving. Anything else doesn’t make sense. Transcoding to FLAC would make sense if you uploaded PCM to begin with.
teilo 7y ago
Yeah, but 160kbit Opus is so good that it's rarely worth it to use Flac. I've done 180º phase cancellations against uncompressed on a variety of sources, and it is so close to transparent that one would have to be have some serious OCD to be unsatisfied with it, and even then could not A/B it in a blind test with better than 50% accuracy except on rare source material, and then just barely.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  Opus is great but its barely worth it to skimp there when compared to HD video. Still, archive copies aren't youtube's forte. Makes sense for them, but I wouldn't convert my personal audio collection with storage so cheap.
  - teilo 7y ago
    I was responding to someone lamenting the fact that they stream in Opus instead of Flac. There is zero advantage to be gained from streaming in Flac. So why the lament? If they store archival quality, they wouldn't ever be streaming it anyway. Furthermore, you underestimate the amount of bandwidth savings when you multiply it over millions of viewings. It really adds up. It totally makes sense for them to use Opus. They save money, and the viewer loses nothing. Shaving pennies is an effective way for a business to cut expenses. Thousands of small changes, insignificant by themselves, can have a significant impact on EBITDA.
    - mixmastamyk 7y ago
      > Makes sense for them, (i.e. Youtube)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
adrianmonk 7y ago
I think a reasonable middle road, since most people won't notice or care about the difference, is to support something lossless like flac but not make it the default. The people who really care could turn it on (perhaps at the account level), and they'd be happy, and YouTube still saves on bandwidth costs.

by est31 7y ago

I hope this one is next: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 Also, I hope that they adopt flac. Right now they seem to use lossy codecs.

vectorEQ 7y ago

they probably would refer to them as bandwidth saving codecs :D but you're right

chupasaurus 7y ago

Even though all music I have on my drives is in FLAC, I can't differ it almost always from Opus 160 kbps, which is what they're using now (but most of the stuff is reencoded from previous codecs).

est31 7y ago
Yeah I guess that most people won't be able to notice any difference except for the additional traffic needed. FLAC is probably mostly useful for "masters" you keep and re-encode to the currently best lossy audio format (opus at the moment). This way you avoid generational artifacts.
- chupasaurus 7y ago
  That's obvious. I assume YT got lossless records from labels for their Music offering.

klodolph 7y ago

They don’t necessarily use the same codec for YouTube’s master copy and the one that you get served. From what I understand, you can upload whatever codec you want to YouTube, and presumably it gets kept in its original format, so it can be transcoded however you like for serving. Anything else doesn’t make sense. Transcoding to FLAC would make sense if you uploaded PCM to begin with.

teilo 7y ago

Yeah, but 160kbit Opus is so good that it's rarely worth it to use Flac. I've done 180º phase cancellations against uncompressed on a variety of sources, and it is so close to transparent that one would have to be have some serious OCD to be unsatisfied with it, and even then could not A/B it in a blind test with better than 50% accuracy except on rare source material, and then just barely.

mixmastamyk 7y ago
Opus is great but its barely worth it to skimp there when compared to HD video. Still, archive copies aren't youtube's forte. Makes sense for them, but I wouldn't convert my personal audio collection with storage so cheap.
- teilo 7y ago
  I was responding to someone lamenting the fact that they stream in Opus instead of Flac. There is zero advantage to be gained from streaming in Flac. So why the lament? If they store archival quality, they wouldn't ever be streaming it anyway. Furthermore, you underestimate the amount of bandwidth savings when you multiply it over millions of viewings. It really adds up. It totally makes sense for them to use Opus. They save money, and the viewer loses nothing. Shaving pennies is an effective way for a business to cut expenses. Thousands of small changes, insignificant by themselves, can have a significant impact on EBITDA.
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    > Makes sense for them, (i.e. Youtube)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

adrianmonk 7y ago

I think a reasonable middle road, since most people won't notice or care about the difference, is to support something lossless like flac but not make it the default. The people who really care could turn it on (perhaps at the account level), and they'd be happy, and YouTube still saves on bandwidth costs.