3 ms·
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
by 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 agoOpus 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 agoI 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)