4 ms·

> It was a re-encode at crf=22.5, with zero encoder tuning and preset at fast. Needless to say, it was blocking and artifacts galore. The icing on the cake? The

> It was a re-encode at crf=22.5, with zero encoder tuning and preset at fast. Needless to say, it was blocking and artifacts galore. The icing on the cake? The audio was FLAC “to preserve audio quality”… I’m pretty sure there are more people in this world with 1080p screens than high-end headphones lol. Not to say the author is wrong, as their example is very drastic, but I don’t think this matter is so black-and-white. 1) Audio quality matters more than the quality of the video in terms of viewing satisfaction (this one is my subjective opinion). 2) The better your audio system, the more important the source material quality. 3) Lossy compression is a one-way road. Did the distributor recode from lossless, or applied their own lossy encoding on top of an already lossy stream because they couldn’t be bothered to reconfigure their tools? You don’t even have the data to tell how messed up your sound is. Meanwhile, with lossless there are straightforward ways to tell whether it’s “true lossless” (i.e., wasn’t up-coded from a lossy format). 4) Distributing truly lossless video is currently just plain impossible (from obtaining the requisite master files to dealing with such volumes of data), so we are choosing between “different degrees of evil” out of necessity. Distributing lossless audio ultimately is feasible, at the expense of a couple hundred megabytes. In the end, if we’re speaking about a work of value (e.g., a good classic film), I wouldn’t mind spending extra megabytes on preserving the original audio.

MrRadar 5y ago
As the article points out, if the source is already lossy (which is (almost) all broadcast, DVD, and web sources) then you should just copy that bitstream into the resulting video (transcoding lossy to FLAC gives you the same quality at higher bitrate and is the worst of both worlds). The only common source you would get true lossless audio from is BluRay discs and even in that case the recommended audio encoding settings the author gives should be well into transparency for all but the most golden-eared listeners, and they would likely only be able to detect the difference in an AB comparison with the original source.
- goblin89 5y ago
  Agreed that up-coding is bad. Still think preserving lossless, if it is available in the first place, is worth it, and a couple hundred megabytes probably don’t matter to someone who chose a quality download rather than streaming. The point that “the entirety of one’s experience is fully available to one’s conscious mind, so if one can’t tell the difference then it doesn’t matter” can be a philosophical question on which we’ll disagree.
- thrdbndndn 5y ago
  DVDs use PCM (LPCM?) which is lossless.
  - MrRadar 5y ago
    DVDs can use PCM, however every commercial release I've seen uses Dolby Digital/AC3/A52 or DTS. (Apparently PAL DVDs may also use MP2 but as an American I've never personally encountered that on a commercially-released disc.)
    - thrdbndndn 5y ago
      My bad, shouldn't generalize. It probably depends on region and genre then. I collect Japanese music DVDs (music videos, lives), 99% of them use stereo PCM.
      - MrRadar 5y ago
        Yeah, I mostly collect(ed) films and TV. I can imagine that the people authoring music DVDs would decide the bitrate tradeoff would be worth it to get the better quality when the focus of the disc is on the sound.
saiya-jin 5y ago
Well compressed audio is indistinguishable from uncompressed stream to 99% of the population using 99% of the listening devices (even though those keep improving on average). Nobody is arguing 96kbit mono should be enough for everyone obviously.
- goblin89 5y ago
  The point is that once you receive lossy audio, you can’t even verify how well it was compressed. Can you trust that it was encoded from a lossless source and not re-encoded a hundred times? Do you consider “it’s all good, unless you actually notice bad sound quality with naked ear in the middle of the film” is a sound principle from viewing experience standpoint? (By the way, your numbers look like you pulled them out of nowhere, but if we are doing this then let me tell you: 99% of population will just stream. This discussion is already moot to everyone but the most picky viewers.)

MrRadar 5y ago

As the article points out, if the source is already lossy (which is (almost) all broadcast, DVD, and web sources) then you should just copy that bitstream into the resulting video (transcoding lossy to FLAC gives you the same quality at higher bitrate and is the worst of both worlds). The only common source you would get true lossless audio from is BluRay discs and even in that case the recommended audio encoding settings the author gives should be well into transparency for all but the most golden-eared listeners, and they would likely only be able to detect the difference in an AB comparison with the original source.

goblin89 5y ago
Agreed that up-coding is bad. Still think preserving lossless, if it is available in the first place, is worth it, and a couple hundred megabytes probably don’t matter to someone who chose a quality download rather than streaming. The point that “the entirety of one’s experience is fully available to one’s conscious mind, so if one can’t tell the difference then it doesn’t matter” can be a philosophical question on which we’ll disagree.
thrdbndndn 5y ago
DVDs use PCM (LPCM?) which is lossless.
- MrRadar 5y ago
  DVDs can use PCM, however every commercial release I've seen uses Dolby Digital/AC3/A52 or DTS. (Apparently PAL DVDs may also use MP2 but as an American I've never personally encountered that on a commercially-released disc.)
  - thrdbndndn 5y ago
    My bad, shouldn't generalize. It probably depends on region and genre then. I collect Japanese music DVDs (music videos, lives), 99% of them use stereo PCM.
    - MrRadar 5y ago
      Yeah, I mostly collect(ed) films and TV. I can imagine that the people authoring music DVDs would decide the bitrate tradeoff would be worth it to get the better quality when the focus of the disc is on the sound.

saiya-jin 5y ago

Well compressed audio is indistinguishable from uncompressed stream to 99% of the population using 99% of the listening devices (even though those keep improving on average). Nobody is arguing 96kbit mono should be enough for everyone obviously.

goblin89 5y ago
The point is that once you receive lossy audio, you can’t even verify how well it was compressed. Can you trust that it was encoded from a lossless source and not re-encoded a hundred times? Do you consider “it’s all good, unless you actually notice bad sound quality with naked ear in the middle of the film” is a sound principle from viewing experience standpoint? (By the way, your numbers look like you pulled them out of nowhere, but if we are doing this then let me tell you: 99% of population will just stream. This discussion is already moot to everyone but the most picky viewers.)