dude, lmao. Would indeed have been an amazing detail and it's a real damn shame all it is is a missed opportunity now.. I demand this video get rerecorded with beats headphones!
@@Xamarin491 too expensive... Linus acquired two 48 port 10 gigabit switches. You try telling him Beats headphones are too expensive (he uses IE80s too).
I've been studying Audio engineering for the past couple of years at college, and I remember being showed a documentary about *the horrors of listening to MP3 files* and how it's an insult to the producer to listen to them through streaming services like Spotify. I always thought maybe I was missing something, because to me the difference between a high quality MP3 at 320kbps and a wav file just doesn't seem as drastic as audiophiles make it seem. Thanks for the informative video!
Kamex pretty late, but might as well comment. On real good quality headphones, you can hear the difference ALOT. They are “an insult to the producer” but as a drummer, being a able to have those small music queues while blasting away is a huuuge bonus and makes stuff a lot easier.
Let me correct Sushi’s comment, on real good quality headphones, you can hear the difference A TINY LITTLE BIT. It’s really fucking little on even the best equipment in studio environments. 320kbps mp3 with a good codex is still the best compression to sound quality there possibly is.
I hate the fact that it seems like even universities push the false believe that "MP3 is unlistenable". It would have been much more educational if your class would have done a listening session in a studio (I bet your university got something like that) to actually hear the difference for yourself.
There is a difference. Not all equipment will expose the differences. Not everyone can hear the differences. Those that can not hear the difference act like the people that can hear the difference are claiming to have seen ghosts.
@@mrq1701 No, it’s more like people claiming that these differences are so big that you’re stupid for not hearing it are idiots who believe in psychoacoustic bullshit. Literally any reputable A/B testing with even experienced listeners shows that the differences between flac and mp3 are really not that discernible. I should know more than most, I have a 600 gig music collection that’s 99% flac, the differences are all in your head buddy.
@@Sataka23clips Don made a console peasant impression as a joke. Also, before someone comments, there's a difference between console players and console peasants. Console players play on consoles because they like them. Console peasants religiously defend consoles. Summary: All console peasants are console players but not all console players are console peasants.
@@HazmatPyro aren't the 'PC master race' the only ones who say things like this? I've never really got it myself...but I play console games and don't care as long as the game frame rate isn't choppy and it's in 1080p.
Your doing it wrong, everyone knows upscaling 240p to 8K is stupid and you won't get the benefits. You need to upscale 240 to 480, the 480 to 720, then 720 to 1080, then 1080 to 4K and THEN 4K to 8K!! I mean DUH!! ;) hehe
Converting youtube to lossless would not be like upscaling 240p to 8k, it would be like 240p to 240p. You would get whatever bitrate it was on youtube, hence the name lossless (no loss of quality) So if youtube is 160 kbps then a lossless would get you 160 kbps
There is something about the style I didnt like, but cant tell what. Aside from the obvious with how it feels very very scripted with subpar actors actually doing acting (albeit tongue-in-cheek). This might be ironic considering the topic of the video, but I feel like what I disliked is somehow related to the audio changes between the actors + camera pans.
This is accurate information. There's a lot of misunderstanding in the audio world, and you guys have avoided that while also presenting in simple terms -- great work.
@@Boardwoards can you point out the lot of misinformation here? except the budget headphones recommendation (which actually the best of each category, not the best of sound but ok)
@@StephenFasciani no, Beats is literally one of the most expensive pieces of paperweights on the planet. Second only to diamond rings, I daresay. But on the contrary to OP, I wouldn't say doing so would've made the representation more accurate, because Beats artificially distorts the analog sound data it gets with its own drivers, something that most sound equipment just doesn't do intentionally. I mean, yes, beats users think they know a lot about hearing good music when they're literally listening to (assumedly) former art distorted into trash, and these people wouldn't be able to distinguish the sound difference and the deep nuance of the music... But Beats is terrible for an entire different plethora of reasons, not just the inability to properly portray more detailed music from higher bitrates, which would take away from the message of the video, instead of enhancing.
@@TheGreatMcPain beats, like many headphones, (at least the Bluetooth ones) have their own built in DAC. Analog Sound IS affected by both interference (beats have horrible build quality, so even if the distance from DAC to driver is very small, there is very little shielding against interference) and by the way that the DAC interprets the Digital data itself. I can't say for sure whether it is the drivers only or a combination of the driver and the DAC that does the sound distortion in the case of beats, but the lows are muffled and overly reverberating, the highs are screechy and everything in between is muffled. In any case, the problem with beats is that all of this sound profile changes are 100% intentional, which is the exact opposite of what Hi-fi is supposed to do.
@@SlaaneshiKitty Okay, I understand that wireless versions usually suck, because of crappy builtin DACs/Amps, but I was wondering if they slapped in some filters to screw with their wired versions, such as the Solo 2.
well that was weird, the content was actually great (though maybe a bit too basic) but having Riley not being sassy and James act as a borderline dudebro was just weird. even so, keep it up guys you are awesome
James sounded terrible compared to Riley. And that's using half-reasonable onboard audio and my 5 year old budget headset. I still find it interesting how many people didn't seem to notice.
@@andreasosowski7302 It's just an example of money gotten from consumers going towards buying that next expensive vehicle (in this case, a Bugatti). Not too much beyond that.
I have Tidal and you can definitely hear subtle nuances when you have the highest quality setting (Master). But I also came to the same conclusion, you're not going to notice it if you're at the gym or in a noisy environment. Even with noise cancelling headphones you need basically absolute silence to really hear a difference. You also need good WIRED headphones as mentioned in the video.
But if you sit down, and enjoy music, you notice even instruments that could not hear before. It is not a drastic difference, but somehow it just sounds a bit clearer.
@@tander101 I hear things no one else does lol. Like the electric current from an outlet no one else hears. But if I record a video of it on my phone and play it back, everyone else can hear what I hear.
eh it depends on what codec was used to downsample a lossless track into mp3 there are audible but not necessarily obvious difference. I personally use mp3 on my mobile devices (not like the internal decoder can take advantage of the higher bitrate) and flac for my home listening rig. I'm no snob tho, flac is my ceiling going wav to my own personal experience is mostly inaudible and a massive waste of internal storage.
Ahov No you aren't, just because some people can doesn't mean everybody who says they can do. How about all those people running 200FPS on their 60hz monitor? Yes, a surprising number actually think it makes the image smoother. A lot of gamers know higher is better without understanding how or why, just like with bitrate.
You forgot the middle part of the digital audio equation: the DAC. Digital files have to go to DACs to get converted to analog signals that then go to whatever speaker or headphones you have. In general, the quality is as good as the lowest common denominator -- a bad file, a bad DAC, or a bad speaker can result to bad stuffy audio, not even mentioning the ninja fourth part: human perception.
@Abstractism my old 2013 Xperia z1c's built in DAC still sounds better with a wider soundstage than my new xiaomi a1, though the latter is much louder and powers my m50x much louder. Its great though that entry-level DACs now are much better than entry-level ones back then -- but I also have 'vintage' 90s DACs that can perform on par as high-end ones now albeit being bigger. I wish DACs though like the audioquest dragonfly red gets built into motherboards, laptops, and phones lol. But I also understand that most people would pay at most 20USD for earphones, headphones, and speakers which would negate the dac's quality anyway. Thinking back, you're right, a 20usd pair of headphones or earphones today sound way better than similarly-priced earphones back then. I always recommend Sennheisers now at that price point but back then I recommended Creatives because they were bang for the back. Included earphones with phones too now sound similar to those 20usd ones when back then they sounded like cheap 1 dollar ones.
Human perception is a big one, I don't think most people know just how quickly adults lose the ability to differentiate high frequencies with age which effects overall waveform accuracy (as individual notes are a summation of multiple frequency wavelets). Electrostatic headphones are good for the higher frequencies but not common today
There's also another issue that I don't think the video addresses: A lot of people are listening to their music on wireless earbuds now. It's my understanding that Bluetooth degrades the signal even further.
Lossless is also extremely useful if ever you plan on doing remastering; as it's less likely to have artifacting or similar such errors when resampled.
Yeah the only reason I can think for using 324kHz files is for remastering or applying complex digital filters, I have no idea why any consumer would believe they're a good idea, or even 192kHz for that matter - especially through some airpods
@@hg-sf7yx there is only so far you can go before it is just diminishing returns. Once you get above 24 bits you can get a perfect recreation of the analogue sound wave and a better signal-to-noise ratio than any human could possibly hear - once you go past this point it is entirely plecebo effect. Even modest DACs can recreate almost perfect waveforms with lower bit depths. As I stated, high bit depths have their uses when processing the signals, but for the end listener it doesn't matter how good your equipment is, you're just increasing file size for zero benefit.
h g No, 192kHz is literally out of the range of human hearing. There’s a good reason why 44.1kHz and 48kHz are standard for audio and it has to do with mathematics and signal processing (20kHz being above the range of human hearing, a 40kHz sample rate would prevent aliasing, and then there’s a 10-20% cutoff margin). Now I don’t think it’s possible for someone to distinguish between a square wave and a sine wave at the upper end of their hearing (as upper harmonics would be out of hearing range), so the only reason that someone would need an audio clip with a frequency that high would be for editing or resampling purposes, as something like a 48kHz to 44.1kHz conversion may cause artifacts that a 192kHz to 44.1kHz conversion wouldn’t cause.
@@hg-sf7yx You'd need to be an audiophile with quite literally superhuman hearing. 48kHz is already slightly better quality than 99.9% are capable of actually hearing...and the few that remain fall off very quickly after that.
As a professional audio engineer... Yup. Frankly, I use Sony MDR-7506 headphones ($119) for my work and home (MDR-V6 is essentially the consumer version that's about $90; main difference is no gold plated plug and lower warranty). They're an industry baseline (near total flat response drivers), and pretty much no pro audio engineer will scoff at you if you hand them a pair. In fact, many albums have literally been mixed using these cans. If you watch enough videos of artist's performing in a studio, I guarantee you've seen them many times. No need to spend an arm and a leg.
Original CDs are recorded at 16-bit 44.1. So, that should be the best a service can provide even lossless. Some claim that they are in possession of the original recordings, which may be of higher quality, but I say maybe for some but, even then, I doubt it. So, if you are getting anything beyond CD quality, it was, probably, upsampled.
I mean, there's a ton of neural-net image scalers out there that work pretty well. They won't add any extra details but they'll make existing objects look cleaner on hi-rez displays than standard scaling. Reddit's wallpaper subs frequently use these to scale between formats.
@@peter.s.3207 Researchers also trained some models to enhance image quality by feeding photos taken by low-end smartphones and DSLRs. Software today is just unbelievable
I recently spent too much on headphones, but there is a noticeable difference in the sound stage. Picking out the directions of foot steps or distant gun shots in my favorite games has improved dramatically. I wouldn't recommend going overboard, but there are plenty of mid range options that will blow your mind.
You should try out the "Quick convert" option inside Foobar. Test out OPUS and Apple's AAC encoder. There's a difference between MP3/OGG (both 320 kbps) and a lossless audio file. But I believe you won't hear any between lossless and OPUS/AAC.
I have a Tidal subscription and have been listening to master audio and Dolby atmos (for years). I can't adjust to a lower sound quality such as Spotify. I also cannot just purchase any headphones.
Yup. The difference between mp3@320 and flac is just night and day. Perhaps not SO much for hip hop as there's not much to it, but come any form of acoustics or whatever and then it's just not satisfying listening to an mp3
YT just recommended me this video and I didn't notice it was from 2019. I did see a difference compared to newer videos (because obviously, they improved a lot), but I only realized it was an old video when I saw Taran's name in the credits at the end! (For anyone who doesn't know the Macro King has quit LMG) Anyway it just goes on to show you how well these videos hold up plus how much better the newer videos are (in terms of production quality)
You can hear the difference between Tidal master and Spotify on a half decent car audio, even over Bluetooth. The high end and low end from Spotify are completely botched. Funnily enough, this has nothing to do with Bitrate but with terrible dynamic limit Spotify applies to get songs to approximately the same loudness. In an ABX scenario I could definitely tell the difference, even on mediocre equipment. Maybe not on a phone speaker, maybe not on free airplane headphones, but on any half decent Bluetooth speaker or headphone
T4iga It’s amazing that lossless makes a difference on bluetooth. The extremes just sound a lot better, wider soundstage, it really amazed me how much of a difference it makes. But then again, we’re in the minority that actually enjoys listening for these bits
Do you have sound normalization turned on on Spotify, because 320kbps Vorbis sounds exactly the same to Tidal’s Master quality. You may be saying this because of the preamp that Tidal has that bumps songs up by a decibel or two to make everything seem clearer than Spotify, when in reality the compression is still there. Then again I’m comparing these two against my actual flac collection, streaming just will never get you the best sound quality and that’s ok. Spotify’s algorithm and selection is just miles better anyway, so whatever difference there is doesn’t make up for Tidal’s shit capabilities as a streaming app. EDIT: I should’ve said that sound normalization should be off on Spotify in the settings, and the highest quality setting on. With this considered, in an ABX setting, there are no audible differences EXCEPT on classical and jazz, even on good equipment.
I can very easily tell a difference between Spotify and Tidal with my Samson SR80s, but whatever’s the most convenient for a person is what they should use.
I actually got into a heated debate on Twitter because they were a Tidal evangelist. Fact is, it's only worth paying twice as Much as Spotify if you have the top of the line equipment. Those Beats headphones don't count!
I feel like they were riding the line between "talking down to the audiance" and "intentionally doing a cheesy parody of those PSA videos that talk down to the audiance". The problem was they were a little too close to the line and it felt less like a parody and more like a bland PSA. Would have been better if they were more self referential about how cheesy this style of PSA format is.
Good video on bitrate. You should do one on bit depth and sampling rate to explain why anything beyond CD quality 16/44 is useless (16 bit depth has more dynamic range than anything we listen to, and no one can hear frequencies above 20khz).
No one can hear frequencies above 20 kHz, but it's not that 48 kHz has a lot emptiness between 20.5 kHz and 24 kHz. The sound is just stretched out. The slight difference would be only in the bass area, because low frequencies require more space on the frequency axis, which can be seen on a spectogram. When working with audio files you usually work at 96 kHz sampling rate, because you don't want loose much data, when stretching and changing the pitch. The finished sound file for listening is then converted to 48 or 44.1 kHz. Modern PC's run at 48 kHz, UA-cam saves their audio files at 48 kHz (that's the nature of OPUS files), 48 kHz was called the DVD quality in the past. 48 kHz is just the new standard for over a decade now.
Because unless you call through for example whatsapp. Telephones only transmit like 1kHz to 10 Or around that. Thats why line-holding music sounds so abysmal
spotify uses a compressed format which has (supposedly) much higher fidelity at low bit rate than your standard mp3, therefore the perceived quality should be around the same.
Don't see why they should to be honest. Maybe 1% of their subscribers would actually take use of lossless, and it would cost spotify a tonne of server space and hardware. And as the video was trying to tell you, lossless is not distinguishable from high bitrate lossy formats, unless you have some kind of super hearing. Besides, spotify uses a very efficient compressing technique that allows higher quality sound with less bitrate, so their 320kbps is better than your avarage 320kbps mp3 file.
Gotta say, you guys nailed this one. The reality is that in most circumstances lossless isn’t necessary. I really want to believe that hi-res (24-bit 96 KHz+) provides some sort of audio Nirvana, but in a proper blind test, I’ve never been able to hear a difference between the hi-res and a downsampled version, nor do I know anyone who has. It rarely happens, but I *can* sometimes hear differences between lossy and lossless in a blind test, especially with MP3 (cymbals and pianos sometimes have a swirly/unstable sound). I prefer lossless to be sure what I’m hearing is truly supposed to be there, and isn’t some strange compression artifact. It can also be transcoded to any format needed for day-to-day use without multi-generational loss. I generally rip CDs or buy FLAC for these reasons, but often I’m using AAC versions at any given moment. Works for me, YMMV. Anyway, glad to see you guys aren’t falling for the hype!
I would go crazy with the size of my ripped music that is already in MP3 320kbit around 1 terrabyte and how big it would be in FLAC i dont wanna know :D
Это так, но все же все так же зависит и от настройки этих кодеков. А так же есть ещё другие, как aptX или сони LDAC который поддерживает очень высокий битрейт 990kbps, 32 бита и 96Hz аудио. В любом случае будут потери, но это по-моему очень хороший звук
that does seem like an overkill amount of money to pay just to listen to your favorite songs, but having good equipment is not a waste. all you really need for your music to sound good is a midrange DAC with a midrange pair of headphones/speakers and amp.
@@ElectronicsForFun How come hardware that has dolby atmos/dts X processors cost so much? Is this related to why PC sound cards supporting those formats dont exist?
@@Alanreaks35 To get a quality AVR reciever to support all of those channels you're going to need to spend $1000+. If you're running a home theater with all of that that's a lot of amplification you're going to need. You'll also wind up buying external amps for at least the front channels. I still run a 5.1 setup because it's perfect for the size of the room. I do plan on moving up to 7.2 when I get to move ot in a larger room. I don't think PCs will support Dolby Atmos or DTS because of the high bandwidth. I've only seen those formats on Blu-ray.
Well, I have a receiver and 5.1 with tower speakers on my computer. Mobile, I have the Bose QC-35. In my van, I have time aligned 3 way active front stage, subs, 3 amps, and maybe 80 diy hours in sound deadening.
I switched to Sony's WF-1000-xm4's in conjunction with Tidals quality Dolby Atmos song files and Sony 360 reality sound. I've learned 3 things. 1) there's a big difference if your using better apps equipment and have a good or very decent phone. 2) most people forget to activate and enable the 360/Dolby capabilities for these apps which you need them all downloaded and running as well as tuned and set for your earbuds or headphones. 3) YES there's an INCREDIBLE DIFFERENCE with all that combined with all your favorite Dolby audio tracks it's an immense and immersing experience absolutely worth every penny and minute. 4) sonys 360 Reality Audio is BS!
Do you hear the difference between 320kbps and any other lossless format? I used to have everything in FLAC on my player, but Spotify is so damn convenient.
Lossless compression is the way to go something like FLAC is pretty good for audio files. They compress down pretty well and because it's lossless you don't lose anything.
But still. From 1TB of FLAC files, you can go down to 300 GB AAC at 256 kbps, and you won't loose much quality. And it's sounding better then 320 kbps OGG that is used on Spotify.
.WAV - lossless .AIFF - lossless .AAC - lossy .MP3 - lossy .OGG - lossy Key notes: Source - equal to original recording, each 1 and 0 the mic generated is inside the file. Lossless - encoded source information. an algorithm turns long strings of binary into equivalent mathematical equations, reducing size but retaining original data. EG, "100101010110001010110" might be a sum of how many digits follow the first, with something extra to define what those are, and might look like 0x16. Lossy - downsampled audio that lost original data. Most commonly, this is measured by amplitude - a quiet sound next to a loud one isn't likely to be heard anyway, so it's cut.
I have high end headphones, amp and dac and theres literally zero difference between 320 kbps and FLAC. There is some difference between 128 and them tho, but its not much honestly... Same thing with cables, say what you want but theres just zero difference to human ears. Its all placebo, and Im willing to bet 100 bucks you would have a 50/50 chance of guessing it right.
![[RANT] The DUMBEST Thing About USB](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gShRBsahzXg/mqdefault.jpg)
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](/img/n.gif)
Different audio recording quality for James and Riley. I see what you did there...
so I'm not the only one who noticed
does that mean I can be an audiophile?
very@@MikeDolar1
Nick Wallace I thought I was going crazy
I didn't even notice.
so is it normal to notice those small things? or is it something wrong with me
Somebody on the writing staff has been watching too much adam ruins everything.
...well that explains why this style felt familiar.
Was definitely just thinking the same thing 😭
It's not as good as the normal tech quicky
But these guys aren't abnoxious gay libtards, so its better
@@chloebaloneyxx Lmao wrong they legit are 😂
This video is much better and dynamic than white background. ijs
༄Rod you got it right!
Totally
It's a good format but I can't agree it's more dynamic then the good'old white background. It feels slow compared to the usual format.
@@seeckergaming I agree, it does feel slower
true but honestly linus.... 2:09
2:00
The only thing that would make it funnier were if James had Beats on.
dude, lmao.
Would indeed have been an amazing detail and it's a real damn shame all it is is a missed opportunity now..
I demand this video get rerecorded with beats headphones!
i was waiting for that...
Lawsuit?
probably because they're too expensive lol (that or copyrights)
@@Xamarin491 too expensive... Linus acquired two 48 port 10 gigabit switches. You try telling him Beats headphones are too expensive (he uses IE80s too).
I've been studying Audio engineering for the past couple of years at college, and I remember being showed a documentary about *the horrors of listening to MP3 files* and how it's an insult to the producer to listen to them through streaming services like Spotify. I always thought maybe I was missing something, because to me the difference between a high quality MP3 at 320kbps and a wav file just doesn't seem as drastic as audiophiles make it seem. Thanks for the informative video!
Kamex pretty late, but might as well comment. On real good quality headphones, you can hear the difference ALOT. They are “an insult to the producer” but as a drummer, being a able to have those small music queues while blasting away is a huuuge bonus and makes stuff a lot easier.
Let me correct Sushi’s comment, on real good quality headphones, you can hear the difference A TINY LITTLE BIT.
It’s really fucking little on even the best equipment in studio environments. 320kbps mp3 with a good codex is still the best compression to sound quality there possibly is.
I hate the fact that it seems like even universities push the false believe that "MP3 is unlistenable". It would have been much more educational if your class would have done a listening session in a studio (I bet your university got something like that) to actually hear the difference for yourself.
There is a difference. Not all equipment will expose the differences. Not everyone can hear the differences. Those that can not hear the difference act like the people that can hear the difference are claiming to have seen ghosts.
@@mrq1701 No, it’s more like people claiming that these differences are so big that you’re stupid for not hearing it are idiots who believe in psychoacoustic bullshit.
Literally any reputable A/B testing with even experienced listeners shows that the differences between flac and mp3 are really not that discernible.
I should know more than most, I have a 600 gig music collection that’s 99% flac, the differences are all in your head buddy.
But the human nose can only see 8GB of RAM
lmao
excuse me wtf
@@Sataka23clips Don made a console peasant impression as a joke.
Also, before someone comments, there's a difference between console players and console peasants. Console players play on consoles because they like them. Console peasants religiously defend consoles.
Summary: All console peasants are console players but not all console players are console peasants.
@@HazmatPyro aren't the 'PC master race' the only ones who say things like this? I've never really got it myself...but I play console games and don't care as long as the game frame rate isn't choppy and it's in 1080p.
Then download more ram.
I swear. Emo Linus is the BEST
OMG i laughed for 3 minutes straight
#Lemos!
@@MichaelBerthelsen no
@@ivankindle3 No, what?
This led me to search for Emu pictures. Looks like that might also be a costume worth trying out…
Converting a UA-cam rip to a lossless format is like upscaling a 240p to 8K.
Have you ever done that? The bitrate is amazing, you don't know what you're missing
@@deathbydeviceable you don't know what you're doing.
@@sadmansaquib1146 r/wooosh
Your doing it wrong, everyone knows upscaling 240p to 8K is stupid and you won't get the benefits. You need to upscale 240 to 480, the 480 to 720, then 720 to 1080, then 1080 to 4K and THEN 4K to 8K!! I mean DUH!! ;) hehe
Converting youtube to lossless would not be like upscaling 240p to 8k, it would be like 240p to 240p. You would get whatever bitrate it was on youtube, hence the name lossless (no loss of quality) So if youtube is 160 kbps then a lossless would get you 160 kbps
Oh my God, I love this style. Riley rocks. That blue background and lighting was amazing. Also, short sweet episode. Fantastic.
I love it too
i think he could play the part of joey in friends well
This one was really well made. Good job guys!
Well made in the regard that they have no idea what they're talking about?
L同意Y(^_^)Y
That's bullshit. They even didn't included Bitrate comparisons for modern codecs
I think emo Linus is running the show in the background 😂
So HE'S The Friend who gave bed boy his lossless Taylor Swift tracks!
Love this new style of Techquickie! #RileyRules
YES I love it to, very refreshing.
There is something about the style I didnt like, but cant tell what. Aside from the obvious with how it feels very very scripted with subpar actors actually doing acting (albeit tongue-in-cheek). This might be ironic considering the topic of the video, but I feel like what I disliked is somehow related to the audio changes between the actors + camera pans.
it was terrible linus shouldve been the guy on the bed
Want to know what rules more? Caaaaaarboooon nanooooo tuuubes!!
Are you from the netherlands?
I didnt even realize this was linus lmao 2:05
One of my favorite videos by them to date, it was hilarious.
Damn.. I thought that was a regular wanker, wtf
@@PiousSlayer What video was it?
Is he/she Linus? OMG
@@UlyssesM "Cat Ear Headphones - Kickass or KickFart?"
This is accurate information. There's a lot of misunderstanding in the audio world, and you guys have avoided that while also presenting in simple terms -- great work.
No, there's actually a lot of misinformation here. Not to mention the "budget" headphones they showed were all terrible options at their prices.
@@Boardwoards can you point out the lot of misinformation here? except the budget headphones recommendation (which actually the best of each category, not the best of sound but ok)
I really enjoy this video format for techquickie! Better than the eye blinding white background!
It feels more 'personal'
I also it is a little sketch and information in one!
@Hyp3rNova56 The background is literally blue. Haven't u heard of bluelight filters.
Do you people not know how to turn your brightness down.
Liek srsly. Turn on a light if nothing else.
@@flameshana9 yes but when dark mode exists. Why would anyone need to do that anymore? 😁
Probably one of the best Techquickie videos so far. Very informative and well made.
+1 for production.
you know it's a parody, right?
@@erelpc a parody with good production quality
He should've been using beats honestly. It would've been a more accurate representation
I REALLY hope this is a joke.
@@StephenFasciani no, Beats is literally one of the most expensive pieces of paperweights on the planet. Second only to diamond rings, I daresay.
But on the contrary to OP, I wouldn't say doing so would've made the representation more accurate, because Beats artificially distorts the analog sound data it gets with its own drivers, something that most sound equipment just doesn't do intentionally.
I mean, yes, beats users think they know a lot about hearing good music when they're literally listening to (assumedly) former art distorted into trash, and these people wouldn't be able to distinguish the sound difference and the deep nuance of the music... But Beats is terrible for an entire different plethora of reasons, not just the inability to properly portray more detailed music from higher bitrates, which would take away from the message of the video, instead of enhancing.
@@SlaaneshiKitty I knew beats were bad, but I had no clue they f'd with the audio before they even reached the driver.
@@TheGreatMcPain beats, like many headphones, (at least the Bluetooth ones) have their own built in DAC.
Analog Sound IS affected by both interference (beats have horrible build quality, so even if the distance from DAC to driver is very small, there is very little shielding against interference) and by the way that the DAC interprets the Digital data itself.
I can't say for sure whether it is the drivers only or a combination of the driver and the DAC that does the sound distortion in the case of beats, but the lows are muffled and overly reverberating, the highs are screechy and everything in between is muffled. In any case, the problem with beats is that all of this sound profile changes are 100% intentional, which is the exact opposite of what Hi-fi is supposed to do.
@@SlaaneshiKitty Okay, I understand that wireless versions usually suck, because of crappy builtin DACs/Amps, but I was wondering if they slapped in some filters to screw with their wired versions, such as the Solo 2.
>claims to be audiophile.
>Listens on Bluetooth headphones.
Listening to CD-ripped FLACs with Bluetooth headphones is still a very good experience.
Bluetooth can support high bitrates now, thanks to ldac
ua-cam.com/video/ZM2nhpb5138/v-deo.html
@@afiqaurora5056 but how good is the connectivity?
How to I get my headphones to support ldac?
tech boy Linus destroys cheap audiophiles with only
*facts and logic*
Wait a minute is that emo linus with a body pillow
My new spirit animal
2:05 maybe leave a timestamp next time, it's easier to find
Can someone tell me what body pillow Linus holds on? I need it for... reasons.
@@ceherryflare3720 its yoko from the anime gurren lagann
I instantly go down to the comment section after seeing that LOL
@@ceherryflare3720 For science
well that was weird, the content was actually great (though maybe a bit too basic) but having Riley not being sassy and James act as a borderline dudebro was just weird. even so, keep it up guys you are awesome
I just took a 123 x 123 image and resized it up to 1080 x 1080 and it looks awesom! It's like I'm looking at it in person!
"Hi. I'm Riley Murdock, and this is Riley Ruins Everything."
Riley Conover
That's what I was thinking it's like Adam ruins everything lol loved it
exactly my thoughts
i love how you just compressed James' voice :D
James sounded terrible compared to Riley. And that's using half-reasonable onboard audio and my 5 year old budget headset.
I still find it interesting how many people didn't seem to notice.
"Speaking of contributing to bugatti funds, this video was brought to you by freshbooks"
I love you way too much Riley.
what is "buggatti funds" *can't find any fun in this
@@andreasosowski7302 It's just an example of money gotten from consumers going towards buying that next expensive vehicle (in this case, a Bugatti). Not too much beyond that.
I like this version of Techquickie !
Yeah agreed
Aashish Thapa right which is probably why I like this so munch
@@AshKaijin I'm ok with this. Only thing they need to ruin is related to tech and I'm fine with it.
I have Tidal and you can definitely hear subtle nuances when you have the highest quality setting (Master). But I also came to the same conclusion, you're not going to notice it if you're at the gym or in a noisy environment. Even with noise cancelling headphones you need basically absolute silence to really hear a difference. You also need good WIRED headphones as mentioned in the video.
But if you sit down, and enjoy music, you notice even instruments that could not hear before. It is not a drastic difference, but somehow it just sounds a bit clearer.
Unless you have OCD and ADHD like me so I hear literally every difference.
@@tander101 I hear things no one else does lol. Like the electric current from an outlet no one else hears. But if I record a video of it on my phone and play it back, everyone else can hear what I hear.
@@tander101that has nothing to do with your ability to hear sounds
320 kbps is the sweet spot for quality and size of files.
eh it depends on what codec was used to downsample a lossless track into mp3 there are audible but not necessarily obvious difference. I personally use mp3 on my mobile devices (not like the internal decoder can take advantage of the higher bitrate) and flac for my home listening rig.
I'm no snob tho, flac is my ceiling going wav to my own personal experience is mostly inaudible and a massive waste of internal storage.
For mp3 sure but if you're using the way better opus then 192 is basically indistinguishable from the original audio.
@@RealHomeRecording Might as well use 320kpbs. With how little space music takes up on modern devices i don't see a reason not too.
Why is nobody talking about that AMAZING transition to the sponsor?! That was great!!
because everyone clicked away from this cringe fest before it started.
@@jeffrydemeyer5433 Angry self professed "audiophile" has entered the chat. lol
You new here? believe me we've seen better!
@@mtsb6285 :P
I thought he was going to say “this video is sponsored by Bugatti” lmao
"I can hear the difference!"
Prove it.
"It's 2019, we don't need facts anymore!"
can you NOT? thanks
Can you see 144hz? prove it! Just showing how silly your mockery is. Of course some people notice the difference.
That's how Trump was elected
Ahov
No you aren't, just because some people can doesn't mean everybody who says they can do. How about all those people running 200FPS on their 60hz monitor? Yes, a surprising number actually think it makes the image smoother. A lot of gamers know higher is better without understanding how or why, just like with bitrate.
You can hear the difference between 320 and flac on good equipment, it's just subtle. That's basically what the video said
What happens to TQ when Linus take's an actual timeout. More of this type of thing!
You forgot the middle part of the digital audio equation: the DAC.
Digital files have to go to DACs to get converted to analog signals that then go to whatever speaker or headphones you have. In general, the quality is as good as the lowest common denominator -- a bad file, a bad DAC, or a bad speaker can result to bad stuffy audio, not even mentioning the ninja fourth part: human perception.
@Abstractism my old 2013 Xperia z1c's built in DAC still sounds better with a wider soundstage than my new xiaomi a1, though the latter is much louder and powers my m50x much louder. Its great though that entry-level DACs now are much better than entry-level ones back then -- but I also have 'vintage' 90s DACs that can perform on par as high-end ones now albeit being bigger.
I wish DACs though like the audioquest dragonfly red gets built into motherboards, laptops, and phones lol. But I also understand that most people would pay at most 20USD for earphones, headphones, and speakers which would negate the dac's quality anyway. Thinking back, you're right, a 20usd pair of headphones or earphones today sound way better than similarly-priced earphones back then. I always recommend Sennheisers now at that price point but back then I recommended Creatives because they were bang for the back. Included earphones with phones too now sound similar to those 20usd ones when back then they sounded like cheap 1 dollar ones.
Human perception is a big one, I don't think most people know just how quickly adults lose the ability to differentiate high frequencies with age which effects overall waveform accuracy (as individual notes are a summation of multiple frequency wavelets).
Electrostatic headphones are good for the higher frequencies but not common today
There's also another issue that I don't think the video addresses: A lot of people are listening to their music on wireless earbuds now. It's my understanding that Bluetooth degrades the signal even further.
I like this new techquickie
Also we need more of emo Linus
Lossless is also extremely useful if ever you plan on doing remastering; as it's less likely to have artifacting or similar such errors when resampled.
Dusty Carrier I can back this 👌🏻
Yeah the only reason I can think for using 324kHz files is for remastering or applying complex digital filters, I have no idea why any consumer would believe they're a good idea, or even 192kHz for that matter - especially through some airpods
@@hg-sf7yx there is only so far you can go before it is just diminishing returns. Once you get above 24 bits you can get a perfect recreation of the analogue sound wave and a better signal-to-noise ratio than any human could possibly hear - once you go past this point it is entirely plecebo effect. Even modest DACs can recreate almost perfect waveforms with lower bit depths. As I stated, high bit depths have their uses when processing the signals, but for the end listener it doesn't matter how good your equipment is, you're just increasing file size for zero benefit.
h g
No, 192kHz is literally out of the range of human hearing. There’s a good reason why 44.1kHz and 48kHz are standard for audio and it has to do with mathematics and signal processing (20kHz being above the range of human hearing, a 40kHz sample rate would prevent aliasing, and then there’s a 10-20% cutoff margin). Now I don’t think it’s possible for someone to distinguish between a square wave and a sine wave at the upper end of their hearing (as upper harmonics would be out of hearing range), so the only reason that someone would need an audio clip with a frequency that high would be for editing or resampling purposes, as something like a 48kHz to 44.1kHz conversion may cause artifacts that a 192kHz to 44.1kHz conversion wouldn’t cause.
@@hg-sf7yx You'd need to be an audiophile with quite literally superhuman hearing. 48kHz is already slightly better quality than 99.9% are capable of actually hearing...and the few that remain fall off very quickly after that.
This new style is amazing!
Love the nice camera work.
The audio in this video was pissing me off lol
Now I have to re-download my 5000+ songs with a high bit rate. Thanks Riley
As a professional audio engineer... Yup. Frankly, I use Sony MDR-7506 headphones ($119) for my work and home (MDR-V6 is essentially the consumer version that's about $90; main difference is no gold plated plug and lower warranty). They're an industry baseline (near total flat response drivers), and pretty much no pro audio engineer will scoff at you if you hand them a pair. In fact, many albums have literally been mixed using these cans. If you watch enough videos of artist's performing in a studio, I guarantee you've seen them many times. No need to spend an arm and a leg.
was the audio discontinuity on purpose? Was super distracting
They compressed James's voice so one could get an example/idea of what compressed audio sounds like compared to "good" audio.
i didn't catch it
I would think so, Riley's voice was suuuuper crisp while every time James talked I wanted it to end
@@mikes2381 James' voice sounded like 16kbps compared to Riley's 128 kbps.
Such a good addition or format, fantastic work guys.
Really enjoyed this.
Guys, well done this new production format. impro9ving quality here.
OMG I love this new uncle Riley, I can almost see him sitting in his favorite chair telling stories 🤣
Original CDs are recorded at 16-bit 44.1. So, that should be the best a service can provide even lossless. Some claim that they are in possession of the original recordings, which may be of higher quality, but I say maybe for some but, even then, I doubt it. So, if you are getting anything beyond CD quality, it was, probably, upsampled.
I like this new format. Hope they continue using it. Great video!
im having flashbacks to people asking me to boost the resolution on low-res image files.... ughhhhhhhhhhh
JPEG's, right? 🤣
Yikes
ENHANCE
but...but they do it on CSI
I mean, there's a ton of neural-net image scalers out there that work pretty well. They won't add any extra details but they'll make existing objects look cleaner on hi-rez displays than standard scaling. Reddit's wallpaper subs frequently use these to scale between formats.
@@peter.s.3207 Researchers also trained some models to enhance image quality by feeding photos taken by low-end smartphones and DSLRs. Software today is just unbelievable
Thanks for that... Seeing "Emo Linus" caused the mouthful of coffee I was drinking, depart my face in a direction I certainly wasn't expecting 😆🤣
Dude I made a huge audible wtf.... With the yoko pillow and everything.
So you haven't seen the original video with "emo Linus"? It's not new, though.
I recently spent too much on headphones, but there is a noticeable difference in the sound stage. Picking out the directions of foot steps or distant gun shots in my favorite games has improved dramatically. I wouldn't recommend going overboard, but there are plenty of mid range options that will blow your mind.
You should try out the "Quick convert" option inside Foobar. Test out OPUS and Apple's AAC encoder.
There's a difference between MP3/OGG (both 320 kbps) and a lossless audio file. But I believe you won't hear any between lossless and OPUS/AAC.
I have a Tidal subscription and have been listening to master audio and Dolby atmos (for years). I can't adjust to a lower sound quality such as Spotify. I also cannot just purchase any headphones.
.FLAC Master Race
Will Nerone flac is good as fuck 🤣
TTA and TAK are way better in saving space from PCM conversions. Unfortunately TAK isn't open source and if it was FLAC would be left to rot.
Yup. The difference between mp3@320 and flac is just night and day. Perhaps not SO much for hip hop as there's not much to it, but come any form of acoustics or whatever and then it's just not satisfying listening to an mp3
Can I join too with my barbaric wav? Storage is cheaper than a new head
@@SpecialEDy Whatever you want man. ..we got plenty of room for your fatass wavs. 😃
Oooh... I like this change!
I see what you guys did there with the audio 🔉
YT just recommended me this video and I didn't notice it was from 2019. I did see a difference compared to newer videos (because obviously, they improved a lot), but I only realized it was an old video when I saw Taran's name in the credits at the end! (For anyone who doesn't know the Macro King has quit LMG)
Anyway it just goes on to show you how well these videos hold up plus how much better the newer videos are (in terms of production quality)
You can hear the difference between Tidal master and Spotify on a half decent car audio, even over Bluetooth. The high end and low end from Spotify are completely botched. Funnily enough, this has nothing to do with Bitrate but with terrible dynamic limit Spotify applies to get songs to approximately the same loudness.
In an ABX scenario I could definitely tell the difference, even on mediocre equipment. Maybe not on a phone speaker, maybe not on free airplane headphones, but on any half decent Bluetooth speaker or headphone
T4iga It’s amazing that lossless makes a difference on bluetooth. The extremes just sound a lot better, wider soundstage, it really amazed me how much of a difference it makes. But then again, we’re in the minority that actually enjoys listening for these bits
Do you have sound normalization turned on on Spotify, because 320kbps Vorbis sounds exactly the same to Tidal’s Master quality. You may be saying this because of the preamp that Tidal has that bumps songs up by a decibel or two to make everything seem clearer than Spotify, when in reality the compression is still there.
Then again I’m comparing these two against my actual flac collection, streaming just will never get you the best sound quality and that’s ok. Spotify’s algorithm and selection is just miles better anyway, so whatever difference there is doesn’t make up for Tidal’s shit capabilities as a streaming app.
EDIT: I should’ve said that sound normalization should be off on Spotify in the settings, and the highest quality setting on. With this considered, in an ABX setting, there are no audible differences EXCEPT on classical and jazz, even on good equipment.
I basically have a tin ear. You could probably play me audio through a greeting card speaker, and I wouldn't know the difference.
Like the new way of techquickue presentation
* tech quickie
dude, it's a joke. omg lol
In the future Gucci and supreme won’t exist if you want to show of in the future get some premium audio
I can very easily tell a difference between Spotify and Tidal with my Samson SR80s, but whatever’s the most convenient for a person is what they should use.
2:08 why does he have a yoko littner body pillow
From Here
ua-cam.com/video/hWi_R7wVMvE/v-deo.html
Seriously amazing video Riley and James! Great new format and very well done
It depends on the prices. If Linus drops them, no problem.
damn this new style is nice! however i found by the end that the frequent switches between the bed scenes and explain scenes broke the flow too much.
I think that this is the best techquickie you ever made, this is amazing and easy to understand format
I actually got into a heated debate on Twitter because they were a Tidal evangelist. Fact is, it's only worth paying twice as Much as Spotify if you have the top of the line equipment. Those Beats headphones don't count!
Better watch it before Tidal tries have it removed
Keep this comment at 69 likes
Wow when did Techquickie become techquiche. Someone added production values.
I prefer the old format. It was usually straight to the point. I feel like I'm being talked down to with this format.
I feel like they were riding the line between "talking down to the audiance" and "intentionally doing a cheesy parody of those PSA videos that talk down to the audiance".
The problem was they were a little too close to the line and it felt less like a parody and more like a bland PSA. Would have been better if they were more self referential about how cheesy this style of PSA format is.
Wasn’t Linus emo enough parody for you?
audiophools need to be talked down to. they do enough talking down themselves
I don't mind this format, but I do find it quite hilarious the video talking about Audio quality has subpar audio quality for the channel! :D
GammaLoo yeah, I think that was the point. Riley and James audio stream had different audio quality.
Really cool new format, and great video!
As long as you aint spending money on Beats by Dre you'll be fine.
had one of them.. never wasted my money more
I heard a rumor Apple bought Beats by Dre and lowered the quality so Apple airpods would sound better by comparison.
@@danielsjohnson they were already shit before apple got their hands on it.
Beats arent meant for youre country or emo music. Its made for rap or or music with bass... smh🤦🏽
@@Lethal.G37 they are still slow and narrow sounding. Even AT-M40 are better.
Good video on bitrate. You should do one on bit depth and sampling rate to explain why anything beyond CD quality 16/44 is useless (16 bit depth has more dynamic range than anything we listen to, and no one can hear frequencies above 20khz).
No one can hear frequencies above 20 kHz, but it's not that 48 kHz has a lot emptiness between 20.5 kHz and 24 kHz. The sound is just stretched out. The slight difference would be only in the bass area, because low frequencies require more space on the frequency axis, which can be seen on a spectogram.
When working with audio files you usually work at 96 kHz sampling rate, because you don't want loose much data, when stretching and changing the pitch. The finished sound file for listening is then converted to 48 or 44.1 kHz. Modern PC's run at 48 kHz, UA-cam saves their audio files at 48 kHz (that's the nature of OPUS files), 48 kHz was called the DVD quality in the past. 48 kHz is just the new standard for over a decade now.
I started listening to lossless music when I received my IEM.
Pretty darn good I must say. I can hear more details compared to my old headsets.
Love the way this segment was shot! You guys are getting better every day.
I always harbored suspicion regarding Apple Music Lossless. Thanks
BEST Techquickie yet! LOVED IT!
This video has low quality audio
Noticed that too. Ironic.
It was done on purpose in James' case. Dude's listening to low-end headphones, his voice is low quality. See what they did there?
sounds fine to me on my freebie unbranded headphones
Different recording quality between James and Riley.
Speaking of spending money on bugatti funds, this video is brought to you by fresh books
Well that escalated pretty quickly -_-
This is a really low quality production. What happened? You guys are good at this.
I was wondering why is the sound quality in a phone call so low? The mic on a phone is capable to record much better quality sound.
Because unless you call through for example whatsapp. Telephones only transmit like 1kHz to 10 Or around that. Thats why line-holding music sounds so abysmal
@@BrosBrothersLPthanks for the answer. :)
Idk if it was just my bad speakers not being able to play the amazing quality LTT audio but James mic didn't sound too good 😂
James? Discount luke :P but yeah, i dont know if it was made on purpose, because he sounds like he has low bitrate lol
Must be on purpose, they usually do much better than that. :)
My sound system isn't AMAZING!1! ..but it's good enough to know that was pretty bad.
I like this style of tech quickie but it does sound like Adam runs everything. But better
^but good
Spotify should really have lossless tho, premium ain’t that premium
It's is kinda ridiculous that they charge extra for the bitrate Google offers by default, and it's not like 320kbps is too high to notice
@@kendokaaa Trust me, spotify without premium sounds like ass.
spotify uses a compressed format which has (supposedly) much higher fidelity at low bit rate than your standard mp3, therefore the perceived quality should be around the same.
Don't see why they should to be honest. Maybe 1% of their subscribers would actually take use of lossless, and it would cost spotify a tonne of server space and hardware. And as the video was trying to tell you, lossless is not distinguishable from high bitrate lossy formats, unless you have some kind of super hearing. Besides, spotify uses a very efficient compressing technique that allows higher quality sound with less bitrate, so their 320kbps is better than your avarage 320kbps mp3 file.
Wellstar yeah but like I don’t see why they can’t have a more expensive option like tidal for lossless, you’d think they would after all these years
Gotta say, you guys nailed this one. The reality is that in most circumstances lossless isn’t necessary. I really want to believe that hi-res (24-bit 96 KHz+) provides some sort of audio Nirvana, but in a proper blind test, I’ve never been able to hear a difference between the hi-res and a downsampled version, nor do I know anyone who has.
It rarely happens, but I *can* sometimes hear differences between lossy and lossless in a blind test, especially with MP3 (cymbals and pianos sometimes have a swirly/unstable sound). I prefer lossless to be sure what I’m hearing is truly supposed to be there, and isn’t some strange compression artifact. It can also be transcoded to any format needed for day-to-day use without multi-generational loss.
I generally rip CDs or buy FLAC for these reasons, but often I’m using AAC versions at any given moment.
Works for me, YMMV. Anyway, glad to see you guys aren’t falling for the hype!
I would go crazy with the size of my ripped music that is already in MP3 320kbit around 1 terrabyte and how big it would be in FLAC i dont wanna know :D
Never pay for hifi if you only ever use Bluetooth. Bluetooth can’t decode it and instead plays SBC or AAC.
I just got me 80$ headphones ty. Turns out my artix wired headphones were better than my new headset. Bc I could only get sbc or aac on my new pair.
Это так, но все же все так же зависит и от настройки этих кодеков. А так же есть ещё другие, как aptX или сони LDAC который поддерживает очень высокий битрейт 990kbps, 32 бита и 96Hz аудио. В любом случае будут потери, но это по-моему очень хороший звук
I spent thousands on amps, DSPs, drivers, and headphones for nothing!
that does seem like an overkill amount of money to pay just to listen to your favorite songs, but having good equipment is not a waste. all you really need for your music to sound good is a midrange DAC with a midrange pair of headphones/speakers and amp.
@@ElectronicsForFun How come hardware that has dolby atmos/dts X processors cost so much? Is this related to why PC sound cards supporting those formats dont exist?
I feel like you were doing something wrong...
Also, you spent thousands on drivers? wat?
@@Alanreaks35 To get a quality AVR reciever to support all of those channels you're going to need to spend $1000+. If you're running a home theater with all of that that's a lot of amplification you're going to need. You'll also wind up buying external amps for at least the front channels. I still run a 5.1 setup because it's perfect for the size of the room. I do plan on moving up to 7.2 when I get to move ot in a larger room. I don't think PCs will support Dolby Atmos or DTS because of the high bandwidth. I've only seen those formats on Blu-ray.
Well, I have a receiver and 5.1 with tower speakers on my computer.
Mobile, I have the Bose QC-35.
In my van, I have time aligned 3 way active front stage, subs, 3 amps, and maybe 80 diy hours in sound deadening.
Best techquickie yet. Cept for the Jay-Z reference. He uses his money in great ways. anyway, great episode. i like the format
Topic sugestion: Article 17 of the EU copyright law aka Article 13
I bought a Fulla Schiit 2 for around 100$ and my headphones really came alive with everything I listen to. Good DAC and amp really makes a difference.
I switched to Sony's WF-1000-xm4's in conjunction with Tidals quality Dolby Atmos song files and Sony 360 reality sound.
I've learned 3 things.
1) there's a big difference if your using better apps equipment and have a good or very decent phone.
2) most people forget to activate and enable the 360/Dolby capabilities for these apps which you need them all downloaded and running as well as tuned and set for your earbuds or headphones.
3) YES there's an INCREDIBLE DIFFERENCE with all that combined with all your favorite Dolby audio tracks it's an immense and immersing experience absolutely worth every penny and minute.
4) sonys 360 Reality Audio is BS!
FLAC or WAV is premium, MP3 320kb/s is not, just a pretty good alternative to the premium formats for most people.
Do you hear the difference between 320kbps and any other lossless format?
I used to have everything in FLAC on my player, but Spotify is so damn convenient.
It's not perfect, but it's way better than 128 kbps while still maintaining huge compatibility.
I like the new tech quicke video layout!
Instead of using puny 320kbits audio, I use perfect lossless magnetic tape.
Riley should do more Techquickie! As someone who studies audio production, there's a lot of people who need to see this video! 😂
Lossless compression is the way to go something like FLAC is pretty good for audio files. They compress down pretty well and because it's lossless you don't lose anything.
But still. From 1TB of FLAC files, you can go down to 300 GB AAC at 256 kbps, and you won't loose much quality. And it's sounding better then 320 kbps OGG that is used on Spotify.
Linus Tech Tips meets Adam Ruins Everything
so true
Linus Ruins Everything Tech
@@freakfreak12345 Riley Ruins Everything
Linus Drops Everything
Emo Linus
Looks like changing Linus office room had drastically affected him
2:01 Hilarious XD HA ha ha ..
Reminds me of the Wire Coat Hangar v Expensive Speaker Cable test carried out on music magazine staff. The wire hangar won the test 😀😁😂
coat hanger? why not just use aluminum wire? it's the worst you can get so if you're doing a test then it would be a good candidate. CCA vs OFC
.WAV - lossless
.AIFF - lossless
.AAC - lossy
.MP3 - lossy
.OGG - lossy
Key notes:
Source - equal to original recording, each 1 and 0 the mic generated is inside the file.
Lossless - encoded source information. an algorithm turns long strings of binary into equivalent mathematical equations, reducing size but retaining original data. EG, "100101010110001010110" might be a sum of how many digits follow the first, with something extra to define what those are, and might look like 0x16.
Lossy - downsampled audio that lost original data. Most commonly, this is measured by amplitude - a quiet sound next to a loud one isn't likely to be heard anyway, so it's cut.
I have high end headphones, amp and dac and theres literally zero difference between 320 kbps and FLAC. There is some difference between 128 and them tho, but its not much honestly... Same thing with cables, say what you want but theres just zero difference to human ears. Its all placebo, and Im willing to bet 100 bucks you would have a 50/50 chance of guessing it right.