Stories with Tag audio compression

• YouTube Audio Quality – How Good Does It Get?

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-01 19:11:12

  Verbose tl;dr

  The article explores YouTube's audio quality by providing several blind listening tests comparing different formats, including Opus 128 kbps (YouTube Music), AAC 128 kbps (regular YouTube), and original, lossless WAV files. The author concludes that while discerning the difference between lossy and lossless audio on YouTube can be challenging, it is possible, especially with higher-quality headphones and focused listening. Opus generally performs better than AAC, exhibiting fewer compression artifacts. Ultimately, while YouTube's audio quality isn't perfect for audiophiles, it's generally good enough for casual listening, and the average listener likely won't notice significant differences.

  The article "YouTube Audio Quality – How Good Does It Get?" on audiomisc.co.uk delves into the complexities of audio compression on YouTube and its impact on the listening experience. The author meticulously outlines the various audio codecs employed by the platform, highlighting the trade-off between audio fidelity and file size, a crucial balance for a service handling immense quantities of data. Specifically, the article explores the utilization of Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) by YouTube, detailing the different bitrates used for various resolutions of video content. Lower resolution videos typically employ lower bitrates, resulting in perceivably compressed audio quality, while higher resolution videos generally benefit from higher bitrates, preserving more of the original audio's nuance and dynamic range.

  The author underscores this relationship between video resolution and audio quality through a series of meticulously designed listening tests. These tests present listeners with paired audio samples, one ripped directly from the original source and the other extracted from a YouTube upload. By comparing these samples, listeners can discern the subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, alterations introduced by YouTube's compression algorithms. The author emphasizes the importance of attentive listening, encouraging readers to focus on specific sonic elements, such as the clarity of high-frequency details and the fullness of the low-end frequencies, to truly grasp the extent of the compression artifacts.

  The results of these listening tests reveal a nuanced picture of YouTube's audio quality. While the highest quality settings on YouTube do indeed deliver a listening experience remarkably close to the original source material, perceptible differences remain for the discerning ear. The author meticulously describes these differences, characterizing the compressed audio as occasionally exhibiting a slightly "veiled" or "muddy" quality, particularly noticeable in the high frequencies and transient details. Conversely, lower quality settings exhibit more pronounced compression artifacts, manifesting as a noticeable loss of clarity and dynamic range, making the audio sound flatter and less engaging.

  Ultimately, the article concludes that while YouTube's audio quality is generally sufficient for casual listening, it may not fully satisfy the demands of critical listeners or audiophiles. The author acknowledges the practical constraints imposed by bandwidth limitations and storage considerations, recognizing the necessity of compression for a platform of YouTube's scale. However, the article also implicitly suggests that there is always room for improvement, encouraging ongoing efforts to refine audio compression techniques and optimize the balance between audio fidelity and data efficiency.

  • YouTube
  • Audio Quality
  • audio compression
  • Streaming Audio
  • lossy compression
  • Opus Codec
  • AAC Codec
  • Bitrate
  • Sound Quality
  • Audio Testing
  • ABX Testing
  • Perceptual Audio Coding
  • digital audio

  Summary of Comments ( 2 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901182

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN users largely discuss their own experiences with YouTube's audio quality, generally agreeing it's noticeably compressed but acceptable for casual listening. Some point out the loudness war is a major factor, with dynamic range compression being a bigger culprit than the codec itself. A few users mention preferring specific codecs like Opus, and some suggest using third-party tools to download higher-quality audio. Several commenters highlight the variability of audio quality depending on the uploader, noting that some creators prioritize audio and others don't. Finally, the limitations of perceptual codecs and the tradeoff between quality and bandwidth are discussed.

  The Hacker News post titled "YouTube Audio Quality – How Good Does It Get?" with the link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901182 has several comments discussing various aspects of YouTube's audio quality.

  Many commenters agree that YouTube's audio quality is generally considered "good enough" for the average listener, especially for casual music listening and spoken word content. However, for audiophiles and those with higher-end audio equipment, the limitations become apparent. Opus 128kbps, the common codec used by YouTube, is highlighted as a significant compromise. While efficient and adequate for most, it introduces perceptible compression artifacts that diminish the listening experience compared to lossless or higher bitrate formats.

  Several comments focus on the specific example in the linked article, highlighting that differentiating between the original and the YouTube version isn't always easy, further reinforcing the idea that YouTube's quality is sufficient for many. However, other commenters argue that the difficulty of the test doesn't negate the underlying quality difference and that subtle compression artifacts still exist, impacting the overall experience.

  The discussion also branches into related topics, such as:

  • Loudness normalization: YouTube's loudness normalization practices are mentioned as a potential factor affecting perceived quality, with some appreciating the consistency it provides across videos while others feeling it negatively impacts the dynamic range.
  • Alternatives to YouTube: Platforms like Bandcamp and Qobuz are brought up as alternatives for users seeking higher quality audio, particularly for music.
  • Technical details of Opus: Commenters delve into the technical aspects of the Opus codec, discussing its strengths and weaknesses in terms of compression efficiency and quality. Some note its adaptive nature and suitability for various bandwidths.
  • Personal experiences: Many commenters share their individual experiences with YouTube's audio quality, with some expressing satisfaction and others noting noticeable degradation compared to other sources.

  A particularly compelling thread emerges from discussions about "transparent" compression, with users debating whether the compression artifacts introduced by Opus are truly imperceptible. This leads to a deeper conversation about the subjectivity of audio quality and the role of individual perception and equipment in evaluating these differences.

  Overall, the comments paint a picture of YouTube's audio quality as a pragmatic compromise between bandwidth efficiency and acceptable listening experience for the vast majority of users, while acknowledging the limitations for critical listeners and audiophiles. The comments don't definitively conclude whether the quality is "good" or "bad," but rather offer diverse perspectives reflecting the varying needs and priorities of listeners.

• Reviving a Dead Audio Format: The Return of ZZM

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-26 17:01:25

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post details a personal project reviving ZZM, an obscure audio format from the early 2000s. The author, driven by nostalgia and the format's unique compression algorithm based on "zero motivation," reverse-engineered the format and created a modern player. They overcame challenges like incomplete documentation, bitrotted samples, and outdated dependencies. The renewed interest stemmed from rediscovering old hard drives containing ZZM files, highlighting the importance of digital preservation and the potential for forgotten formats to find new life.

  In a comprehensive blog post titled "Reviving a Dead Audio Format: The Return of ZZM," author Nicole Zhu delves into the fascinating resurgence of the Zoo of Zero Motivation (ZZM) audio format, an obscure and largely forgotten piece of internet history. She meticulously details the format's origins in the early 2000s, characterizing it as a unique blend of spoken word, found sound, and musical elements, often delivered with a distinct lack of enthusiasm, hence the "Zero Motivation" moniker. The post explores how ZZM, while initially popular within a niche online community, ultimately faded into obscurity due to its inherent limitations and the rise of more accessible and polished audio formats like MP3s and podcasts.

  Zhu then transitions into an analysis of the recent unexpected revival of ZZM, attributing it to a confluence of factors. She highlights the growing nostalgia for early internet culture and the desire for alternative forms of creative expression beyond the increasingly homogenized landscape of mainstream audio content. The post emphasizes the role of online communities, specifically focused on archiving and sharing obsolete formats, in rediscovering and disseminating ZZM files. These digital archaeologists, driven by a passion for preserving digital history, painstakingly tracked down old ZZM files scattered across the internet, compiling them into accessible archives and sparking renewed interest in the format.

  Furthermore, Zhu discusses the technical aspects of ZZM, explaining its distinctive characteristics, such as its use of compressed audio and limited sound palette, and how these limitations contribute to its peculiar aesthetic charm. She notes the format's reliance on simple audio editing software readily available at the time of its inception, further emphasizing its accessibility and DIY nature. This accessibility, coupled with the format's inherent quirkiness, has attracted a new generation of creators who are experimenting with ZZM as a medium for expressing themselves in unconventional and often humorous ways. The post also explores how the format's limitations can be seen as a source of creative inspiration, forcing artists to work within constraints and embrace the inherent lo-fi quality of ZZM.

  Finally, Zhu concludes by speculating on the future of ZZM, acknowledging the cyclical nature of trends and the possibility that its current resurgence may be fleeting. However, she also suggests that the renewed interest in ZZM represents a broader shift towards appreciating the idiosyncrasies and imperfections of older, less polished forms of media. She argues that ZZM's unique blend of nostalgia, accessibility, and creative constraint may allow it to carve out a lasting niche in the contemporary audio landscape, offering a refreshing alternative to the highly produced and often formulaic content that dominates mainstream platforms.

  • audio formats
  • ZZM
  • obsolete technology
  • digital audio
  • audio preservation
  • retro technology
  • niche technology
  • technology revival
  • audio encoding
  • lossless audio
  • lossy audio
  • audio compression
  • Music Technology
  • vintage technology

  Summary of Comments ( 5 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42831550

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss the practicality and niche appeal of the ZZM audio format, questioning its relevance in a world dominated by MP3 and lossless formats. Some express nostalgia for simpler times and appreciate the technical deep dive into ZZM's structure. Several commenters debate the merits of its compression algorithm and small file size, acknowledging its suitability for limited storage devices like old cell phones, while others dismiss it as a novelty with no practical use today. The extreme minimalism of ZZM is both praised and criticized, with some finding it intriguing while others see it as a severe limitation. The discussion also touches on the inherent difficulties in achieving good audio quality at such low bitrates and the potential for ZZM in resource-constrained environments or specific artistic applications.

  The Hacker News post titled "Reviving a Dead Audio Format: The Return of ZZM," linking to an article about the ZZM audio format, has generated a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on the technical aspects and niche appeal of the format. While not an overwhelming discussion, several comments offer interesting perspectives.

  One of the more compelling threads discusses the practical limitations and potential advantages of ZZM. A user highlights the inherently low fidelity of the format due to its limited bitrate and the technical challenges in encoding audio effectively within those constraints. This sparks a conversation about the use cases where such limitations might be acceptable, such as extremely low-bandwidth environments or specific embedded systems where audio quality isn't paramount. Another user points out the potential for ZZM in creating small, self-contained musical pieces or sound effects for retro-style games or other applications where minimizing file size is crucial.

  Several comments delve into the technical details of ZZM encoding and decoding, with one user sharing their experience attempting to decode ZZM files and the difficulties encountered due to the scarcity of readily available documentation and tools. This underscores the challenges involved in reviving an obscure format and the importance of community effort in preserving and understanding such technologies.

  The nostalgic aspect of reviving older formats is also touched upon, with some users expressing appreciation for the effort to preserve digital history and explore the technical ingenuity of past approaches to audio compression. However, there's also a sense of pragmatism, with users acknowledging that ZZM is unlikely to see widespread adoption given the availability of more advanced and efficient audio formats today.

  A few comments briefly compare ZZM to other obscure or niche audio formats, further contextualizing its place within the broader landscape of audio technology. While some users express curiosity about experimenting with ZZM, the overall sentiment seems to be one of respectful appreciation for its historical significance rather than anticipation of its practical resurgence. The discussion remains largely focused on technical aspects, with limited discussion of the artistic or creative potential of the format.