Yes BOTH!I can understand why someone would not want to support their business or in my case their music...
Yes BOTH!I can understand why someone would not want to support their business or in my case their music...
Finally did some tests of what YouTube is doing with encoding at the moment, and some good news! 192 audio is still available, but the video has to be uploaded with audio in 44.1k, not 48k, sampling rate. That is, uncompressed audio sent to YouTube, at 48k yields 126kbps AAC, at 44.1k yields 192kbps AAC - when the video is at 720p or higher, and then listened at the 720p setting.Uh-oh! YouTube appear to have cottoned on to the 720p anomaly, and are "correcting" it, as we speak, . Channels which had high quality sound have now lost it - I did some investigating, and videos that were uploaded say 6 months ago have just been re-encoded, literally a week or so ago - dropping the quality back to the 128 or so level.
So, now Tim is correct - the clip audio quality will typically be marginal, a deliberate decision by YouTube, apparently ...
No doubt in due diligence ( or preliminary analysis ) Apple discovered this.. Or other things.., who knows.. Don't sue me JZZZZZZZZHere's more Tidal controversy. It's no wonder Apple wasn't interested in buying.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jay-...idal-accused-of-inflating-user-numbers-2017-1
Just SOP from those gangsters and crooks. They inflate user numbers when that is financially to their advantage. Then deflate the numbers when it comes time to pay their friends in the music business.Here's more Tidal controversy. It's no wonder Apple wasn't interested in buying.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jay-...idal-accused-of-inflating-user-numbers-2017-1
Goes on everywhere Amir, not just entertainment. Nice way to avoid paying taxes too. LOLKeeping two sets of books is common in entertainment industry. Record labels for example have a different set of books than the one the use to pay royalties to the talent.
Good watch. It is another piece of evidence that most people can't even hear the difference between compressed and uncompressed music let alone all the esoteric things we throw money at...
Certainly. Same as I can listen to the noise coming from a running engine and diagnose the difference between a piston slap, rod knock, or tappet noise. A learned skill.This is analogous to how people with knowledge and familiarity of a given ------------
In sports there is an independent referee that judges whether you did good or not. In audiophile world, there listener is his own judge and as a result, he constantly leads himself to wrong conclusions. That in turn means much of their accumulated learning about gear is faulty. This is tested time and time again with audiophiles not being able to pick apart night and day differences in blind tests.This is analogous to how people with knowledge and familiarity of a given sport will appreciate the play on a level much different than does the casual sports watcher. The knowledgable sports fan doesn't have better developed visual acuity, they have better developed observational skills.
In sports there is an independent referee that judges whether you did good or not. In audiophile world, there listener is his own judge and as a result, he constantly leads himself to wrong conclusions
In that sense when it comes to non-linear and complex distortions, audiophiles are quite blind to it and hence all the effort they put in eliminating them is for not. Compression artifacts are one such distortion. The most subtle thing it does is destroy reverb trails and transients. If someone doesn't hear them then what are the odds that they hear the same in equipment differences?...The most audible distortion to all of us is linear transformations such as rooms and speaker response differences. In this domain yes, we all are more skilled than average Joe.
Countless ones do. Ratings are provided for both individuals and collective. Training is allowed and recommended, etc.My suggestion is that most 'scientific' listening tests are not truly scientific because they don't account for the variable of observational skill differences among the test subject.
By being judged themselves.And how, exactly, do you suppose that those referees gained their judgment skills?
By being judged themselves.
I do actually. If I am a runner, I can use a timer to know how fast I finish. That simple tool does not exist for audiophiles. Instead they rely on their gut feeling, wet thumb in the air, etc. to know how fast they ran. Worse yet, they put aside all logic and science and apt to believe in any and all things to be true. Net result is that there is no correct assessment whatsoever.That education chain had to begin somewhere. It's not circularly referential, nor an infinite regression. You don't seem to be allowing for personal experience and discovery to play a valid role in learning, which they do.
Using the sporting analogy, achieving in audio is not how fast you run, but becoming aware of poor technique, basic mistakes in how you move your limbs, etc, incorrect adjustment or poor choice of the gear you're using. A tennis player doesn't become better, win more events because he serves harder, or makes fancier shots; it's rather that when the pressure is on that he doesn't lose it, remains composed - consistency under all conditions will win through, every time.
And that's why he uses a coach, or with an open mind reviews footage of his own performance - he sees the weaknesses, failings, and it's the overcoming of those that will make him a consistent winner.