- down song #1, wav format. 26.4 MB.
(youtube-dl -x --audio-format wav song #1 URL).
- down song #1, flac format. 23.2 MB.
(youtube-dl -x --audio-format flac song #1 URL).
Hmmm . . .
- down song #2, wav format. 44.0 MB.
(youtube-dl -x --audio-format wav song #2 URL).
- down song #2, flac format. 47.4MB!
(youtube-dl -x --audio-format flac song #2 URL).
Aren't FLAC files supposed to be much smaller than WAV files?
WTF?
Who cares
Lol what is it 2005? An HDD is extremely cheap, if you can't afford the extra memory doesn't listen to audiophile meme snakeoil
Flac is usually smaller than wav, yes. But not much smaller in all instances (though it can be depending on the source). You're likely confusing that with Opus.
IDK what youtube-dl does, these may not actually be from the same yt sauce stream.
>Aren't FLAC files supposed to be much smaller than WAV files?
No, they only compress the wave file, not compress and throw away data like lossy codecs.
why would you bother saving music from youtube in flac or wav?
You can adjust the compression of FLAC files. Could YouTube-dl be using the lowest setting?
This
A source of audio that has already undergone lossy compression will not get good savings from the FLAC codec - and you shouldn't be saving it as raw PCM either. Keep it in its original lossy format to prevent any further degradation.
>Ripping audio from Youtube in FLAC
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Why would you do that? Just use the -x without any format or quality options and let the program download the best available option automatically.
You don't quite understand that youtube is not using lossless audio codecs. FLAC is intended for archival-quality lossless audio - hence why it's offered in most DAW packages as a means of mastering audio to sites like bandcamp.
Youtube encodes audio in a lossy manner. Converting to WAV only transcodes the waveform from lossy to a lossy WAV. You're not understanding the principles behind the tech.
If you were to take a WAV from, say, a CD, and convert it to FLAC, you would likely see some savings in size, while retaining the original quality of the CD audio.
Ultimately, you're misunderstanding the difference between lossy and lossless codecs. The resulting waveform from a youtube downloaded audio stream is going to be missing bits of the original audio due to the use of a lossy codec. Re-compressing the lossy waveform in a FLAC won't do you any good.
I'm guessing this is a troll. No one can be this dumb.
babbies first encoding
If you cant download all of this, you dont belong on Jow Forums
touhou is a meme cult
Both are "lossless" formats. Why lose sound quality if you don't have to?
>encoding 128kbps music into FLAC or WAV
yikes
Wav is a raw pcm stream. Flac is a lossless form of compression. Flac should be smaller than Wav when saving audio.
YouTube does not store lossless audio. It's already compressed (I think they used to use ogg but that probably changed). When taking lossy compression and then saving it as a Wav or a flac, it's going to be similar sized due to the fact it was already compressed.
It's like compressing a folder to a zip then trying to re-zip it and saying "I thought zip files are supposed to be smaller"
I'm not a fucking weeb.
The idea is to save whatever you can get, in a format where even if not "perfect", at least there will be no further loss of quality (barring bit-rot, of course).
Flac is supposed to save metadata in a way that wav doesn't.
And flac is supposed to be further compressed, decompressing on the fly at playback.
Please suggest better format choice?
Elaborate, please.
Why not?
Which 2hu is your favorite to fap to?
Unfortunately, downloads in opus format (lossy).
Get out.
Adults are talking.
if you get lossy compressed data then the quality is already lost, you gain nothing by storing a lossy uncompressed copy.
But it pretty much always will increase file size over the compressed "original" that you downloaded. So use the compressed original instead if you have no specific reasons not to.
Right, but if you go from a lossy format to a lossless (like flac) you don't gain anything. It's considered an inferior transcode than just the original lossy file. You don't gain anything transcodeing lossy to flac.
An mp3 doesn't loose quality over time if that's what you were implying. That's just silly
>memory
UUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH
Why are there so many replies to such an obvious troll?
You are of course correct that an mp3 doesn't lose quality by being played (file read) over time, except that any file of any type is subject to "bit-rot" (entropy) as indeed everything in the entire universe will fade into background heat over time.
Now, if I understand you correctly, if the source file exists, and is therefore by default downloaded in, opus format, then there is no quality or "longevity" advantage to converting said opus sound file into any other format?
And if so, then any conversion into any other format will only result in loss of quality?
If you have nothing worth saying, then don't.
whether the audio has been distorted by past lossy compression should be irrelevant. Flac should still be smaller than no compression at all. Unless something is very wrong.
Compressing a jpeg with png will still give a smaller file than a completely uncompressed image. e.g. bmp. ( i think bmp does some really basic run length encoding but still.)
>saving a lossless version of a lossy source
This is the state of Jow Forums right now
Elaborate, please.
(continued)
But, such conversion would of course be necessary in order to play the sound file on a device that won't play opus files, but wav, mp3, etc files instead.
So those tightwads at Google makes billions, but youtube stores and feeds music in opus format?
Fuck them!