rokweom

As I said, spectrograms are not indicative of compression quality. Codecs should be judged by ears only. What you see in a spectrogram will vastly differ between codecs and will not reflect their compression efficiency.

Just as a side note, spectrogram are not in any way indicative of compression quality.

Its interesting that you didn't see any differences between flac and opus, as opus has a hard 20 kHz low-pass filter and is 48kHz-only.

That's cool. Is it out for PS5 yet?

There's a great tool for creating online ABX tests: https://abxtests.com/

The guy who made it, jaakkopasanen, is also the author of other great audio tools - AutoEQ and Impulcifer.

There are passive and active dongles. With a passive dongle, the DAC is built into the phone and the analog signal is simply passed through the connector. Active dongles are essentialy tiny USB DACs, they communicate with the phone digitally via USB.

The issue with modern displays (OLED and LCD) is that they are sample-and-hold, which means that a frame will remain lit for its whole duration, leading to motion blur. Even a perfectly instantenous pixel response won't fix that.

Considering he's linking to Sean Olive's (the main guy behind Harman's research into headphones and Harman curve) blog, he's likely very much aware that flat frequency response doesn't sound good.

I can't believe people actually find those results to be amazing. None of these algorithms, or as they call them - "AIs", are yet capable of adding detail (be it spatial or temporal) in a way that actually makes it look believable. It's all approximation, a very, very poor approxiation. I'm sure we'll reach that level one day, but for now, we are far away from it.

Add to that the fact that those film scans are rarely shared in their original framerate and you're getting an absolutely terrible result.

Try Portal and Portal 2. The series is really friendly for begginers, and it has one of the best stories and writing in video games. If you never played a first person game, it might take some time to get used to the controls, but Portal is perfect for it - you can play as slow as you want.

I wish publishing pre-sound era films in their original framerate was a common practice. However, for some reason it seems to be beyond the scope of people handling these restorations.

There's a difference between having to comply to certain standards when opening a new service, and being forced by government to retain a service that is unprofitable.

How can government tell you what services you must provide? That's ridiculous.

Wow, that's amazing. Nowadays a 3$ board from aliexpress can do the same (with SD card or USB drive instead) and much more - more formats supported, Bluetooth etc. How the technology progressed.

Sodium lamps are very efficient. Saying that they consume up to 250W doesn't mean anything. There are LED lamps that consume much more.

In large part this is caused by the education system. Instead of promoting thoughtful reading, discovery and broadening horizons, it forces kids to read through literature classics that are boring and completely unrelatable to modern kids.

Yes, he talks about it later in the video. What's interesting about this Technics is that it's fully integrated - no need for a separate PCM processor and VCR.

Criterion Channel and MUBI are two streaming services I can think of off the top of my head, plus there's a much wider selection of physical releases. Nothing is "behind their iron media curtains".

Not only Eastern Europe, Crunchyroll started out the same way. At the beginning they were an illegal streaming site with fansub translations, and gradually they transformed into a fully legit anime streaming service.

Plus the movies aren't that high in quality - many are only in SD when 2K or even 4K restorations are available, and many are marked as HD even though they are clearly upscaled from SD. If you really wanna watch them, just pirate them and watch them in better quality and do not support this shady website.

It's the same situation with VP9. It's supposed to be a competitor to HEVC, but in reality lack of serious psychovisual optimizations in any of the publicly available encoders make it at best on par with x264 compression-wise, while being significantly more computationally expensive.

Its only appeal is that it's royalty-free, but since all devices that support VP9 decoding also support h.264, is it really worth it?