[ProAudio] Lossless audio on YouTube

[Dan Lavry]

YouTube channel accommodates 44.1K 16 bits. Doing lossless (about factor of 2 smaller file) would allow the same bandwidth to accommodate 44.1 or even 48KHz at 24 bits. Not long ago, the motivation for lossless was about both memory size and download speed. It seems to me that the memory size (hard drive, thumb drive and more) is much less of a concern because memory capacity has increased so dramatically in the last few years.Download speed is still an issue, especially for slow internet. Of course the bandwidth is being increased as well and at some point, it may not be worth it to even bother with the process of compress and uncompress a file. I am not sure I will see it in my lifetime, I am old.RegardsDan LavrySent from Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Louis Judson via ProAudio <proaudio at bach.pgm.com> Date: 4/23/21  1:29 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: Scott Dorsey <kludge at panix.com>, proaudio at bach.pgm.com Cc: cheater00social at gmail.com Subject: Re: [ProAudio] Lossless audio on YouTube Sounds about right. A filmmaker friend agrees.Other issues are the low quality of video on Tube. And the infernal ads!I keep an adbloker on all the time, and until a few moths ago never had ads on Utube…
<L>Lou Judson * Intuitive Audio415-271-8070 mobileI'm just a simple sound engineer, nothing more, nothing less.-- paraphrase of the Dalai Lama.

On Apr 23, 2021, at 1:02 PM, Scott Dorsey via ProAudio <proaudio at bach.pgm.com> wrote:Are there any other issues I am missing?1. The average viewer really doesn't care about sound quality.2. Video people on the whole care and know less about sound quality   even than the average listener.These things are unfortunate.--scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bach.pgm.com/pipermail/proaudio/attachments/20210423/44737fbc/attachment.html>