Sources: [km] R2J Encode, [CBM] Subs & English Audio
Changes:
Encoded FLAC JP Audio into OPUS 192Kbps
Added chapters
Cut subs for NCOP/NCED
Losslessly trimmed the 2nd preview at end of each episode, km had two different previews for the next episode. They had the same clips just edited differently with different voice-over, they were pretty pointless but main reason to cut is because CBM didn't have them, meaning no subs and no English audio during that section if I left them in.
"Encoded FLAC JP Audio into OPUS 192Kbps"-that's a really stupid thing to do. Lossless into lossy just to save a tiny amount of space-flac is already compressed if you didn't know. Really fucking dumb. Consider this comment my retribution for Sky Girls.
@zrdb If it was AC3 i would have left it, but it was already converted Opus is transparent at 128-160 and I used 192, no one would be able to tell a difference in ABX tests. Besides, its a lossless to lossy conversion... not lossy to lossy.
My point is that decoded flac is pcm, a lossless format while opiss is a lossy format like mp3, aac etc. so you "encoded" flac to opiss which has compression artifacts like all lossy formats especially at dvd bitrates. And I didn't say lossy to lossy-read the comment a little closer.
Your point is stupid, everyone knows Opus is lossy. But lossy doesn't mean that there is a perceivable loss in quality. Even endoders like MTBB who are much better at this than me encode Opus at 128K because people can't pass ABX tests where they can tell a difference between even that lower bitrate audio to FLAC.
I go over that and use 192K because the size difference is small and for peace of mind.. Go do a proper ABX test and come back. Lots of audiophiles have been caught trying to cheat the tests in the past to show that they can tell a difference and have been caught out.
Video on the other hand.. you can easily tell a difference between a remux and most encodes, especially when grain is involved but people online are often stupid and they would prefer to waste filesize on lossless audio when they can't tell a difference between it and lossy audio.. instead of wanting encoders to give the video more bitrate to work with.
Times have been changing in the last few years though, lossy codecs are being prominently used by more encoders and remuxers.
I'm not saying lossless audio is bad, but people care about it way too much when lossy codecs can be transparent at a fraction of the size, and if given a bit of headroom will still sound great (but not perfect) on a re-encode too if anyone ever wanted to do that.
Comments - 5
laurensz
zrdb
MetalicBox (uploader)
zrdb
MetalicBox (uploader)