The video came a few days ago, at this point he might since it has a lot of hate that he is aware of.
If he knew the video was no good before it was released, then he should not have released it.
End of story.
However, other than TotalBiscuit I don't know of any youtubers that remove their videos then make an apology video for it.
ALL decent content creators who aren't grubbing for money do this. It was completely irresponsible of him.
I'm not talking about removing a video that got bad publicity, I'm talking about if you think your video is not good enough or will cause problems, you should not upload it to begin with.
TB alone scraps something like 3+ videos per week.
CGPGrey for every 1 video upload, he scraps around 8.
The guy behind Errant Signal, for every ~5 videos he makes only 1 or 2 gets uploaded.
Ashens, for every video uploaded there is usually a video (or first take of the same video) that was scrapped completely.
The extra credits guys have probably scrapped more videos than they care to count.
FreddieW does multiple takes to minimize videos scrapped, but they still abandon some projects even after finishing them.
The Yogscast (just the main channel) scrap almost 10 videos per week.
Remi doesn't upload everything he does, especially if he doesn't think it's funny enough.
etc. etc. etc. I can guarantee you a large majority of content creators cull their content before upload to some extent.
Logan even told you to test it for yourself. I think they just didn' feel like cutting out the testing so they play the audio twice and advertise their album (which is pretty good actually). Also keep in mind that they tested other songs other than his own. Anyways i remember doing a test myself, I download a FLAC album and compared ti to the 320kbps version (blind test) and I could barely hear a difference, one not worth the extra space to store the files. Especially once you consider that FLAC files aren harder to get digitally without illegal means it just makes more sense to stick to mp3's. Granted if you can hear the difference then by all means, use flacs, no one is stopping you.
It doesn't matter whose songs he used to test with. He could have used music from the most perfectly preserved record in the history of ever. The fact of the matter is that youtube reencodes all audio, so any difference that might have existed between FLAC and mp3 would have been made NULL AND VOID because that signal was reencoded AGAIN by youtube.
For those that collect music, legitimately, it is far easier for them to get whatever codec they want for their audio than pirates. Pirates are stuck with whatever people give them. Buyers can do whatever they want to the cd/casette/record/whatever they buy.
Whether you can hear the difference or not is usually a minor concern for a good number of people. Whether a difference exists at all is what matters. There is a lot of noise that can be introduced from every step of the listening process, so the idea is to minimize it as much as practically possible. The codec is usually as far as you can go as a customer.
--Not to mention; another benefit of getting a lossless version of your music, even if it's not FLAC, is the simple fact that codecs are always evolving. In three years there will be another, better, superior in every way, shape and form lossy codec for music. In ten mp3s might not even be popularly supported anymore. The same is true for FLAC, too. The difference between the two is that, since FLAC is lossless, I can reencode to the newest, better lossless codec without any loss. It'll probably end up a bit bloated, but I lost no data. With the lossy mp3, I cannot reencode it without losing data. If there's a new superawesome lossy codec that my iEye4 supports, and it doesn't read mp3s anymore, I cannot transform my mp3 into it, without a loss. However, I CAN encode my FLAC into it, with no loss except what the new fancy thing would do anyways.
One of the biggest advantages of FLAC or any lossless encoding over OGG or MP3 is that, well, it's lossless. Hard disk space is not exactly hard to come by, and FLAC is an ideal source format for the very reason that it's lossless. if you rip a CD to a specific bitrate in a lossy format, you will lose information forever. Transcoding that file around and you will lose information even if you reencode to a higher-bitrate, or even the same format.
It doesn't matter whose songs he used to test with. He could have used music from the most perfectly preserved record in the history of ever. The fact of the matter is that youtube reencodes all audio, so any difference that might have existed between FLAC and mp3 would have been made NULL AND VOID because that signal was reencoded AGAIN by youtube.
He did the audio test with Foobar2k, not youtube, you would know that if you watched the video. From one of your previous comments it seems you are under the impression they did the test over youtube.
One of the biggest advantages of FLAC or any lossless encoding over OGG or MP3 is that, well, it's lossless. Hard disk space is not exactly hard to come by, and FLAC is an ideal source format for the very reason that it's lossless. if you rip a CD to a specific bitrate in a lossy format, you will lose information forever. Transcoding that file around and you will lose information even if you reencode to a higher-bitrate, or even the same format.
I have over 12k songs on my computer and they take up 73GB if space on my hard drive, if they were FLAC files they would probably take up 730GB of space, which since me and most other people can't hear the difference might as well be used for movies, videos, games and programs. As I'm planning on at least doubling my music collection by the end of the year I plan in sticking with mp3's.
In my opinion if you can't hear the difference than why bother?
I have over 12k songs on my computer and they take up 73GB if space on my hard drive,
Wat
How are 12k of non-FLAC songs taking up 73GB of space?
I've got around 10k songs with a 60:40 split of MP3 and FLAC and it's barely reaching the 55GB mark. Adding another 2k files onto that would only put it around the 64GB mark.
He did the audio test with Foobar2k, not youtube, you would know that if you watched the video. From one of your previous comments it seems you are under the impression they did the test over youtube.
Are you stupid? Where are we watching the video? How are we POSSIBLY watching the video?You're right. We're watching a video through youtube.
WatHow are 12k of non-FLAC songs taking up 73GB of space?I've got around 10k songs with a 60:40 split of MP3 and FLAC and it's barely reaching the 55GB mark. Adding another 2k files onto that would only put it around the 64GB mark.
I have 15k songs, of mostly FLAC with mp3/ogg mixed in. Quite a few of these are chunk FLAC split by .cue files, since they're directly ripped from the CD. It's 235GB.
Are you stupid? Where are we watching the video? How are we POSSIBLY watching the video?You're right. We're watching a video through youtube.
I dont know how the hell to respond to that so im just going to rephrase my point.
Earlier you said this: Their test is very silly, where they play a FLAC video and that a 320kpbs MP3 and then play it over the youtube video, as if if there were a difference we would then here it. Pretending that youtube doesn't reencode everything it touches.
Followed up by this: It doesn't matter whose songs he used to test with. He could have used music from the most perfectly preserved record in the history of ever. The fact of the matter is that youtube reencodes all audio, so any difference thatmight have existed between FLAC and mp3 would have been made NULL AND VOID because that signal was reencoded AGAIN by youtube.
Now this put me under the impression that you think they got the mp3 and flac files off youtube to test with, which is false because they clearly used foobar to do the testing, not youtube playback. Yes they did display the audio along with Logan listening to it and comparing it but that wasn't for you to do the test yourself, and that's not what they intended.
I dont know how the hell to respond to that so im just going to rephrase my point.
Earlier you said this:
Their test is very silly, where they play a FLAC video and that a 320kpbs MP3 and then play it over the youtube video, as if if there were a difference we would then here it. Pretending that youtube doesn't reencode everything it touches.
Followed up by this:
It doesn't matter whose songs he used to test with. He could have used music from the most perfectly preserved record in the history of ever. The fact of the matter is that youtube reencodes all audio, so any difference thatmight have existed between FLAC and mp3 would have been made NULL AND VOID because that signal was reencoded AGAIN by youtube.
Now this put me under the impression that you think they got the mp3 and flac files off youtube to test with, which is false because they clearly used foobar to do the testing, not youtube playback. Yes they did display the audio along with Logan listening to it and comparing it but that wasn't for you to do the test yourself, and that's not what they intended.
That's not what I was saying. I was saying they were presenting it to the users as if part of the test, or an accurate representation of any kind. It's not, it's a gimmick. If they wanted to clarify the point, they could have simply not included that stupid little piece, or had a disclaimer. They did not.
If it's not for us to be a part of, I hardly see why they included it at all. It's not like they miced the headset or something. It was deliberately placed in.
Not to mention we have no idea what their real testbed is. They never mentioned it. All we know is that they use foobar. We do not know if they used any number of the plugins for it, which is why foobar is so popular. They could have used any kind of equalizer, the Dolby Headphone Wrapper, which is known to affect playback, or any kind of audio filter. And we wouldn't know.
Because their video is crap. Their intention wasn't to do a test, disspell misinformation or try and contribute to the massive amount of information already out there about lossy, lossless, and lossy vs lossless codecs, but simply to illicit a response from their viewers.
End of story.
ALL decent content creators who aren't grubbing for money do this. It was completely irresponsible of him.
I'm not talking about removing a video that got bad publicity, I'm talking about if you think your video is not good enough or will cause problems, you should not upload it to begin with.
TB alone scraps something like 3+ videos per week.
CGPGrey for every 1 video upload, he scraps around 8.
The guy behind Errant Signal, for every ~5 videos he makes only 1 or 2 gets uploaded.
Ashens, for every video uploaded there is usually a video (or first take of the same video) that was scrapped completely.
The extra credits guys have probably scrapped more videos than they care to count.
FreddieW does multiple takes to minimize videos scrapped, but they still abandon some projects even after finishing them.
The Yogscast (just the main channel) scrap almost 10 videos per week.
Remi doesn't upload everything he does, especially if he doesn't think it's funny enough.
etc. etc. etc. I can guarantee you a large majority of content creators cull their content before upload to some extent.
It doesn't matter whose songs he used to test with. He could have used music from the most perfectly preserved record in the history of ever. The fact of the matter is that youtube reencodes all audio, so any difference that might have existed between FLAC and mp3 would have been made NULL AND VOID because that signal was reencoded AGAIN by youtube.
For those that collect music, legitimately, it is far easier for them to get whatever codec they want for their audio than pirates. Pirates are stuck with whatever people give them. Buyers can do whatever they want to the cd/casette/record/whatever they buy.
Whether you can hear the difference or not is usually a minor concern for a good number of people. Whether a difference exists at all is what matters. There is a lot of noise that can be introduced from every step of the listening process, so the idea is to minimize it as much as practically possible. The codec is usually as far as you can go as a customer.
--Not to mention; another benefit of getting a lossless version of your music, even if it's not FLAC, is the simple fact that codecs are always evolving. In three years there will be another, better, superior in every way, shape and form lossy codec for music. In ten mp3s might not even be popularly supported anymore. The same is true for FLAC, too. The difference between the two is that, since FLAC is lossless, I can reencode to the newest, better lossless codec without any loss. It'll probably end up a bit bloated, but I lost no data. With the lossy mp3, I cannot reencode it without losing data. If there's a new superawesome lossy codec that my iEye4 supports, and it doesn't read mp3s anymore, I cannot transform my mp3 into it, without a loss. However, I CAN encode my FLAC into it, with no loss except what the new fancy thing would do anyways.
One of the biggest advantages of FLAC or any lossless encoding over OGG or MP3 is that, well, it's lossless. Hard disk space is not exactly hard to come by, and FLAC is an ideal source format for the very reason that it's lossless. if you rip a CD to a specific bitrate in a lossy format, you will lose information forever. Transcoding that file around and you will lose information even if you reencode to a higher-bitrate, or even the same format.
In my opinion if you can't hear the difference than why bother?
How are 12k of non-FLAC songs taking up 73GB of space?
I've got around 10k songs with a 60:40 split of MP3 and FLAC and it's barely reaching the 55GB mark. Adding another 2k files onto that would only put it around the 64GB mark.
Earlier you said this: Their test is very silly, where they play a FLAC video and that a 320kpbs MP3 and then play it over the youtube video, as if if there were a difference we would then here it. Pretending that youtube doesn't reencode everything it touches.
Followed up by this: It doesn't matter whose songs he used to test with. He could have used music from the most perfectly preserved record in the history of ever. The fact of the matter is that youtube reencodes all audio, so any difference thatmight have existed between FLAC and mp3 would have been made NULL AND VOID because that signal was reencoded AGAIN by youtube.
Now this put me under the impression that you think they got the mp3 and flac files off youtube to test with, which is false because they clearly used foobar to do the testing, not youtube playback. Yes they did display the audio along with Logan listening to it and comparing it but that wasn't for you to do the test yourself, and that's not what they intended.
That's not what I was saying. I was saying they were presenting it to the users as if part of the test, or an accurate representation of any kind. It's not, it's a gimmick. If they wanted to clarify the point, they could have simply not included that stupid little piece, or had a disclaimer. They did not.
If it's not for us to be a part of, I hardly see why they included it at all. It's not like they miced the headset or something. It was deliberately placed in.
Not to mention we have no idea what their real testbed is. They never mentioned it. All we know is that they use foobar. We do not know if they used any number of the plugins for it, which is why foobar is so popular. They could have used any kind of equalizer, the Dolby Headphone Wrapper, which is known to affect playback, or any kind of audio filter. And we wouldn't know.
Because their video is crap. Their intention wasn't to do a test, disspell misinformation or try and contribute to the massive amount of information already out there about lossy, lossless, and lossy vs lossless codecs, but simply to illicit a response from their viewers.