High constant bitrate content, like 128mbps for video and ~10mbps for audio is possible for free?

submitted by

So, I have pretty much downloaded all type of content and never actually saw something of this quality, even on pirated sites, they claim huge numbers, but the quality is average only, especially on a big T.V. What do you think, help your fellow pirate.

9
22

Log in to comment

Hot Top New Old
edited

You can torrent 4k movie/show BD remux versions, those are gonna hit close to 100 mbps, but damn that TV of yours must really be big.

Not sure about 10 mbps audio, my average flacs seem to have between 3 and 5, I don’t think my ears would be tell the difference if it was any higher (I can hardly tell the difference to 320 kbps mp3s).

 reply
10
OP

Thanks for the suggestion, basically I didn’t new the max range possible for the best quality of audio/video, so I asked the absolute max I can think of, I will definetly check out the remux versions, 🤟

 reply
0

I can’t speak about video, but with audio, the quality isn’t defined by the bitrate. Audio can have lossless compression (FLAC is an example), and the bitrate won’t matter because the original can always be recreated from the FLAC, regardless of its bitrate.

Audio quality is measured in sample rate and bit depth. The sample rate is the amount of samples of the audio wave per second. The bit depth is the amount of bits of information for each sample.

The most common audio quality is CD quality. It’s the quality you get from CD rips, and it’s already good enough that you won’t hear a difference above it. It is 44.1 kHz of sample rate, with 16 bits of depth. Also commonly represented as 16/44.1.

The second most common audio quality is 48kHz of sample rate, with 16 bits of depth (16/48).

In terms of sample rate, you can have: 44.1, 48, 96, 192 and 384 kHz. You can have higher numbers, but they’re impractical and I’ve never seen it even with mixing material.

In terms of bit depth, you can have: 16, 24 and 32 bits of depth. Again, more is possible but impractical and never used.

Any combination of those 2 is possible, and higher numbers will yield higher bitrate. As a rule of thumb, CD quality will be ~1000-1300kbps in FLAC.

That is already more than enough for anyone, and even though there are people that claim to be able to hear a difference between it and higher quality versions, I very much doubt them. Regardless, to even have a chance at distinguishing them, you’d need an expensive setup with expensive wired headphones and an expensive external DAC (wireless headphones use lossy compression to send the audio through bluetooth, so it makes no sense to worry about audio quality with those).

 reply
4
edited

I think only Rick Rubin can ever reach 1300kbps in a FLAC from CD; listen to System of a Down self-titled album. It barely compresses!

Well-mastered classical and 1980s albums can average ~700kbps. IIRC, using default FLAC compression level 5.

 reply
3

I have ripped my Planet Earth III UHD Blu Ray in lossless and I think that’s around 75-80MBS combined audio/video in h.265 format. It looks amazing in HDR on my 85” miniLED TV.

Understand this codec saves you close to 40% bitrate over h.264. So when you’re talking high bit rate content, what’s are you watching? Most 4K stuff is going to be h.265 but many sites I’ve seen still use h.264 or a mix… I’ve eventually wanted to reencode stuff to AV1, h.266, or similar, but until there’s more widespread adoption, it’s not viable.

 reply
8
OP

Thanks for providing a clear assessment of whats possible, but damn I never knew h.266, also exist, you learn new things every day, thanks for that, and I watch mostly films and webseries, but never got actual good quality on free websites compared to netflix, apple tv etc, so was just hoping that there must exist something, which I am unaware of.

 reply
4

Same, ive never seen h.266. wonder when itll mske it’s way over the scene

 reply
1
edited

First, how big is your TV, and how close do you sit?

I have a 65 and sit about 6’ away. I’ve found there’s a LOT of variability in visual quality even in the same category of source (eg DVD). BluRay can be better, but only of the source is better and mastering is done better.

There’s a lot of dependence on the original source, and then on mastering. Most of my videos are h264 (for compatibility), some look fantastic on the TV, some look like crap - and the difference is in the original source or the mastering process (I’ve converted a lot of discs myself, so have seen the difference). Conversion brings it’s own issues, but that’s secondary and more about my preferences.

Old masters weren’t intended for today’s large TVs or LED/LCD tech, so bring along or induce artifacts (blockiness especially in dark areas, videotape originals, or mastered for smaller CRTs, etc).

 reply
5
edited

You’re looking for “2160p remux” torrents

 reply
5
Insert image