11–20 of 108 posts
Youtube probably have stats on viewer-happyness vs bitrate. I would take a guess that a higher bitrate = longer loading times, and viewers care far more about an extra few second of buffering than they care about audio quality, especially when they don't have the original to compare to.
Couldn’t you do adaptive Bitrate and start streaming low-bitrate for a few seconds and then switch to higher quality once the video is already playing?
This kind of analysis is interesting but must be considered rapidly outdated since we won't know what's changing behind the scenes at YouTube. Have they ever revealed whether their VCU handles the audio?
Server CPUs can encode audio at hundreds of times faster than realtime so there’s no need for hardware acceleration. Back in the iPod era DSPs were used to decode MP3/AAC but now only the most CPU or battery constrained devices like AirPods need hardware acceleration.
Youtube probably have stats on viewer-happyness vs bitrate. I would take a guess that a higher bitrate = longer loading times, and viewers care far more about an extra few second of buffering than they care about audio quality, especially when they don't have the original to compare to.
Youtube probably have stats on viewer-happyness vs bitrate. I would take a guess that a higher bitrate = longer loading times, and viewers care far more about an extra few second of buffering than they care about audio quality, especially when they don't have the original to compare to.
Couldn’t you do adaptive Bitrate and start streaming low-bitrate for a few seconds and then switch to higher quality once the video is already playing?
Why doesn't this huge AV platform use a better audio time stretch algorithm?
Description:
High-Quality Audio
Available until February 22
With high-quality audio, you can listen to music on YouTube in the best audio quality.
How it works: Watch an eligible music video on YouTube and enjoy the benefits of higher-quality audio.
Only available on iOS and Android.
Youtube probably have stats on viewer-happyness vs bitrate. I would take a guess that a higher bitrate = longer loading times, and viewers care far more about an extra few second of buffering than they care about audio quality, especially when they don't have the original to compare to.
Couldn’t you do adaptive Bitrate and start streaming low-bitrate for a few seconds and then switch to higher quality once the video is already playing?
… while yeah… a lower bitrate upfront might lower the required bandwidth and thus, latency, to get enough of a buffer to start playback … all the bloat on the page would be a better first port of call.
Nice analysis, for 1x playback speed. If you're playing back at a different speed, for example, for music practice, YouTube audio is awful. Why doesn't this huge AV platform use a better audio time stretch algorithm?