41–50 of 108 posts
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?
For music listening, the YouTube Music app has settings for higher audio quality under "Settings > Playback". According to their documentation, this is "Upper bound of 256kbps AAC & OPUS": https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/answer/9076559?hl=en... EDIT: FWIW, I'm a Premium member. I'm not sure if this is a standard feature.
The worse problem for YouTube Music is that some of the source material is not the same as what you may have on physical media. There are entire labels that provide worse or at least different materials than they published to record stores. And then there is remaster roulette. What am I going to hear if I press play on "Rumours": the original that was born perfect, or one of the half-dozen remasters that have been is…
I have YouTube premium and I have access to experimental features and coincidentally they offer one feature called audio in high quality. So they are working on improving it. 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 au…
why only on mobile? very curious
[reads]
...Jesus H. F. Christ....
Every generation thinks they discover sex and audio analysis for the first time.
[And don't call me Shirley]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why only on mobile? very curious
likely end-to-end drm
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?
I think time stretching is done natively by your browser, not by Youtube at all. I use https://github.com/igrigorik/videospeed on sites...allows any media to be stretched. Did you try another browser?
Besides, their Android and iOS apps do slow music as bad if not worse than on web.
[1] https://bungee.parabolaresearch.com/compare-audio-stretch-te...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Video takes up almost all of the bitrate/CPU time/ASIC budget, audio is a rounding error. 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.
Do you have information on this or are you just supposing? The VCU accelerator is supposedly 100x faster than software for VP9 and they have up to 20 accelerators per host. At those ratios it's not clear that a machine would be able to keep up with the audio processing, or that it would be easy to manage the division of labor between accelerators and host CPUs. Also there definitely are broadcast transcoders on the m…
Modern CPUs seem to be able encode opus at around 266x speed. In other words they can encode 266 seconds of audio in 1 second. The tests results also don't scale with core count, so the program itself is probably single threaded and therefore you could encode even faster if you have concurrent streams. It's highly unlikely that even with VCUs, a server can encode video streams at several thousand times faster than playback speed.
Why would it be 6.5 ms late? It's not much, but way larger than I'd expect. I never knew encoding might shift the audio track.
In all seriousness, every aspect of this comparison is somewhere between deeply flawed and invalid. No point dwelling on just one part.