61–70 of 108 posts
Now I just check on YouTube again and they are now back to 128 / 130 Kbps for AAC-LC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this is such a niche use the number of users taking advantage of this "feature" would be so small as to not get anybody a promotion
How did you become this convinced that it's some niche, unused feature? I'd go as far as to say it's essential. So many videos, especially of courses, out there that really need that 1.25x playback rate boost.
Also, your use of need is odd as well, and seem to have convinced yourself that the world is wrong and only you’re right. If it needed, the creators would have made it that way
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
That's no excuse for YouTube because (a) audio processing can be done in JS/WASM and (b) they have the influence to improve browser playbackRate implementations to something better [1]. 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...
If there's reason to believe this is a useful way to handle time stretching, then there's reason to believe the same browser could do it natively just fine.
I swear within the last 24 months most of the new Youtube video I saw had 256kbps AAC-LC audio in it. I thought that was generous of them to up the quality of audio. ( Along with 4Mbps 1080p50 AVC Video Files which is also quite high in quality ) Now I just check on YouTube again and they are now back to 128 / 130 Kbps for AAC-LC.
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…
Due to what I assume are music licensing oddities, one song in my Spotify now has an entirely different singer. It was taken down for a while, then later reuploaded as a new recording with new vocals. I’ve also seen copies of my songs changing to remix/cover versions, presumably due to metadata adjustments by the artists. Although usually I can re-search and find the original, adding it back to my library.
A few songs just have new outros/intros. One song in my library now has an additional several seconds of silence on the end. One has a new longer intro that I think is really from the music video version of the song.
As convenient as these music services are, I hate that my library changes beneath me without my control. There are dozens of songs just straight up missing from my Spotify library now. And a small handful that have changed audio. These are almost always in indie songs, and Spotify just hides deleted songs by default in the UI so most users don’t notice.
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…
Anyone uploading audio different platforms might find Streamliner useful (I'm nowhere near the point where details on that level matter). https://adptraudio.com/product/streamliner/ It's wild how many details sound people have to keep track of. I know when I upload to Youtube things get smoothed noticeably compared to say Soundcloud. Probably because I've mastered over their -14 LUFS requirement. I wonder how much of…
My theory about the more widespread use of subtitles when watching modern film and TV productions is that it is in large part due to screenwriters trying to write (and directors to direct) more realistic dialogue. Just by itself, everything else equal, realistic speech is necessarily harder to grok than “played out” theatrical. In real life people who can hear generally benefit from drastically higher fidelity and wi…
https://www.slashfilm.com/673162/heres-why-movie-dialogue-ha...
When I use an FFT to view the spectrogram on YouTube music videos, it is very obvious that YouTube applies a lowpass filter at 16kHz on all videos (true since 2023 at least). While this does retain the majority of useful information, it explains why the youtube version of your song feels just a little more 'lifeless' than the high quality version you have elsewhere. The original recording contains high frequency deta…
Having hearing sensitivity over 16 kHz is unusual. If you're under 15 years old and kept your ears pristine by not listening to loud noises, you might be able to hear it. Older people are out of luck.
Moreover, even if you can hear above 16 kHz in loud pure tones, there is so little content in real audio/music above 16 kHz that it makes no practical difference.
> massive savings ... effectively saved 25%
Not really. Going from a 48 kHz sampling rate to 32 kHz is indeed 2/3× the size for uncompressed PCM audio. But for lossily compressed audio? Not remotely the same. Even in old codecs like MP3, high frequency bands have heavy quantizers applied and use far fewer bits per hertz than low frequency bands. Analogously, look at how JPEG and MPEG have huge quantizers for high spatial frequencies (i.e. small details) and small quantizers for broad, large visual features.
Including 44.1kHz in the analysis is ignorant of the fact that most consumer audio equipment made in the past decade or two cannot switch its clock source and physical playback sample rate to that anymore. It's all 48kHz (or multiples of that, for snake oil) these days, starting with when Intel cemented HDA on a 24MHz clock. Playing back anything 44.1kHz just gets resampled at some point before hitting the DAC, in mo…
Oversampling can be a useful internal detail for ADCs and DACs. For example, if the digital audio stream is mathematically converted to 96 kHz with a high-quality FIR low-pass filter and then fed to a DAC, then the analog low-pass filter can have a much shallower roll-off and be more easily designed. Same goes for ADCs, where the analog filter can be simple and gentle, then digitized at 96 kHz, then downsampled digital to 48 kHz with high-quality but more computationally intensive filters. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-sigma_modulation , etc.)
But yes, listening to or distributing audio at anything over 48 kHz is a complete waste of resources. Monty@Xiph.Org explained very well in: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
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.