The article explores YouTube's audio quality by providing several blind listening tests comparing different formats, including Opus 128 kbps (YouTube Music), AAC 128 kbps (regular YouTube), and original, lossless WAV files. The author concludes that while discerning the difference between lossy and lossless audio on YouTube can be challenging, it is possible, especially with higher-quality headphones and focused listening. Opus generally performs better than AAC, exhibiting fewer compression artifacts. Ultimately, while YouTube's audio quality isn't perfect for audiophiles, it's generally good enough for casual listening, and the average listener likely won't notice significant differences.
The article "YouTube Audio Quality – How Good Does It Get?" on audiomisc.co.uk delves into the complexities of audio compression on YouTube and its impact on the listening experience. The author meticulously outlines the various audio codecs employed by the platform, highlighting the trade-off between audio fidelity and file size, a crucial balance for a service handling immense quantities of data. Specifically, the article explores the utilization of Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) by YouTube, detailing the different bitrates used for various resolutions of video content. Lower resolution videos typically employ lower bitrates, resulting in perceivably compressed audio quality, while higher resolution videos generally benefit from higher bitrates, preserving more of the original audio's nuance and dynamic range.
The author underscores this relationship between video resolution and audio quality through a series of meticulously designed listening tests. These tests present listeners with paired audio samples, one ripped directly from the original source and the other extracted from a YouTube upload. By comparing these samples, listeners can discern the subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, alterations introduced by YouTube's compression algorithms. The author emphasizes the importance of attentive listening, encouraging readers to focus on specific sonic elements, such as the clarity of high-frequency details and the fullness of the low-end frequencies, to truly grasp the extent of the compression artifacts.
The results of these listening tests reveal a nuanced picture of YouTube's audio quality. While the highest quality settings on YouTube do indeed deliver a listening experience remarkably close to the original source material, perceptible differences remain for the discerning ear. The author meticulously describes these differences, characterizing the compressed audio as occasionally exhibiting a slightly "veiled" or "muddy" quality, particularly noticeable in the high frequencies and transient details. Conversely, lower quality settings exhibit more pronounced compression artifacts, manifesting as a noticeable loss of clarity and dynamic range, making the audio sound flatter and less engaging.
Ultimately, the article concludes that while YouTube's audio quality is generally sufficient for casual listening, it may not fully satisfy the demands of critical listeners or audiophiles. The author acknowledges the practical constraints imposed by bandwidth limitations and storage considerations, recognizing the necessity of compression for a platform of YouTube's scale. However, the article also implicitly suggests that there is always room for improvement, encouraging ongoing efforts to refine audio compression techniques and optimize the balance between audio fidelity and data efficiency.
Summary of Comments ( 2 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901182
HN users largely discuss their own experiences with YouTube's audio quality, generally agreeing it's noticeably compressed but acceptable for casual listening. Some point out the loudness war is a major factor, with dynamic range compression being a bigger culprit than the codec itself. A few users mention preferring specific codecs like Opus, and some suggest using third-party tools to download higher-quality audio. Several commenters highlight the variability of audio quality depending on the uploader, noting that some creators prioritize audio and others don't. Finally, the limitations of perceptual codecs and the tradeoff between quality and bandwidth are discussed.
The Hacker News post titled "YouTube Audio Quality – How Good Does It Get?" with the link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901182 has several comments discussing various aspects of YouTube's audio quality.
Many commenters agree that YouTube's audio quality is generally considered "good enough" for the average listener, especially for casual music listening and spoken word content. However, for audiophiles and those with higher-end audio equipment, the limitations become apparent. Opus 128kbps, the common codec used by YouTube, is highlighted as a significant compromise. While efficient and adequate for most, it introduces perceptible compression artifacts that diminish the listening experience compared to lossless or higher bitrate formats.
Several comments focus on the specific example in the linked article, highlighting that differentiating between the original and the YouTube version isn't always easy, further reinforcing the idea that YouTube's quality is sufficient for many. However, other commenters argue that the difficulty of the test doesn't negate the underlying quality difference and that subtle compression artifacts still exist, impacting the overall experience.
The discussion also branches into related topics, such as:
A particularly compelling thread emerges from discussions about "transparent" compression, with users debating whether the compression artifacts introduced by Opus are truly imperceptible. This leads to a deeper conversation about the subjectivity of audio quality and the role of individual perception and equipment in evaluating these differences.
Overall, the comments paint a picture of YouTube's audio quality as a pragmatic compromise between bandwidth efficiency and acceptable listening experience for the vast majority of users, while acknowledging the limitations for critical listeners and audiophiles. The comments don't definitively conclude whether the quality is "good" or "bad," but rather offer diverse perspectives reflecting the varying needs and priorities of listeners.