Difference between 1080p Youtube audio and .WAV

[Prophetmusic]

Is there any?

Googled around but nothing... I'm sure at least one of you has the answer!

[fmr]

Is there any?

Googled around but nothing... I'm sure at least one of you has the answer!

I would say, based on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video that, at the maximum, you would get 320 kbit/s, which the best resolution of MP3. WAV is linear, with a rate of 1.444 kbit/s
According to this http://www.ifunia.com/youtube-column/be ... ormat.html You Tube is clearly MP3 320
Acording to this http://www.microsoft.com/windows/window ... rmats.aspx, however, you could have high resolution audio, but definitely it's not the case on You Tube.

[BertKoor]

FYI, here's a comparison I did with the Rightmark Audio Analyser, comparing raw PCM with several compression levels of Lame.

Code: Select all

Testing chain: file conversions
Sampling mode: 16-bit, 44 kHz
+-----------+
|  Summary  |
+-----------+

Test :                       WAV   320kbps 192kbps 128kbps 
Frequency response :        +0.00,  +0.05,  +0.21,  +0.30,  
(from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB  -0.00   -0.07   -0.56   -1.10
Noise level, dB (A):        -97.8   -97.8   -97.7   -97.6 
Dynamic range, dB (A):       97.8    97.8    97.4    96.7 
THD, %:                     0.0003  0.0009  0.0009  0.0009 
IMD + Noise, %:             0.0037  0.010   0.010   0.020 
Stereo crosstalk, dB:       -100.0  -100.0   -99.8   -99.3 

The frequency response graph is mainly what you want to see:



My conclusions:
* 128 kbps artefacts are clearly measurable and should be audible
* 192 kbps is good enough for Rock'n Roll
* 320 kbps is damn good, I bet no one picks it out in a blind listening test