I spent an afternoon on this, I pretty much concluded that you need a 1080 HD for the 192kbps to happen. On one of mine recently someone I trust told me he noticed at once the difference between 720 and 1080. I always felt their compression at 128 sounded quite better than Soundcloud's.cron wrote:Youtube. It doesn't have any of SCs netowrking features geared toward music, but its sound encoding is surprisingly good. Beats Soundcloud at all video sizes other than 240p. The 360p and 480p encodes will give you 128 AAC sound while 720p and above will give you 192 AAC. All beat the pants off Soundcloud's 128 MP3. Just make sure you upload your video with an uncompressed audio container for maximum quality (the same way you'd upload wav to SC) and you're away.@l3x!5 wrote:Would someone know of some alternative with better sound quality?
Just curious.
did soundcloud change something?
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
-
- KVRAF
- 3511 posts since 27 Dec, 2002 from North East England
Interesting findings. I wonder if this has something to do with Youtube's moving away from Flash and H.264 in favour of HTML5 and its own VP9 codec. I've noticed that nearly all videos load as HTML5 these days (easy to verify by right clicking the video and noting whether you see a Flash menu) There were some definite quirks before this though. I'd noted a few videos with obvious sound differences between 360p and 480p in the past. Not subtle stuff either: more like a lowpass filter being raised by several kHz. Looks like my info is in need of an update.jancivil wrote:I spent an afternoon on this, I pretty much concluded that you need a 1080 HD for the 192kbps to happen. On one of mine recently someone I trust told me he noticed at once the difference between 720 and 1080. I always felt their compression at 128 sounded quite better than Soundcloud's.cron wrote:Youtube. It doesn't have any of SCs netowrking features geared toward music, but its sound encoding is surprisingly good. Beats Soundcloud at all video sizes other than 240p. The 360p and 480p encodes will give you 128 AAC sound while 720p and above will give you 192 AAC. All beat the pants off Soundcloud's 128 MP3. Just make sure you upload your video with an uncompressed audio container for maximum quality (the same way you'd upload wav to SC) and you're away.@l3x!5 wrote:Would someone know of some alternative with better sound quality?
Just curious.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Mine all play as Flash.
I wanted to see what would give me something decent and I went into searching. I had read various things, such as the instructions youtube provides, but the information didn't add up, this would contradict that. I'm pretty sure 192 is the best you can get via youtube. I found a technical explanation on a video forum or site that tied the 192 to 1080 and I think it's authoritative. I don't have the vocabulary without parroting it to say why I believe it atm.
I'm rendering the video now at Apple HDV 1080i60, which assures me of 1080HD. It's a large-ish file but not monstrous.
I wanted to see what would give me something decent and I went into searching. I had read various things, such as the instructions youtube provides, but the information didn't add up, this would contradict that. I'm pretty sure 192 is the best you can get via youtube. I found a technical explanation on a video forum or site that tied the 192 to 1080 and I think it's authoritative. I don't have the vocabulary without parroting it to say why I believe it atm.
I'm rendering the video now at Apple HDV 1080i60, which assures me of 1080HD. It's a large-ish file but not monstrous.
-
- KVRian
- 1405 posts since 11 Nov, 2013
I test youtube and do a xvid mp4 720*576 compression only for black and a 256kbit mp3 audio codec. Sound quality is good so youtube can work really good, much better as soundcloud. I write a mail to soundcloud and link to the song, so they can hear how worse it is. 192kbit is only 50% more data, but quality is so good i hear no diffrence in sorround
win 11 64 25H2 ryzen 8600G (6*4.3 GHZ) 48 GB Ram
-
- KVRAF
- 3511 posts since 27 Dec, 2002 from North East England
My experience has been that the vertical resolution of whatever you feed Youtube is the only thing that affects the resulting video size. I tend to use a still picture resized to be 720 pixels vertically (although I might start doing 1080 in light of your research). The horizontal resolution of the video has no impact, and Youtube just displays the image in the centre with black bars to the left and right if the horizontal resolution doesn't fill the frame. I use Quicktime to do the conversion to H.264 video using the highest quality settings. The still image running at 1 frame per second plus uncompressed audio typically gives you a movie that's only 1 or 2 megabytes larger than the wav. Very manageable! Perfect sound and a nice sharp picture that's indistinguishable from the source.jancivil wrote:I'm rendering the video now at Apple HDV 1080i60, which assures me of 1080HD. It's a large-ish file but not monstrous.
Last edited by cron on Sun Jun 22, 2014 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 15135 posts since 7 Sep, 2008
Has anybody updated to v3 of the app yet?
If not, don't. Worst pile of garbage I've ever installed. Ever.
If not, don't. Worst pile of garbage I've ever installed. Ever.
"I was wondering if you'd like to try Magic Mushrooms"
"Oooh I dont know. Sounds a bit scary"
"It's not scary. You just lose a sense of who you are and all that sh!t"
"Oooh I dont know. Sounds a bit scary"
"It's not scary. You just lose a sense of who you are and all that sh!t"
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I found conflicting anecdotes. For instance one guy says that in 2014 youtube changed it so the audio quality is not tied to the video res at all. It's just his 'findings' and I think his ear so it doesn't tell me anything I can use, there is no documentation of the change but there are charts as to the 'legacy' ways. I have seen this gaining traction on the internet but I have not been able to confirm it.cron wrote:My experience has been that the vertical resolution of whatever you feed Youtube is the only thing that affects the resulting video size. I tend to use a still picture resized to be 720 pixels vertically (although I might start doing 1080 in light of your research). The horizontal resolution of the video has no impact, and Youtube just displays the image in the centre with black bars to the left and right if the horizontal resolution doesn't fill the frame. I use Quicktime to do the conversion to H.264 video using the highest quality settings. The still image running at 1 frame per second plus uncompressed audio typically gives you a movie that's only 1 or 2 megabytes larger than the wav. Very manageable! Perfect sound and a nice sharp picture that's indistinguishable from the source.jancivil wrote:I'm rendering the video now at Apple HDV 1080i60, which assures me of 1080HD. It's a large-ish file but not monstrous.
http://www.h3xed.com/web-and-internet/y ... 720p-1080p
OTOH this:
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1228774
So eventually I focused on video people's pages about it and found something which was logical to me. Youtube recommends the same '384kbps' in a 720p and a 1080p upload. I think my takeaway was it makes a 128 and a 192 in its decoding. The guy in the first link doesn't even seem to take youtube's re-encoding into consideration.
I don't even deal with the audio in the video render, I insert a 24-bit 44.1 wav in all of them using Cubase.
On one of my most recent uploads, the guy who runs a label which one of my tracks is featured on reported a dramatic change from 720 to 1080, which agress with my ear. Eevery time 1080 selection give me definition that is otherwise lacking - highs in percussion that are mixed noticably to the edges of the stereo field for instance, that should and do stand out.