• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Youtube as a Music Source

shartpants said:
Lossy compression is designed to target frequencies most people don't hear anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like older people.

That could explain it for me.

I have little hearing above 10 Khz so maybe I simply can't hear the more compressed higher frequencies at all lol

And if true, there are tens of millions of older critical licensers that couldn't tell a Youtube video from a master...

Actually I bet the compression algorithms are described publicly and some simple analysis could support the theory. And if it turns out that after a certain age, most people do not have the high frequency hearing to hear the difference between free music and paid; now that would be a business opportunity lol
 
Last edited:
idf.bts said:
The allegory of the cave applies to fidelity, it seems.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying fidelity isn't important. Most of my disposable income goes into vinyl and CDs because I enjoy and care about high fidelity. I've been known to buy several different masters and mixes of the same album so I can compare them in quality. It's important to remember, though, that the music is more important than the format in which it's listened to.
 
Lance A. said:
That could explain it for me.

I have little hearing above 10 Khz so maybe I simply can't hear the more compressed higher frequencies at all lol

And if true, there are tens of millions of older critical licensers that couldn't tell a Youtube video from a master...
Click to expand...

This is a misnomer. Compression is designed to mash the dynamic range of the signal into a smaller one, the same frequency response still appears, but the levels of the signal are compressed so that everything in the music sounds about equally loud.
 
Lance A. said:
That could explain it for me.

I have little hearing above 10 Khz so maybe I simply can't hear the more compressed higher frequencies at all lol

And if true, there are tens of millions of older critical licensers that couldn't tell a Youtube video from a master...
Click to expand...

That's almost definitely the case. Even files with pretty low bitrates typically have everything below 15kHz intact.
As far as lossy streaming goes, I would suggest Spotify premium, but I've never tried YouTube premium, so that suggestion is based on nothing other than me liking Spotify. I don't know the price comparison and I know YouTube has the added benefit of playing videos.
 
I asked a question similar to this before and someone gave a good explanation on how things can sound so good on you tube. I was curious about digital reordings of albums someone makes that are so good you could even hear the slight difference in which cartridges he was using. I don't remember the reason he gave why they can sound so good but they can. I have back to back a CD and you tube and could not hear a difference. Numbers do not tell the whole story.

Hifisquarepants and mrvynilobsessive make great album recordings, the later is extremely good and i have found to be the best. There are reasons I am just not that technical to remember why they can sound so good.

I love this cartridge.
 
Last edited:
idf.bts said:
This is a misnomer. Compression is designed to mash the dynamic range of the signal into a smaller one, the same frequency response still appears, but the levels of the signal are compressed so that everything in the music sounds about equally loud.
Click to expand...

You're thinking of dynamic compression. We're talking about data compression.
 
shartpants said:
That's almost definitely the case. Even files with pretty low bitrates typically have everything below 15kHz intact.
As far as lossy streaming goes, I would suggest Spotify premium, but I've never tried YouTube premium, so that suggestion is based on nothing other than me liking Spotify. I don't know the price comparison and I know YouTube has the added benefit of playing videos.
Click to expand...

Youtube Premium is $11.99 per month. And it opens up a whole new world of listening.
 
idf.bts said:
This is a misnomer. Compression is designed to mash the dynamic range of the signal into a smaller one, the same frequency response still appears, but the levels of the signal are compressed so that everything in the music sounds about equally loud.
Click to expand...
That's not true. Compression is designed to approximate the original with efficiently encoded approximations. "Dynamic range" is probably one of the least "expensive" attributes to encode / approximate.
 
I just found this:
-------------------
As we age, so do our inner ears. Because of this, there are certain sounds that we simply cannot hear as we get older. Click through the below links and see if you can hear the sounds associated with your age.

  • 8,000 Hz should be easily heard by everyone with normal hearing.
  • 12,000 Hz is hard for anyone over 50 years of age to hear.
  • 15,000 Hz is difficult for anyone over the age of 40 to hear.
  • 17,400 Hz is a frequency that only teenagers can hear. Most people over the age of 18 cannot hear this tone.



Which means that most people over the age of 50 don't have the hearing to hear the difference from lossless to lossy compression.
 
loopstick said:
That's not true. Compression is designed to approximate the original with efficiently encoded approximations. "Dynamic range" is probably one of the least "expensive" attributes to encode / approximate.
Click to expand...

Approximation is an implementation technique, compression has its own definition specific to this context. You're mixing implementation with theory. I used the word "mash" loosely to account for varied implementations.
 
idf.bts said:
Like a zip file?
Click to expand...
Similar idea. Zip files, like FLAC, are types of lossless data compression. They're able to store all the same data as the original in a smaller filesize. Mp3 and other lossy formats were also designed to take up less space, but they do so by eliminating certain frequencies. Imagine a book written in shorthand (lossless) vs a book that's been abridged (lossy). The first book has the exact same text as the original once decoded by someone who understands shorthand, but has less pages. The second book has had sections of text removed in order to have less pages.

Dynamic compression is entirely different, has no effect on filesize, and usually occurs when someone does a poor job remastering something.
 
shartpants said:
Similar idea. Zip files, like FLAC, are types of lossless data compression. They're able to store all the same data as the original in a smaller filesize. Mp3 and other lossy formats were also designed to take up less space, but they do so by eliminating certain frequencies. Imagine a book written in shorthand (lossless) vs a book that's been abridged (lossy). The first book has the exact same text as the original once decoded by someone who understands shorthand, but has less pages. The second book has had sections of text removed in order to have less pages.

Dynamic compression is entirely different, and usually occurs when someone does a poor job remastering something.
Click to expand...

A FLAC file conversion won't affect the dynamic range.
 
idf.bts said:
A FLAC file conversion won't affect the dynamic range.
Click to expand...

Neither will conversion to mp3, at least not in the way you're thinking. If the softest sounds in a recording (the algorithm probably wouldn't remove the loudest, most noticeable sounds in a song) occur at high frequencies, then yes, the dynamic range will be very slightly affected.

This is a misnomer. Compression is designed to mash the dynamic range of the signal into a smaller one, the same frequency response still appears, but the levels of the signal are compressed so that everything in the music sounds about equally loud.
Click to expand...

Based on the above quote, though, you're talking about dynamic compression, which is designed to "mash dynamic range... so that everything in the music sounds about equally loud."
 
NH-MAN said:
I asked a question similar to this before and someone gave a good explanation on how things can sound so good on you tube. I was curious about digital reordings of albums someone makes that are so good you could even hear the slight difference in which cartridges he was using. I don't remember the reason he gave why they can sound so good but they can. I have back to back a CD and you tube and could not hear a difference. Numbers do not tell the whole story.

Hifisquarepants and mrvynilobsessive make great album recordings, the later is extremely good and i have found to be the best. There are reasons I am just not that technical to remember why they can sound so good.

I love this cartridge.
Click to expand...

In that case, you should try the real thing. It'll sound even better.
 
Lance A. said:
Youtube Premium is $11.99 per month. And it opens up a whole new world of listening.
Click to expand...

Spotify is supposedly only $9.99 a month. Not trying to change your mind, though. Do what you want. I tend to like Spotify, but like I said, I've never tried YouTube premium. Can always sign up for a free trial and see whether or not you like it.
 
shartpants said:
Based on the above quote, though, you're talking about dynamic compression, which is designed to "mash dynamic range... so that everything in the music sounds about equally loud."
Click to expand...

Yes with the different comments it seemed like someone thought that dynamic range meant lopping off the top and bottom. I was looking to correct that notion which is a commonly held idea I've heard before.
 
idf.bts said:
The confusion comes from a variety of posters talking across each other. I pointed out a misnomer.
Click to expand...

You weren't right, though. You were talking about something completely different, so by pointing out a "misnomer," you caused further confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom