Sure it might be you have better streaming, then again we've disagreed on YouTube sound preference before and I suggested your use of a Macbook might not allow you to hear videos at their best. For example I found the system playback of Sarah Vaughan below clearly superior to the 'official' Youtube version:
If YouTube recordings sound good, why do commercial digital releases sound so bad.
- Thread starter Rexp
- Start date
Why don't you tell him instead of telling us?
I am sure he would be happy to know that you find the sound of his albums to be poor and that you are sharing your unique perspective on forums.
Last edited:
Regarding this Nora Jones song, the Youtube is an entirely different recording chain and probably engineers. The album sounds particularly BAD. Her mike sounds like it is overloaded and the compression on her voice makes it painful to my ears. Not an apples to apples comparison.
Regarding the Chet Baker album, the Youtube version sounds overall compressed (not with the gated dynamic compression that modern recordings use) just dull and fuzzy. The tone on the trumpet is nice, but wooly. The streaming or non-streaming file that I have sounds better. Better separation of instruments, better front to back soundstage, bigger dynamics and an actual top end. I can hear the bass instrument much clearer on the non-youtube version. Also the tracks are in different order between them.
I have done listening tests between streaming with my TV vs my Innuos Pulsar streamer, and I definitely prefer the Pulsar. But these Youtube differences are far greater than the previous mentioned difference.
One of my favorite records. I have an original Pablo pressing. I also have the original CD release ripped to my system, and a Japanese XRCD release. This record has a very rich deep sound, Sarah's voice is deeply resonant. Its wonderful. My digital copies sound far better than the Youtube version, and the vinyl playback video is so unbalanced with a huge bump in uppers bass I can't see how it is comparable. Also the instruments are all mushed together, no soundstaging, and much fine detail missing.
Her voice on the vinyl video does have some warmth/coloration the digital copies are missing. If I ripped my vinyl copy on a high quality rig, and at a decent bitrate, I am sure it would blow any of my digital copies out of the water sonically. That is my experience with ripping vinyl generally.
I am using the same system to listen to TV as my other components, with the TV coming out at 24/48, which is the resolution that Youtube videos are natively.
I have produced a few video's myself, and the difference playing them on my system vs. after they are uploaded to Youtube are clear. The Youtube videos sound opaque, with the top and bottom ends rolled off, and very flat. Any brightness or brilliance in the original is sawed off the top. So they sound more inoffensive and bland. I hear the same quality in most Youtube videos. I honestly don't think anything below 50hz or above 5k or so gets through the compression.
I also have a few lossless and uncompressed 4k videos of music with lossless audio tracks at 24-192Khz (huge at like 50 Gigabytes for an hour). And the result out of my TV shows that it is not its quality that limits the SQ of video, but the Youtube platform itself that causes the diminishing of sonics.
I also have a few lossless and uncompressed 4k videos of music with lossless audio tracks at 24-192Khz (huge at like 50 Gigabytes for an hour). And the result out of my TV shows that it is not its quality that limits the SQ of video, but the Youtube platform itself that causes the diminishing of sonics.
Last edited:
Thanks for participating, @Juiced and I prefer listening to the youtube version, now it could be we have similar tastes but are you sure your tv is getting the best out of these videos?
Yes, the YouTube version of the digital release (I don't exactly know which one it is) does not come close to the uncompressed version I have:
These video comparisons are pointless, unless of course you only listen to music on YouTube - which is fine, but it is hard to make a case that it is superior to anything. YouTube does contain lots of original material, which you cannot listen to otherwise, and that is a blessing of course.
The digital version does have some audible "hiss" on all tracks - maybe they were produced from a poor tape? The original 1978 pressing could be superior.
Last edited:
I found a direct comparison. This Youtube video is of one of the albums I have:
I have this uncompressed video:
Viriditas (Video Download) • Sibil•la Ensemble
Buy Viriditas by Sibil•la Ensemble as Video Download on TRPTK.com.
trptk.com
Playing them both on my TV to my DAC I clearly hear what I have described, with the Youtube cutting off highs and lows, an overall fuzziness and lack of clarity, flatness of soundstage, and lack of dynamics.
My TV output, like most, downsamples higher bandwidth to 24/48Khz, so it is outputting the same resolution as the Youtube video. I have a reference top of the line Sony from a few years ago, so the digital is pretty good, and my DAC is excellent at rendering optical.
Neither of these holds a candle to the 32 bit DXD file the album is in played from the Innuos Pulsar.
Viriditas (Hi-res Download) • Sibil•la Ensemble
Buy Viriditas by Sibil•la Ensemble as Hi-res Download on TRPTK.com.
trptk.com
Last edited:
Sure no one said youtube videos at 128kbps are as good as lossless content, I am sure Google developed it to sound good on lower res systems. A few youtubers do post the lossless files of their videos in the description so it's quite easy to hear the difference. Comparing the sound of two, equally low-res vids, is fine tbough.I found a direct comparison. This Youtube video is of one of the albums I have:
I have this uncompressed video:
Viriditas (Video Download) • Sibil•la Ensemble
Buy Viriditas by Sibil•la Ensemble as Video Download on TRPTK.com.
Playing them both on my TV to my DAC I clearly hear what I have described, with the Youtube cutting off highs and lows, an overall fuzziness and lack of clarity, flatness of soundstage, and lack of dynamics.
My TV output, like most, downsamples higher bandwidth to 24/48Khz, so it is outputting the same resolution as the Youtube video. I have a reference top of the line Sony from a few years ago, so the digital is pretty good, and my DAC is excellent at rendering optical.
Neither of these holds a candle to the 32 bit DXD file the album is in played from the Innuos Pulsar.
Viriditas (Hi-res Download) • Sibil•la Ensemble
Buy Viriditas by Sibil•la Ensemble as Hi-res Download on TRPTK.com.
playing the
comparing to the tidal version
tidal.com
i don't find the youtube lacking at all,
quite the opposite.
played the video from my TV (lg c1) via toslink with 48khz sample rate
and from my windows pc via usb with output of sample rate 384khz
odd,I found a direct comparison. This Youtube video is of one of the albums I have:
I have this uncompressed video:
Viriditas (Video Download) • Sibil•la Ensemble
Buy Viriditas by Sibil•la Ensemble as Video Download on TRPTK.com.
Playing them both on my TV to my DAC I clearly hear what I have described, with the Youtube cutting off highs and lows, an overall fuzziness and lack of clarity, flatness of soundstage, and lack of dynamics.
My TV output, like most, downsamples higher bandwidth to 24/48Khz, so it is outputting the same resolution as the Youtube video. I have a reference top of the line Sony from a few years ago, so the digital is pretty good, and my DAC is excellent at rendering optical.
Neither of these holds a candle to the 32 bit DXD file the album is in played from the Innuos Pulsar.
Viriditas (Hi-res Download) • Sibil•la Ensemble
Buy Viriditas by Sibil•la Ensemble as Hi-res Download on TRPTK.com.
comparing to the tidal version
Sibil•la Ensemble - Cantigas de Santa Maria: Gran poder a de mantar
Listen to Cantigas de Santa Maria: Gran poder a de mantar on TIDAL
i don't find the youtube lacking at all,
quite the opposite.
played the video from my TV (lg c1) via toslink with 48khz sample rate
and from my windows pc via usb with output of sample rate 384khz
playing the
odd,
comparing to the tidal version
Sibil•la Ensemble - Cantigas de Santa Maria: Gran poder a de mantar
Listen to Cantigas de Santa Maria: Gran poder a de mantar on TIDAL
i don't find the youtube lacking at all,
quite the opposite.
played the video from my TV (lg c1) via toslink with 48khz sample rate
and from my windows pc via usb with output of sample rate 384khz
The Qobuz version (sorry, I don't have Tidal) sounds a little more refined than the YouTube version, to my ears.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this thread is not about comparing "compressed" versus "uncompressed" sound (however, I'm not sure I understand what this thread is really about...), which is exactly what you are doing comparing the Tidal version to that YouTube video (since it is the exact same track).
I prefer this one to the Tidal version too:playing the
odd,
comparing to the tidal version
Sibil•la Ensemble - Cantigas de Santa Maria: Gran poder a de mantar
Listen to Cantigas de Santa Maria: Gran poder a de mantar on TIDAL
i don't find the youtube lacking at all,
quite the opposite.
played the video from my TV (lg c1) via toslink with 48khz sample rate
and from my windows pc via usb with output of sample rate 384khz
The last two videos are vinyl rips - which can definitely sound good (depends on the vinyl...).
The first video does sound very good. I was even suspicious that it was not a system recording, as there is little change in frequency balance and volume as the camera moves around the room, but when he is at the very back there is. Impressive.
Here is the first track played in that first video:
The sound is a little thinner in the system video, and the piano, for example, sounds a little metallic, but still very good. Not surprisingly, the version on Qobuz (lossless) sounds a little sharper.
Last edited:
Here, there is indeed a big difference between two CD versions of the same album. It is unfortunate that the worst sounding version is the only available on streaming (Tidal or Qobuz), but that is not uncommon (and one of the reason why I still purchase CDs...). YouTube has nothing to do with it, and both of these CDs are "commercially available".
When different versions (whether CD or LP) are available on YouTube, it is indeed very useful to compare them.
Last edited:
Here's Michael Fremer recording snippets of Joe Lovano practicing at a recording session (starts 12.00)
And towards the bottom of this article you can hear the studio recording.
trebleclefaudio.com
And towards the bottom of this article you can hear the studio recording.
Treble Clef Audio – Treble Clef Audio : Our ‘Authentic’ Standard
Discover the ultimate authentic HIFI experience at Treble Clef Audio. Explore our standard of excellence in audio technology and innovation.
trebleclefaudio.com
Similar threads
