Different audio quality comparison in Kbps. Here's how to improve your audio quality & extract audio from video: bit.ly/3ySVwla Thank you for watching, subscribe for more! Music: Buddha - Kontekst
For everyone who wonders why 16kbps sounds like you're in the room next door it's because it doesn't allow for enough high frequencies to come through so sounds muffled therefore creating a low pass filter of sorts
Correct, the higher the bandwidth the wider the range of frequences that can be recorded. That's why music played over a phone call (like when you're waiting on hold) sounds so bad, the codecs were only designed for the frequency range of human speech to save bandwidth and fit as many calls as possible on a satellite or fiberoptic cable.
If you've looked up Nyquist's principle, you'll see you're right. Treble makes use of shorter wavelengths. But sometimes, those wavelengths are shorter lengths of time than the sampling rate. If the soundwave is shorter than the sample rate, that sound isn't recorded. So you're right. As the bitrate is deepened, more treble is added because the sample rate becomes quick enough to actually record the shorter fluctuations in the waveform.
I wasn't expecting that literally different sounds would suddenly be audible, just that the quality would be different. Pretty neat, never seen a comparison like this before.
I think a comparison like this would work better with a more complex multi-layered orchestral piece. This only seems to have a few tracks at once, and I think something with many tracks would make the differences more obvious at higher bitrates.
It's already very apparent in this test. You hear more and more spatial information at 64/128/256 as the harmonics of the high frequency echoes are also captured with the higher sample rates. Your average Joe will probably be content with 64/128kb/s as they are listening to MP3s anyway.
It’s because analog or “real” instruments are more complex to capture and render, as they’re more “natural” and also tend to have a lot more high-end and overtones. There’s a few tracks I have in my “audio demo list” that I always go to for checking the higher-end of a system or headphones or speakers or whatever, one particularly has a really loud and slicing gong. If that one’s either harsh or dull, something’s not right about the output.
@@Qui-Gon_Jinn69 wrong, youtube is mp4 which is 320kbps the cool thing about mp4 is that even though it matches mp3 highest quality 320 kbps when uploaded to youtube which is mp4 for some reason the natural sounds of the instruments of an ORIGINAL WAV or FLAC file are 40% retained, so its not as compressed as an mp3 you can certainly hear just a bit more of the high end crispy sounds, unfortunately those people saying they cant hear a difference at such low kbps from 128 to 256 clearly dont have a high quality pair of headphones with the proper DAC to drive them or they dont have a set of good speakers with calibrated tweeters and subwoofers to hear much of a difference but 1 thing is for certain, if your speakers are cheap it doesnt matter what type of format you play your music through you will never be able to tell a difference HOWEVER 16 and 32 kbps are such sheet quality it can be heard by a set of old 1990s microsoft windows pc speakers, you know the ones... with cheap yellowy plastic and silver plastic volume knobs *shudders* uuuugh ok thats enough youtube for 1 day
@@ernestochang1744 1. mp3 and mp4 sounds bad either way even on 320 kbps 2. there's no 320 kbps on RU-vid, turn on stats for nerds, it will show how many kbps you have
Just so people know, and this is putting it simply: You’ll generally hear most difference in the higher-end, as in the higher frequencies, because those generally need more data to be rendered or resolved than lower frequencies (which are just less complex). And since bitrate refers to the amount of data per second, that’s where it will lose or gain most of the data. - And so of course there’s a point of diminishing returns with that, in terms in how much you’ll notice it. Lossless is simply no loss and the original render is 100% intact, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that lossy loses so much that it’s not coherent anymore.
That's why i think we can just straightaway make/implement sound muffling/blurring factor in our programs just by creating and calling anytime, a separate function for encoding the audio to a lower bitrate without interacting with the audio channels(dependent on a distance /or custom variable designated for specific set-pieces determined by A.I. or by the developer him/herself)
After 64 kbps it was difficult to distinguish any difference. And I have a separate dac/amp and hi-fi headphones. I guess it's neat that even free Discord you don't miss out on that much.
@@vikt ya, just like apple earbuds, beats, etc do not benefit from a “pure” sounding compression or decompression because there audio representation is not very good
interesting that if you go low enough it stops sounding BAD to sound DIFFERENT 16kbps was completely different, a great lofi, 32 and 64 kbps had that annoying "water in the bucket" sound, anything above that was clear again.
It's like this: 16 kbps = 90s AOL Dialup, listening on WinAmp vibe ; 32 kbps = early 2000s realplayer von Windows XP(maybe even 98/ME/2000) vibe (and Yahoo! Music, if anyone remembers that :D) ; 64 kbps = around 2006 - 2009 listening to mp3s on Windows Vista/7 (maybe even a bit XP) and watching the Animations in the player; 128 kbps = early 2010s the mp3s you bought on Google Play Music on your Android 2.3 / 4.0.4 Device; 256 kbps = 2015 - 2017 to present.
Wanna feel nostalgic? This is the Synthwave anthem ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8GW6sLrK40k.html It's curious how similar both songs are
I would have liked to hear how 160 and 192 compare as well. I haven't downloaded or recorded 128 in ages. (and I'm surprised RU-vid goes as high as 256)
@@wunpis9541 Apple Music offers one of the highest quality audio in a streaming service, but is really expensive and doesn’t have as wide of a music library as Spotify does
@@dancho0012 Yes, wired is the best form of transmission. You can improve your audio quality even further by getting better headphones and/or something that can process audio better, like a console or dedicated DAC. (Digital to Analog Converter, I use the FiiO BTR5)
@@stargazer8g2 Yes but the signal is still altered so that it can be transmitted then it's converted back on the headphones. That's twice the signal is being changed, that's besides it being put through the same things coming from yotuubes server.
@@Giovanni-rh1pw Probably more. Digital audio formats didn't really exist in 1986 when the song was being recorded, so they recorded to tape instead, which can bring much higher audio quality. This is the reason why vinyl records have superior sound to digital audio.
Honest question here - I also heard that RU-vid's resolution options also affect sound quality, is this true? I've been told the higher the resolution quality of the video, the better the audio bitrate is, too.
@@w6ndrr Well, I doubt the audio would change drastically as even half a bit rate would work for a RU-vid vid - I think - So, there is no correlation between RU-vid's resolution and audio? At all?
Technically analog is always better because it's a smooth wave instead of square-y looking approximation of a wave but digital audio has such a high sample rate that it's impossible to really distinguish digital from analog one by sound
I'm and audiophile and I listen to 1440kps CD audio quality and its so good but hearing the 16kbs makes me miss the old days of RU-vid playing mp3 from ares, listening to music in an ipod, viewing DVD movies, playing flash games all the day
thats probably the highest quality 16kbps sample ive heard before , i was expecting a garbly compressed mess but it just for the most part sounds like the high end was cut by a lot