Why does Youtube sound better?

[Coldblackice]

(...in this case)

I've noticed a big difference in (perceived) sound quality between a FLAC song I have and its Youtube equivalent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHvgAJe8bvM

Assuming it's not an issue with the encoding process of my FLAC file, any ideas why the Youtube version might sound better?

(A subjective question, I know, and will probably incur the scoffs of the audiophilic kind )

My best ill-knowledged hypothesis would be that VEVO (or related) is "pre-equalizing" the track somehow -- pumping up certain frequency ranges/levels/settings (like punchier bass) before uploading it to YT.

But perhaps not.

Besides ripping the audio from the YT video, any suggestions on how I might be able to get this sort of "quality" or sound from my file? (even if it involves having to re-rip the file)

If it's a matter of having to do something real-time, like equalization, is there a way I can "translate" what equalizer settings/levels the YT version might have applied? I.e., is it possible to analyze the YT song with software and get a readout on levels/frequencies/etc to measurably determine which ones I'd need to tweak on my end?

I'd rather not have to "trial-and-error" it, as it would surely prime the pumps of my OCD

 

[NoxTek]

Keep in mind music videos are often equalized during production specifically for broadcast, usually 'warming' the audio a bit or punching up the bass and treble for a sharper sound.

Your best bet to approximate such results would be creative equalization during playback... or find a 'dynamic range compression' plugin for your music player.

 

[Coldblackice]

Thanks. By "creative equalization", do you just mean loose trial and error? Or is there perhaps some type of spectrogram or waveform analysis that can roughly determine where levels are set (and thus, how one might better match those levels through equalizer sliders)?

 

[NoxTek]

Thanks. By "creative equalization", do you just mean loose trial and error? Or is there perhaps some type of spectrogram or waveform analysis that can roughly determine where levels are set (and thus, how one might better match those levels through equalizer sliders)?

Trial and error...

To do any sort of 'waveform analysis' you would have to have the original data (read: a raw bit for bit copy of the song, which you have) and some pretty powerful software to compare it to the Youtube / VEVO version and then apply the differences as some sort of filter or equalization.

I know of no solution for this and quite frankly I'd be really surprised if it exists.

A shiny penny says that the 'rock' preset on your music player's EQ would come closest to what you heard on Youtube, but a DRC effect would probably be even closer.

 

[HammerSandwich]

Two copies of the "same" CD can have different data for various reasons.

 

[undermined]

Also keep in mind that a playback setup might be unable to do justice for the dynamic range of a 16/44.1 recording if it is lacking but the compressed audio on a youtube video probably is tuned for a narrow range were response is easy to achieve on most playback systems.

basically the higher quality files are exposing the inability for good playback but the youtube content is effectively masking it.

What is your playback setup?

Depending on the player, the flac file might be bypassing the OS's re-sampling or soundcard's EQ but the youtube stuff isn't so it is getting a lot of help.

Normally it isn't that Flac sounds better but more like Flac isn't altered from the original and should sound closest to what was recorded .

All that considered, the version of the song mastered for CD isn't normally the same mix of the same song's video either so it is hard to say if you are even comparing the same song mix.

 

[Alocasia]

I know it's a little late, but while searching Google for the answer, this thread popped up.

Totally understand what you mean OP, YouTube music always sounds fantastic when compared to it playing it in itunes, even if brought from Amazon or ripped direct from CD!

Basically the problem was two fold:

1) I was using itunes' automatic Equaliser
2) I was using itunes' "Sound enhancer"

Both of these things distorts the songs in such a way they turn our rubbish. Disable both and the sound is much much closer to Youtube i.e. good.

 

[matteos]

(...in this case)

I've noticed a big difference in (perceived) sound quality between a FLAC song I have and its Youtube equivalent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHvgAJe8bvM

Assuming it's not an issue with the encoding process of my FLAC file, any ideas why the Youtube version might sound better?

(A subjective question, I know, and will probably incur the scoffs of the audiophilic kind )

My best ill-knowledged hypothesis would be that VEVO (or related) is "pre-equalizing" the track somehow -- pumping up certain frequency ranges/levels/settings (like punchier bass) before uploading it to YT.

But perhaps not.

Besides ripping the audio from the YT video, any suggestions on how I might be able to get this sort of "quality" or sound from my file? (even if it involves having to re-rip the file)

If it's a matter of having to do something real-time, like equalization, is there a way I can "translate" what equalizer settings/levels the YT version might have applied? I.e., is it possible to analyze the YT song with software and get a readout on levels/frequencies/etc to measurably determine which ones I'd need to tweak on my end?

I'd rather not have to "trial-and-error" it, as it would surely prime the pumps of my OCD

I find Youtube to sound god awful..

 

[rudy]

Why don't you upload a control song to youtube and see what happens?

 

[Coldblackice]

What is your playback setup?

Depending on the player, the flac file might be bypassing the OS's re-sampling or soundcard's EQ but the youtube stuff isn't so it is getting a lot of help.

Normally it isn't that Flac sounds better but more like Flac isn't altered from the original and should sound closest to what was recorded .

All that considered, the version of the song mastered for CD isn't normally the same mix of the same song's video either so it is hard to say if you are even comparing the same song mix.

I'm running HDMI out from a 7950 in my desktop, feeding a Yamaha RX-V667 receiver, which outputs to two Klipsch B3's and a BIC/Acoustech 12-inch sub. Nothing "audiophile", by any means.

Why don't you upload a control song to youtube and see what happens?

Good idea.

I know it's a little late, but while searching Google for the answer, this thread popped up.

Totally understand what you mean OP, YouTube music always sounds fantastic when compared to it playing it in itunes, even if brought from Amazon or ripped direct from CD!

Basically the problem was two fold:

1) I was using itunes' automatic Equaliser
2) I was using itunes' "Sound enhancer"

Both of these things distorts the songs in such a way they turn our rubbish. Disable both and the sound is much much closer to Youtube i.e. good.

Good to know, thanks for the info.

 

[Sycraft]

Also keep in mind that what sounds "good" to you may vary from what other people like. It may very well not be what is the most accurate or correct sound. So you do need to play around with it and see what it is you like, and don't.

One thing to be careful of though is that by default, you will tend to prefer louder things to softer ones. Just how we work. Now the reason to be careful is that if you squash all the dynamic range out of a track, it'll sound louder since it has a higher average level, but it actually degrades sound quality. If you take the unsquashed track and turn it up, it'll generally sound better.

Now as this applies to Youtube and a CD well one or the other could be limited (squashed) more heavily than the other. That could make one louder and thus what you'd prefer, until you mess with the volume dial and normalize it out.

As recommended by Alocasia, disable any EQ, sound enhancement, limiting, crystalizer, etc, etc. You have a fairly heavy hitting setup by computer standards. That means that a lot of the crap they pull to try and make up for bad sounds systems, you don't need. Like you don't need any fake bass boost, you've a real sub for your bass.

Then, once you have a neutral setup, you can play with manual EQ and limiting and so on and see if there's anything you find that improves the sound. Remember, it is all what makes you happy.

 

[Megalith]

I don't have a FLAC version to compare but the sound quality of that YouTube video seems typical for a compressed version. Sounds smooth, rounded off, and with no dynamic range.

Not sure how the uncompressed version could possibly sound worse.

 

[B00nie]

I don't have a FLAC version to compare but the sound quality of that YouTube video seems typical for a compressed version. Sounds smooth, rounded off, and with no dynamic range.

Not sure how the uncompressed version could possibly sound worse.

The compressed version sounds louder and psychologically that often equates to 'better'. That's why all radio stations go for maximum compression - the louder radio station is perceived as the 'better' one.

Highly compressed sound does often sound better when played through a soap box sized radio. On a hi-fi system then again it usually sounds pretty horrible. I never open the radio even in my car.