4 ms·
The audio data is miniscule compared to the video data, and the size of it is tied to the video quality level. And everything is streamed in chunks. It'd only a
by jorvi 2y ago
The audio data is miniscule compared to the video data, and the size of it is tied to the video quality level. And everything is streamed in chunks. It'd only amount to milliseconds of extra buffering.
- cogman10 2y agoNot as insignificant as you might imagine, especially if you are talking about surround sound audio. With newer codecs, doing 4k with 2Mb/s isn't unheard of. For audio, on the other hand, 32 or 64kbps per channel isn't unheard of.
- jorvi 2y agoAt 1080p60, YouTube uses 12Mbps, and 251Kbps Opus or 192Kbps AAC. That's a factor 50 smaller. Insignificant.
- out_of_protocol 2y ago251 is codec format ID. Real bitrate is around ~135 kbps
- jorvi 2y agoTotally missed that, thanks!
- cogman10 2y ago> At 1080p60, YouTube uses 12Mbps It does not. That's a recommended bitrate for a live streamer (Streamer -> youtube). Coming out of youtube, the numbers are quiet different. For example, a random 4k video I just pulled had a video bitrate of 4.5Mbps. A 720p video I pulled of a talking head had a 369kbps video stream. That is to say, a podcast style video is likely to have a nearly 50:50 split on audio/video.
- jorvi 2y agoBut now you're comparing median video bitstream with peak audio bitstream. YouTube uses variable bitrate for audio, which can vary dramatically in size. Your example of podcasts or "talking heads" is actually perfect. Most encoders are extremely efficient at compressing voices, as they will only have to encode 30-300Hz, and voices have less data variation than images. Image encoding is just very complex. It'll get better and better, but audio encoders of the same generation will also improve.