4 ms·

> The average viewer will probably listen through laptop speakers in a noisy environment, and a large dynamic range is not helpful to them. If you use compress

by rodgerd 12y ago

> The average viewer will probably listen through laptop speakers in a noisy environment, and a large dynamic range is not helpful to them. If you use compression on the assumption that a chunk of your audience will be listening on shitty speakers you ensure that anyone not listening on shitty speakers also gets a shitty experience. Perhaps Google would like YouTube to be a non-shitty experience for people with nice speakers (or headphones or whatever).

MrJagil 12y ago
> anyone not listening on shitty speakers also gets a shitty experience This hyperbole serves no one. Modern limiters are tremendously transparent, and only people who are listening for it will notice the increase in compression. That said, there is a case to be made for listener fatigue. Personally, I'm not on youtube for extended periods where that would be a problem, but I can see how it might be. Further, as a musician and engineer, I have long had to live with the fact that none of the streaming services (not even iTunes the app) are transparent. After having spent days on a mix and master, it's quite a shame I don't get to decide how the exact final product is sonically presented.
- rplst8 12y ago
  > This hyperbole serves no one. Modern limiters are tremendously transparent, and only people who are listening for it will notice the increase in compression. Agree. Though, I'd add a qualifier - "...are tremendously transparent when used correctly..." The one thing even audiophiles with the best speakers on the planet need to realize is that no speakers can approach the dynamic range of what modern digital audio have to offer us. Therefore, some tasteful compression (or limiting) will be needed, or the signal will launch the speaker cones out of their baskets.
tobr 12y ago
This is of course what the "war" is about at its core - do we prefer to to sound OK everywhere, but not great anywhere, or do we prefer to sound great for some people, but be inaudible to others. The right answer depends on the content, context and audience. The choice is with the content creator, not with YouTube, and for many content creators optimizing for people with bad speakers is the right choice. Lowering the volume is not going to make "shitty" compression unshitty.
- jmilloy 12y ago
  If they can offer several different tiers of video quality, they could do the same with the audio. Imagine a set of options that not only offers audio versions optimized for great headphones or optimized for phone speakers in a public space, but educates the (interested) user about the difference!

by rodgerd 12y ago

MrJagil 12y ago

> anyone not listening on shitty speakers also gets a shitty experience This hyperbole serves no one. Modern limiters are tremendously transparent, and only people who are listening for it will notice the increase in compression. That said, there is a case to be made for listener fatigue. Personally, I'm not on youtube for extended periods where that would be a problem, but I can see how it might be. Further, as a musician and engineer, I have long had to live with the fact that none of the streaming services (not even iTunes the app) are transparent. After having spent days on a mix and master, it's quite a shame I don't get to decide how the exact final product is sonically presented.

rplst8 12y ago
> This hyperbole serves no one. Modern limiters are tremendously transparent, and only people who are listening for it will notice the increase in compression. Agree. Though, I'd add a qualifier - "...are tremendously transparent when used correctly..." The one thing even audiophiles with the best speakers on the planet need to realize is that no speakers can approach the dynamic range of what modern digital audio have to offer us. Therefore, some tasteful compression (or limiting) will be needed, or the signal will launch the speaker cones out of their baskets.

tobr 12y ago

This is of course what the "war" is about at its core - do we prefer to to sound OK everywhere, but not great anywhere, or do we prefer to sound great for some people, but be inaudible to others. The right answer depends on the content, context and audience. The choice is with the content creator, not with YouTube, and for many content creators optimizing for people with bad speakers is the right choice. Lowering the volume is not going to make "shitty" compression unshitty.

jmilloy 12y ago
If they can offer several different tiers of video quality, they could do the same with the audio. Imagine a set of options that not only offers audio versions optimized for great headphones or optimized for phone speakers in a public space, but educates the (interested) user about the difference!