Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions.
Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Sorry for the weird question
But sometimes the sound is better on YouTube than music files streaming Spotify for example.
The sound is more "natural" and less compressed for lack of a better term.
Am I the only experiencing this?
Different source/mastering. Do you experience the same track with YouTube Music (not YouTube) compared to Spotify? Also check if Spotify is performing volume normalization but doubt that can affect the sonic (unless there's something going on other than a negative preamp)
Sorry for the weird question
But sometimes the sound is better on YouTube than music files streaming Spotify for example.
The sound is more "natural" and less compressed for lack of a better term.
Am I the only experiencing this?
Every time I've experienced this (or the converse) has been because of a factor that is discrete from the platform or any compression, having to do with differences in recording/mixing/mastering. It's definitely possible for some people to discern lossy sources with compression comparable to YT or Spotify from lossless, not so sure about something that's more akin to a sidegrade like we have here.
Personally I would love to see a genuine effort to remaster some YouTube content. I love watching “live” shows, but so much of the audio is crap. If someone actually took the footage and performed some Peter Jackson magic to it. You might be able see Aretha in 1970 and actually hear how beautiful her songs are at the same time.
I was wondering if any difference to premium subscription on youtube like spotify....but don't think there is. How do you particularly compare the streams?
I was wondering if any difference to premium subscription on youtube like spotify....but don't think there is. How do you particularly compare the streams?
It doesn't necessarily needs to be the same song, sometimes some live videos for example sound much better than any Spotify live song file.
It just sounds less compressed and more lively.
Personally I would love to see a genuine effort to remaster some YouTube content. I love watching “live” shows, but so much of the audio is crap. If someone actually took the footage and performed some Peter Jackson magic to it. You might be able see Aretha in 1970 and actually hear how beautiful her songs are at the same time.
I rather doubt the source material was recorded at a level to allow any meaningful amount of remastering. They have to do a good job recording the event in the first place, which tends not to be the case for live music events unless a really dedicated effort was made.
It doesn't necessarily needs to be the same song, sometimes some live videos for example sound much better than any Spotify live song file.
It just sounds less compressed and more lively.
Do you notice from just sighted listening on both regular Youtube and Spotify Premium any differences?
If psychoacoustically you do, then perform the Audacity Wasapi Loopback and Deltawave so you can become aware if you're falling for confirmation bias or not
Do you notice from just sighted listening on both regular Youtube and Spotify Premium any differences?
If psychoacoustically you do, then perform the Audacity Wasapi Loopback and Deltawave so you can become aware if you're falling for confirmation bias or not
It seems impossible for me to find this version using Spotify's search, but fortunately google works better:
Sounds same to me. Does it sound different to you in general or in some specific passages?
Below is the comparison in deltawave. Because on top of any potential differences this is also Opus vs Vorbis difference, I included a control. I took 24/96k track (Laurence Juber / Guitar Noir / Mosaic) and:
converted to 48k and encoded to 160 kbps Opus
converted to 44k and encoded to 320 kbps Vorbis
As you can see, the differences in my control are actually bigger than between Youtube and Spotify versions.
Doesn't YouTiube use sonic compression here and there? My crap ears tend to prefer standard issue 'free' Spotify sometimes.
I read that Youtube HQ uploads usually 'sound' better or should I say less processed? I'm getting to seriously dislike the very intrusive ads on YouTube these days.
Watching videos is well known to make the music accompanying sound seem more "natural" and less compressed.
Apart from making up weaselly jokes like that, I produce my own music videos for YouTube. The MP4 files I upload contain FLAC 2x48k/24 audio. The resulting video has YT format ID 251, which is roughly 170 kbps Opus. It sounds great to me. I mix and render to maintain maximum signal dynamics (an expression of my contrarian nature in technical aesthetics). I have no training in hearing coding defects, thank providence. But according to what I have read on the ever-trustworthy WWW, YT doesn't apply dynamic processing except to apply plain negative gain to compensate uploads that exceed their loudness limit, which never happens to mine.
