> Hi Veeros,
> as you listen to the track with headphones, you'll realize that there
> is a low freq distorted sine wave that one is still being able to
> listen to ...
> Other than that, it seems to be an almost perfect work around for the
> YouTube bug !!!
> BUT TO COME TO THE TIMEFRAME AGAIN:
> I have had problems since MARCH 2008 already. It was the time when
> YouTube introduced HQ Video standard. Everytime I tried to upload a
> 640x480 video, it distorted my sound. Thus, I had to go down to
> 320x240 in order to keep the sound at least a bit equal to my
> original. This worked pretty well, even though I'd also like to have
> better video quality too ;-)
> I'll work with that Sine wave a little more ... Let's see how it turns
> out in the end ;o)
> Cheers FabTheGap
> On Aug 3, 12:43 am, Veeroos wrote:
> > Thanks sopranoguitar :) Ok, so...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIh4jM1jSfk&fmt=18 > > < this time i've uploaded -3 dB stereo tune mixed with -12 dB 10hz
> > sine wave. At the beginning and the end i've created 2 sec silence
> > with 1 sec fade in and fade out. Tune has many low frequencies
> > instruments, so after YT conversion... quality is still great!
> > Enjoy :)
> > On 1 Sie, 16:13, Sopranoguitar wrote:
> > > Thanx everyone for each of your contributions and insights in this
> > > issue and many of them are very valid experiments and perceptions in
> > > this matter both technical and political aspects of it. The easiest
> > > work around for the time being is, as viewer76x suggested through his
> > > experiments to normalize your audio to -18db then you at least avoid
> > > distortion by audio being clipped, however sound quality,
> > > reverberation decay etc may still remain rather artificial sounding
> > > due to the nature of this YT audio scheme, it also depends on dynamic
> > > range of your audio track, if the track is mixed on heavy rhythm track
> > > through out, you may normalize to higher if you want and it would be
> > > still safe from being clipped. The best work around seems to be my
> > > original idea being revised by Veeros to mix in low frequency sine
> > > wave rather high frequency, because I have overlooked the possibility
> > > of 20Khz could be down sampled to lower harmonic components during
> > > encoding process to 10Khz, 5Khz etc which are audible frequency, so to
> > > be safe low frequency 5-15Hz seem to work rather better and smooth (it
> > > is just having inaudible bass track in your mix to fool the
> > > compressor). Now, I have experimented the proportion of mix with
> > > original audio and sine wave dummy, the best proportion seem to be
> > > original audio to be normalized at -3db and mix 10Hz since wave at
> > > -12db for the same length and then normalize mixed audio to 0db (100%,
> > > this is also based on viewer76x’s test that 0db attack did not clip
> > > while -3db -> -15db attack being clipped, and now we also have this
> > > -12db carpet below audible content to further suppress compression
> > > activities ), please note that if sine wave is too loud or original
> > > audio is normalized too low, the original audio loses it’s overall
> > > amplitude and it may sounds too soft after mixed with sine wave. Also,
> > > it is advisable to fade in sine wave at the beginning and fade out at
> > > the end of track to avoid pulse click may be heard before and after
> > > the clip, because of this ultra low sine wave starting and stopping.
> > > For the comparison, I have used a solo guitar clip I uploaded January
> > > 2008, which sounded quite decent, it was normalized at -0.1db at that
> > > time and its here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrMFe-w6wwE
> > > Now, today I uploaded exactly the same file using one of my friend’s
> > > YT accounts for the test. And it sounds like this :(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_cfig645Qs > > > It’s unacceptable, isn’t it?
> > > Next, I mixed in 10Hz since wave with above mixture (-3db audio, -12db
> > > 10Hz sine wave, and then normalized the mix to 100% -> 0db), it’s
> > > here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdcHoz0sLaw
> > > The overall audible signal level seems to be about -3db softer than
> > > original post due to the mixture of sine wave; however entire
> > > compression behaviors have magically, and I’d say completely
> > > disappeared! :) We can still fine tune the mixture of those two
> > > elements to achieve better audio level, such as -2 : -14 etc until
> > > best combination will be found, however it will be totally depends on
> > > each audio content, this is just a rough guide to show how it works in
> > > practice. Thanks again Veeros and Viewer76x, your contributions were
> > > very helpful and scientific to conclude the work around of this
> > > problem to this far in matter of few days!
> > > On Jul 31, 7:24 pm, Veeroos wrote:
> > > > Hello...http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=dYna3BiyJis-i'veuploaded > > > > this funny track with 30hz sine wave and in LQ and HQ mode audio is
> > > > very well. With 20khz in LQ mode sound is much louder than HQ, so
> > > > 10-30 hz seems to be better and, oh... sorry for my poor english :)
> > > > Thank you sopranoguitar for giving us this sine wave trick!
I think the main point of workaround is to present decent quality
audio, but not perfect quality audio since there’s no point providing
perfect quality video & audio for free of charge using YT, so focusing
in too much details seem rather pointless. As long as we can eliminate
distortion and heavy breathing/pumping out of audio, that’s decent
enough for this purpose. Some low rambling noise, hiss or scratch
noises were present in vinyl era using turn tables, or through AM/FM/
SW broadcasting as well, however people enjoyed music or any other
genre of recordings and broadcasting as long as quality of content or
performance was good.
> I've done some tests and that hum is heard when audio with low
> frequency sine wave is compressed to AAC format... Damn.
> On 3 Sie, 12:20, FabTheGap wrote:
> > Hi Veeros,
> > as you listen to the track with headphones, you'll realize that there
> > is a low freq distorted sine wave that one is still being able to
> > listen to ...
> > Other than that, it seems to be an almost perfect work around for the
> > YouTube bug !!!
> > BUT TO COME TO THE TIMEFRAME AGAIN:
> > I have had problems since MARCH 2008 already. It was the time when
> > YouTube introduced HQ Video standard. Everytime I tried to upload a
> > 640x480 video, it distorted my sound. Thus, I had to go down to
> > 320x240 in order to keep the sound at least a bit equal to my
> > original. This worked pretty well, even though I'd also like to have
> > better video quality too ;-)
> > I'll work with that Sine wave a little more ... Let's see how it turns
> > out in the end ;o)
> > Cheers FabTheGap
> > On Aug 3, 12:43 am, Veeroos wrote:
> > > Thanks sopranoguitar :) Ok, so...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIh4jM1jSfk&fmt=18 > > > < this time i've uploaded -3 dB stereo tune mixed with -12 dB 10hz
> > > sine wave. At the beginning and the end i've created 2 sec silence
> > > with 1 sec fade in and fade out. Tune has many low frequencies
> > > instruments, so after YT conversion... quality is still great!
> > > Enjoy :)
> > > On 1 Sie, 16:13, Sopranoguitar wrote:
> > > > Thanx everyone for each of your contributions and insights in this
> > > > issue and many of them are very valid experiments and perceptions in
> > > > this matter both technical and political aspects of it. The easiest
> > > > work around for the time being is, as viewer76x suggested through his
> > > > experiments to normalize your audio to -18db then you at least avoid
> > > > distortion by audio being clipped, however sound quality,
> > > > reverberation decay etc may still remain rather artificial sounding
> > > > due to the nature of this YT audio scheme, it also depends on dynamic
> > > > range of your audio track, if the track is mixed on heavy rhythm track
> > > > through out, you may normalize to higher if you want and it would be
> > > > still safe from being clipped. The best work around seems to be my
> > > > original idea being revised by Veeros to mix in low frequency sine
> > > > wave rather high frequency, because I have overlooked the possibility
> > > > of 20Khz could be down sampled to lower harmonic components during
> > > > encoding process to 10Khz, 5Khz etc which are audible frequency, so to
> > > > be safe low frequency 5-15Hz seem to work rather better and smooth (it
> > > > is just having inaudible bass track in your mix to fool the
> > > > compressor). Now, I have experimented the proportion of mix with
> > > > original audio and sine wave dummy, the best proportion seem to be
> > > > original audio to be normalized at -3db and mix 10Hz since wave at
> > > > -12db for the same length and then normalize mixed audio to 0db (100%,
> > > > this is also based on viewer76x’s test that 0db attack did not clip
> > > > while -3db -> -15db attack being clipped, and now we also have this
> > > > -12db carpet below audible content to further suppress compression
> > > > activities ), please note that if sine wave is too loud or original
> > > > audio is normalized too low, the original audio loses it’s overall
> > > > amplitude and it may sounds too soft after mixed with sine wave. Also,
> > > > it is advisable to fade in sine wave at the beginning and fade out at
> > > > the end of track to avoid pulse click may be heard before and after
> > > > the clip, because of this ultra low sine wave starting and stopping.
> > > > For the comparison, I have used a solo guitar clip I uploaded January
> > > > 2008, which sounded quite decent, it was normalized at -0.1db at that
> > > > time and its here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrMFe-w6wwE
> > > > Now, today I uploaded exactly the same file using one of my friend’s
> > > > YT accounts for the test. And it sounds like this :(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_cfig645Qs > > > > It’s unacceptable, isn’t it?
> > > > Next, I mixed in 10Hz since wave with above mixture (-3db audio, -12db
> > > > 10Hz sine wave, and then normalized the mix to 100% -> 0db), it’s
> > > > here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdcHoz0sLaw
> > > > The overall audible signal level seems to be about -3db softer than
> > > > original post due to the mixture of sine wave; however entire
> > > > compression behaviors have magically, and I’d say completely
> > > > disappeared! :) We can still fine tune the mixture of those two
> > > > elements to achieve better audio level, such as -2 : -14 etc until
> > > > best combination will be found, however it will be totally depends on
> > > > each audio content, this is just a rough guide to show how it works in
> > > > practice. Thanks again Veeros and Viewer76x, your contributions were
> > > > very helpful and scientific to conclude the work around of this
> > > > problem to this far in matter of few days!
> > > > On Jul 31, 7:24 pm, Veeroos wrote:
> > > > > Hello...http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=dYna3BiyJis-i'veuploaded > > > > > this funny track with 30hz sine wave and in LQ and HQ mode audio is
> > > > > very well. With 20khz in LQ mode sound is much louder than HQ, so
> > > > > 10-30 hz seems to be better and, oh... sorry for my poor english :)
> > > > > Thank you sopranoguitar for giving us this sine wave trick!
On Aug 6, 3:05 am, MattPark75 wrote:
Still not a single word from YT staff? nothing? anywhere?
The YouTube staff has made it more than clear that they want as little
communication with their users as possible. They've made communication
exceedingly difficult by deliberately burying the contact mechanisms
under layers and layers of totally useless "FAQ's" that you have to
click through first...meaning we have to jump through hoops just to
send a simple message to someone who might be able to fix a problem.
"...able to fix a problem..."
That's the real issue here. I haven't seen much evidence that the
techs at YouTube are smart enough or experienced enough to fix any
real problems. They create more problems than they fix every time they
try to add another new (and usually worthless) feature.
As for the audio problems...they simply just don't care. It reminds me
of a line from a Saturday Night Live skit with Lily Tomlin...
"We're the phone company...and WE don't CARE...because WE don't HAVE
to."
If YouTube cared at all about making us happy or keeping us happy, it
would be extremely easy for them to allow us to upload videos with
reasonably good quality stereo sound without having to jump through
hoops or having to use any lame &fmt=18 codes to get them to play back
in stereo without all the horrible compression we're experiencing now.
They just don't care. Either that, or they really are too stupid to
know how to do it.
> The YouTube staff has made it more than clear that they want as little
> communication with their users as possible. They've made communication
> exceedingly difficult by deliberately burying the contact mechanisms
> under layers and layers of totally useless "FAQ's" that you have to
> click through first...meaning we have to jump through hoops just to
> send a simple message to someone who might be able to fix a problem.
That's normal with any large organisation. YouTube has hundreds of
thousands of members, and if it didn't organise its help pages this
way would get flooded with e-mails asking questions that are answered
in the Help Center.
The FAQs are FAQs -- "frequently asked questions". They are questions
that get asked time and time again; and if people took time to read
the Help pages and the FAQs, this wouldn't be necessary.
All these FAQ pages and community help forums serve a definite and
vital purpose: it means the staff aren't wasting time telling people
how to enable active sharing or block haters and can concentrate on
the more unusual problems.
Also, and this is important to remember, in community help forums like
this, you almost never get actual staff taking part: even the forum
moderators are volunteers who have little or no special access to
anyone -- I know, I used to be an admin on a support forum for a web
hosting company. The whole purpose is to answer questions that don't
actually need the imput of staff to answer.
Yes, it's a pain. It would, however, not be necessary if people took
the time to READ stuff before firing off an e-mail.
(And on this note, everybody, I should like to point out that I am
ignoring most -- and in the near future probably all -- e-mails sent
to me personally about YouTube problems, especially if they are
questions that are answered in this forum or elsewhere in the Help
Center. I simply don't have the time to give everyone special
attention who demands it. If it gets any worse than it already is, I
shall stop posting in these forums completely.)
^^ Least helpful post ever rewboss. No wonder you need a "NOT a
member of YouTube staff" disclaimer on your website. Not only that,
I'll show you how you're wrong too.
Let's see if they can give us any advice on how to turn off or
otherwise use a lame "hack" like 10hz tone to overcome the problem:
http://www.youtube.com/t/yt_handbook_produce *NADA*
So... nothing about the problem anywhere from official YouTube pages
of any type. Let's see what they have to say about where we are now:
http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=cIPhPJY2wE4 "Although YouTube staff may jump in periodically to post updates on
bugs, [..] we can't do it without you."
It sure seems as if they CAN do it without us, so that's what we have
to do is come up with our own solutions rewboss. So either help out,
or take your own suggestion and stop posting on these boards, and
insinuating that we can't even bother to read an FAQ (YouTube doesn't
even have anything called "FAQ"), OK?
> The FAQs are FAQs -- "frequently asked questions". They are questions
> that get asked time and time again; and if people took time to read
> the Help pages and the FAQs, this wouldn't be necessary.
> All these FAQ pages and community help forums serve a definite and
> vital purpose: it means the staff aren't wasting time telling people
> how to enable active sharing or block haters and can concentrate on
> the more unusual problems.
> Also, and this is important to remember, in community help forums like
> this, you almost never get actual staff taking part: even the forum
> moderators are volunteers who have little or no special access to
> anyone -- I know, I used to be an admin on a support forum for a web
> hosting company. The whole purpose is to answer questions that don't
> actually need the imput of staff to answer.
> Yes, it's a pain. It would, however, not be necessary if people took
> the time to READ stuff before firing off an e-mail.
> (And on this note, everybody, I should like to point out that I am
> ignoring most -- and in the near future probably all -- e-mails sent
> to me personally about YouTube problems, especially if they are
> questions that are answered in this forum or elsewhere in the Help
> Center. I simply don't have the time to give everyone special
> attention who demands it. If it gets any worse than it already is, I
> shall stop posting in these forums completely.)
for the one's that are interested , try the latest "Movavi VideoSuite
5" !
it workt for me, i have no sound problims anymore on the vids i
uploaded last night
that i created with MovAvi. I tried a lot of programs but this is the
only on
that workt for me !
> ^^ Least helpful post ever rewboss. No wonder you need a "NOT a
> member of YouTube staff" disclaimer on your website. Not only that,
> I'll show you how you're wrong too.
> Let's see if they can give us any advice on how to turn off or
> otherwise use a lame "hack" like 10hz tone to overcome the problem:http://www.youtube.com/t/yt_handbook_produce > *NADA*
> So... nothing about the problem anywhere from official YouTube pages
> of any type. Let's see what they have to say about where we are now:http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=cIPhPJY2wE4 > "Although YouTube staff may jump in periodically to post updates on
> bugs, [..] we can't do it without you."
> It sure seems as if they CAN do it without us, so that's what we have
> to do is come up with our own solutions rewboss. So either help out,
> or take your own suggestion and stop posting on these boards, and
> insinuating that we can't even bother to read an FAQ (YouTube doesn't
> even have anything called "FAQ"), OK?
> On Aug 7, 4:59 am, rewboss wrote:
> > The FAQs are FAQs -- "frequently asked questions". They are questions
> > that get asked time and time again; and if people took time to read
> > the Help pages and the FAQs, this wouldn't be necessary.
> > All these FAQ pages and community help forums serve a definite and
> > vital purpose: it means the staff aren't wasting time telling people
> > how to enable active sharing or block haters and can concentrate on
> > the more unusual problems.
> > Also, and this is important to remember, in community help forums like
> > this, you almost never get actual staff taking part: even the forum
> > moderators are volunteers who have little or no special access to
> > anyone -- I know, I used to be an admin on a support forum for a web
> > hosting company. The whole purpose is to answer questions that don't
> > actually need the imput of staff to answer.
> > Yes, it's a pain. It would, however, not be necessary if people took
> > the time to READ stuff before firing off an e-mail.
> > (And on this note, everybody, I should like to point out that I am
> > ignoring most -- and in the near future probably all -- e-mails sent
> > to me personally about YouTube problems, especially if they are
> > questions that are answered in this forum or elsewhere in the Help
> > Center. I simply don't have the time to give everyone special
> > attention who demands it. If it gets any worse than it already is, I
> > shall stop posting in these forums completely.)- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
1) this issue is important, it's not a simple "how to turn on active
sharing" stuff
2) it's not an individual issue, it concerns THE ENTIRE community
3) YT staff has the right to stay silent, yes, but users have the
right to express their complaints especially when it's such an
important problem like this one, created by YT staff alone.
Do we expect anything from it? no, we know it's YT staff's decision,
but we still have the right to rant because in this situation it's
justified.
4) FAQ's don't have the answer to this issue, why bother discussing
FAQ's? It's not like there's an option to turn their encoder off and
no one knows how... so forget about FAQs^^
5) I insist, a simple statement, a single line from YT staff would
calm down and ease everyone and I challenge anyone to say it's a lot
of work to post this single line even if they don't usually do it for
common issues (which is totally understandable), but this one really
deserves to be attended.
6) I don't see the point in arguing among us, users, we're all on the
same side here, all victims of Evil YT, the problem is YT's fault
only, so peace out^^
> > The YouTube staff has made it more than clear that they want as little
> > communication with their users as possible. They've made communication
> > exceedingly difficult by deliberately burying the contact mechanisms
> > under layers and layers of totally useless "FAQ's" that you have to
> > click through first...meaning we have to jump through hoops just to
> > send a simple message to someone who might be able to fix a problem.
> That's normal with any large organisation. YouTube has hundreds of
> thousands of members, and if it didn't organise its help pages this
> way would get flooded with e-mails asking questions that are answered
> in the Help Center.
> The FAQs are FAQs -- "frequently asked questions". They are questions
> that get asked time and time again; and if people took time to read
> the Help pages and the FAQs, this wouldn't be necessary.
> All these FAQ pages and community help forums serve a definite and
> vital purpose: it means the staff aren't wasting time telling people
> how to enable active sharing or block haters and can concentrate on
> the more unusual problems.
> Also, and this is important to remember, in community help forums like
> this, you almost never get actual staff taking part: even the forum
> moderators are volunteers who have little or no special access to
> anyone -- I know, I used to be an admin on a support forum for a web
> hosting company. The whole purpose is to answer questions that don't
> actually need the imput of staff to answer.
> Yes, it's a pain. It would, however, not be necessary if people took
> the time to READ stuff before firing off an e-mail.
> (And on this note, everybody, I should like to point out that I am
> ignoring most -- and in the near future probably all -- e-mails sent
> to me personally about YouTube problems, especially if they are
> questions that are answered in this forum or elsewhere in the Help
> Center. I simply don't have the time to give everyone special
> attention who demands it. If it gets any worse than it already is, I
> shall stop posting in these forums completely.)
On Aug 7, 2:59 am, rewboss wrote:
>know, I used to be an admin on a support forum for a web
> hosting company. The whole purpose is to answer questions that don't
> actually need the imput of staff to answer.
Getting response from real people can be real challenge in todays
society...and Youtube is a perfect case inpoint...
> I simply don't have the time to give everyone special
> attention who demands it. If it gets any worse than it already is, I
> shall stop posting in these forums completely.)
Does any one knows whereabouts of this issue? Is there any word from
YT somewhere? Or does it already fixed? Sorry, I didn’t have time to
test it yet today if it’s fixed or not.
> I think the main point of workaround is to present decent quality
> audio, but not perfect quality audio since there’s no point providing
> perfect quality video & audio for free of charge using YT, so focusing
> in too much details seem rather pointless. As long as we can eliminate
> distortion and heavy breathing/pumping out of audio, that’s decent
> enough for this purpose. Some low rambling noise, hiss or scratch
> noises were present in vinyl era using turn tables, or through AM/FM/
> SW broadcasting as well, however people enjoyed music or any other
> genre of recordings and broadcasting as long as quality of content or
> performance was good.
> On Aug 7, 7:05 am, Veeroos wrote:
> > I've done some tests and that hum is heard when audio with low
> > frequency sine wave is compressed to AAC format... Damn.
> > On 3 Sie, 12:20, FabTheGap wrote:
> > > Hi Veeros,
> > > as you listen to the track with headphones, you'll realize that there
> > > is a low freq distorted sine wave that one is still being able to
> > > listen to ...
> > > Other than that, it seems to be an almost perfect work around for the
> > > YouTube bug !!!
> > > BUT TO COME TO THE TIMEFRAME AGAIN:
> > > I have had problems since MARCH 2008 already. It was the time when
> > > YouTube introduced HQ Video standard. Everytime I tried to upload a
> > > 640x480 video, it distorted my sound. Thus, I had to go down to
> > > 320x240 in order to keep the sound at least a bit equal to my
> > > original. This worked pretty well, even though I'd also like to have
> > > better video quality too ;-)
> > > I'll work with that Sine wave a little more ... Let's see how it turns
> > > out in the end ;o)
> > > Cheers FabTheGap
> > > On Aug 3, 12:43 am, Veeroos wrote:
> > > > Thanks sopranoguitar :) Ok, so...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIh4jM1jSfk&fmt=18 > > > > < this time i've uploaded -3 dB stereo tune mixed with -12 dB 10hz
> > > > sine wave. At the beginning and the end i've created 2 sec silence
> > > > with 1 sec fade in and fade out. Tune has many low frequencies
> > > > instruments, so after YT conversion... quality is still great!
> > > > Enjoy :)
> > > > On 1 Sie, 16:13, Sopranoguitar wrote:
> > > > > Thanx everyone for each of your contributions and insights in this
> > > > > issue and many of them are very valid experiments and perceptions in
> > > > > this matter both technical and political aspects of it. The easiest
> > > > > work around for the time being is, as viewer76x suggested through his
> > > > > experiments to normalize your audio to -18db then you at least avoid
> > > > > distortion by audio being clipped, however sound quality,
> > > > > reverberation decay etc may still remain rather artificial sounding
> > > > > due to the nature of this YT audio scheme, it also depends on dynamic
> > > > > range of your audio track, if the track is mixed on heavy rhythm track
> > > > > through out, you may normalize to higher if you want and it would be
> > > > > still safe from being clipped. The best work around seems to be my
> > > > > original idea being revised by Veeros to mix in low frequency sine
> > > > > wave rather high frequency, because I have overlooked the possibility
> > > > > of 20Khz could be down sampled to lower harmonic components during
> > > > > encoding process to 10Khz, 5Khz etc which are audible frequency, so to
> > > > > be safe low frequency 5-15Hz seem to work rather better and smooth (it
> > > > > is just having inaudible bass track in your mix to fool the
> > > > > compressor). Now, I have experimented the proportion of mix with
> > > > > original audio and sine wave dummy, the best proportion seem to be
> > > > > original audio to be normalized at -3db and mix 10Hz since wave at
> > > > > -12db for the same length and then normalize mixed audio to 0db (100%,
> > > > > this is also based on viewer76x’s test that 0db attack did not clip
> > > > > while -3db -> -15db attack being clipped, and now we also have this
> > > > > -12db carpet below audible content to further suppress compression
> > > > > activities ), please note that if sine wave is too loud or original
> > > > > audio is normalized too low, the original audio loses it’s overall
> > > > > amplitude and it may sounds too soft after mixed with sine wave. Also,
> > > > > it is advisable to fade in sine wave at the beginning and fade out at
> > > > > the end of track to avoid pulse click may be heard before and after
> > > > > the clip, because of this ultra low sine wave starting and stopping.
> > > > > For the comparison, I have used a solo guitar clip I uploaded January
> > > > > 2008, which sounded quite decent, it was normalized at -0.1db at that
> > > > > time and its here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrMFe-w6wwE
> > > > > Now, today I uploaded exactly the same file using one of my friend’s
> > > > > YT accounts for the test. And it sounds like this :(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_cfig645Qs > > > > > It’s unacceptable, isn’t it?
> > > > > Next, I mixed in 10Hz since wave with above mixture (-3db audio, -12db
> > > > > 10Hz sine wave, and then normalized the mix to 100% -> 0db), it’s
> > > > > here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdcHoz0sLaw
> > > > > The overall audible signal level seems to be about -3db softer than
> > > > > original post due to the mixture of sine wave; however entire
> > > > > compression behaviors have magically, and I’d say completely
> > > > > disappeared! :) We can still fine tune the mixture of those two
> > > > > elements to achieve better audio level, such as -2 : -14 etc until
> > > > > best combination will be found, however it will be totally depends on
> > > > > each audio content, this is just a rough guide to show how it works in
> > > > > practice. Thanks again Veeros and Viewer76x, your contributions were
> > > > > very helpful and scientific to conclude the work around of this
> > > > > problem to this far in matter of few days!
> > > > > On Jul 31, 7:24 pm, Veeroos wrote:
> > > > > > Hello...http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=dYna3BiyJis-i'veuploaded > > > > > > this funny track with 30hz sine wave and in LQ and HQ mode audio is
> > > > > > very well. With 20khz in LQ mode sound is much louder than HQ, so
> > > > > > 10-30 hz seems to be better and, oh... sorry for my poor english :)
> > > > > > Thank you sopranoguitar for giving us this sine wave trick!
Hey, YouTube may have made some changes!!!
My latest video upload last night had really low audio levels on
YouTube (deliberately so as a work around for the horrible compression
scheme) and today I checked it and guess what, LOW LEVELS! So, I
uploaded a video with "normal levels" and, although it's not "great,"
it is FAR better than what it had been over the last week when I
started doing my workarounds. So, try uploading now with normal
levels and no workarounds and see if you also have a better sounding
video, and then post on this thread with your results, okay?
Here's a video with my workaround from a couple days ago and the
compression engaged (minus 12db level reduction on output):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVD96Tp7mi8
I'll make a try now.
If this horrible audio continues I'll use annotations for links to
blip.tv
(great audio) or similar ones.
All the best, this story has for me only one good aspect: to see that
someone continue to love music and decent audio.
Sandro.
> Hey, YouTube may have made some changes!!!
> My latest video upload last night had really low audio levels on
> YouTube (deliberately so as a work around for the horrible compression
> scheme) and today I checked it and guess what, LOW LEVELS! So, I
> uploaded a video with "normal levels" and, although it's not "great,"
> it is FAR better than what it had been over the last week when I
> started doing my workarounds. So, try uploading now with normal
> levels and no workarounds and see if you also have a better sounding
> video, and then post on this thread with your results, okay?
> Here's a video with my workaround from a couple days ago and the
> compression engaged (minus 12db level reduction on output):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVD96Tp7mi8
I have just uploaded another (BlackBird)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=vBorfVpWay8&fmt=18 and this confirms that the problem seems to be solved. I am not sure
whether I should upload all of my dudded songs again - or if Youtube
might allow us to re-upload the audio only - or even better still, to
reprocess the audio on the files. This would be a nice touch - and go
some way towards making amends. I'm not holding my breath though!
perfect mix and it sounds like trash!!!! volume is going up and down
like crazy!!! I`ve tried audioswap option to change audio in video
but they don`t offer option to upload your sound, you have to choose
from their library... Give us a option to upload our own sound!
> I have just uploaded another (BlackBird)http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=vBorfVpWay8&fmt=18 > and this confirms that the problem seems to be solved. I am not sure
> whether I should upload all of my dudded songs again - or if Youtube
> might allow us to re-upload theaudioonly - or even better still, to
> reprocess theaudioon the files. This would be a nice touch - and go
> some way towards making amends. I'm not holding my breath though!
Yes -- YouTube should -- or, at least, it could -- reprocess clips
uploaded during this period.
However, this goes back to a point I made a few times in this thread
-- if, during this period, if you additionally processed your own
clips to compensate for YouTube's processing -- and if YouTube does
now actually go back and reprocess these clips without the distortion
-- then YouTube would now be reprocessing the verion of your clip with
the additional processing that you added, if you see what I mean.
I have run the test-tone test as of Aug 08-2008-1PM GMT and fuzz box
seems to be taken out, now the YT reproduction of Test tones are
identical to original tones. Congratulations folks! :) Although, I
will run the test every two days or so for a while and if there will
be any change, I’ll let you guys know.
> Does any one knows whereabouts of this issue? Is there any word from
> YT somewhere? Or does it already fixed? Sorry, I didn’t have time to
> test it yet today if it’s fixed or not.
> On Aug 7, 8:14 am, viewer76x wrote:
> > I think the main point of workaround is to present decent quality
> > audio, but not perfect quality audio since there’s no point providing
> > perfect quality video & audio for free of charge using YT, so focusing
> > in too much details seem rather pointless. As long as we can eliminate
> > distortion and heavy breathing/pumping out of audio, that’s decent
> > enough for this purpose. Some low rambling noise, hiss or scratch
> > noises were present in vinyl era using turn tables, or through AM/FM/
> > SW broadcasting as well, however people enjoyed music or any other
> > genre of recordings and broadcasting as long as quality of content or
> > performance was good.
> > On Aug 7, 7:05 am, Veeroos wrote:
> > > I've done some tests and that hum is heard when audio with low
> > > frequency sine wave is compressed to AAC format... Damn.
> > > On 3 Sie, 12:20, FabTheGap wrote:
> > > > Hi Veeros,
> > > > as you listen to the track with headphones, you'll realize that there
> > > > is a low freq distorted sine wave that one is still being able to
> > > > listen to ...
> > > > Other than that, it seems to be an almost perfect work around for the
> > > > YouTube bug !!!
> > > > BUT TO COME TO THE TIMEFRAME AGAIN:
> > > > I have had problems since MARCH 2008 already. It was the time when
> > > > YouTube introduced HQ Video standard. Everytime I tried to upload a
> > > > 640x480 video, it distorted my sound. Thus, I had to go down to
> > > > 320x240 in order to keep the sound at least a bit equal to my
> > > > original. This worked pretty well, even though I'd also like to have
> > > > better video quality too ;-)
> > > > I'll work with that Sine wave a little more ... Let's see how it turns
> > > > out in the end ;o)
> > > > Cheers FabTheGap
> > > > On Aug 3, 12:43 am, Veeroos wrote:
> > > > > Thanks sopranoguitar :) Ok, so...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIh4jM1jSfk&fmt=18 > > > > > < this time i've uploaded -3 dB stereo tune mixed with -12 dB 10hz
> > > > > sine wave. At the beginning and the end i've created 2 sec silence
> > > > > with 1 sec fade in and fade out. Tune has many low frequencies
> > > > > instruments, so after YT conversion... quality is still great!
> > > > > Enjoy :)
> > > > > On 1 Sie, 16:13, Sopranoguitar wrote:
> > > > > > Thanx everyone for each of your contributions and insights in this
> > > > > > issue and many of them are very valid experiments and perceptions in
> > > > > > this matter both technical and political aspects of it. The easiest
> > > > > > work around for the time being is, as viewer76x suggested through his
> > > > > > experiments to normalize your audio to -18db then you at least avoid
> > > > > > distortion by audio being clipped, however sound quality,
> > > > > > reverberation decay etc may still remain rather artificial sounding
> > > > > > due to the nature of this YT audio scheme, it also depends on dynamic
> > > > > > range of your audio track, if the track is mixed on heavy rhythm track
> > > > > > through out, you may normalize to higher if you want and it would be
> > > > > > still safe from being clipped. The best work around seems to be my
> > > > > > original idea being revised by Veeros to mix in low frequency sine
> > > > > > wave rather high frequency, because I have overlooked the possibility
> > > > > > of 20Khz could be down sampled to lower harmonic components during
> > > > > > encoding process to 10Khz, 5Khz etc which are audible frequency, so to
> > > > > > be safe low frequency 5-15Hz seem to work rather better and smooth (it
> > > > > > is just having inaudible bass track in your mix to fool the
> > > > > > compressor). Now, I have experimented the proportion of mix with
> > > > > > original audio and sine wave dummy, the best proportion seem to be
> > > > > > original audio to be normalized at -3db and mix 10Hz since wave at
> > > > > > -12db for the same length and then normalize mixed audio to 0db (100%,
> > > > > > this is also based on viewer76x’s test that 0db attack did not clip
> > > > > > while -3db -> -15db attack being clipped, and now we also have this
> > > > > > -12db carpet below audible content to further suppress compression
> > > > > > activities ), please note that if sine wave is too loud or original
> > > > > > audio is normalized too low, the original audio loses it’s overall
> > > > > > amplitude and it may sounds too soft after mixed with sine wave. Also,
> > > > > > it is advisable to fade in sine wave at the beginning and fade out at
> > > > > > the end of track to avoid pulse click may be heard before and after
> > > > > > the clip, because of this ultra low sine wave starting and stopping.
> > > > > > For the comparison, I have used a solo guitar clip I uploaded January
> > > > > > 2008, which sounded quite decent, it was normalized at -0.1db at that
> > > > > > time and its here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrMFe-w6wwE
> > > > > > Now, today I uploaded exactly the same file using one of my friend’s
> > > > > > YT accounts for the test. And it sounds like this :(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_cfig645Qs > > > > > > It’s unacceptable, isn’t it?
> > > > > > Next, I mixed in 10Hz since wave with above mixture (-3db audio, -12db
> > > > > > 10Hz sine wave, and then normalized the mix to 100% -> 0db), it’s
> > > > > > here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdcHoz0sLaw
> > > > > > The overall audible signal level seems to be about -3db softer than
> > > > > > original post due to the mixture of sine wave; however entire
> > > > > > compression behaviors have magically, and I’d say completely
> > > > > > disappeared! :) We can still fine tune the mixture of those two
> > > > > > elements to achieve better audio level, such as -2 : -14 etc until
> > > > > > best combination will be found, however it will be totally depends on
> > > > > > each audio content, this is just a rough guide to show how it works in
> > > > > > practice. Thanks again Veeros and Viewer76x, your contributions were
> > > > > > very helpful and scientific to conclude the work around of this
> > > > > > problem to this far in matter of few days!
> > > > > > On Jul 31, 7:24 pm, Veeroos wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello...http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=dYna3BiyJis-i'veuploaded > > > > > > > this funny track with 30hz sine wave and in LQ and HQ mode audio is
> > > > > > > very well. With 20khz in LQ mode sound is much louder than HQ, so
> > > > > > > 10-30 hz seems to be better and, oh... sorry for my poor english :)
> > > > > > > Thank you sopranoguitar for giving us this sine wave trick!
> Hey, YouTube may have made some changes!!!
> My latest video upload last night had really low audio levels on
> YouTube (deliberately so as a work around for the horrible compression
> scheme) and today I checked it and guess what, LOW LEVELS! So, I
> uploaded a video with "normal levels" and, although it's not "great,"
> it is FAR better than what it had been over the last week when I
> started doing my workarounds. So, try uploading now with normal
> levels and no workarounds and see if you also have a better sounding
> video, and then post on this thread with your results, okay?
> Here's a video with my workaround from a couple days ago and the
> compression engaged (minus 12db level reduction on output):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVD96Tp7mi8
> I have run the test-tone test as of Aug 08-2008-1PM GMT and fuzz box
> seems to be taken out, now the YT reproduction of Test tones are
> identical to original tones. Congratulations folks! :) Although, I
> will run the test every two days or so for a while and if there will
> be any change, I’ll let you guys know.
The main example in the Wired article is not actually nearly as bad as
what I've experienced. The conspiracy theory part of me thinks YouTube
went in and fixed that video so everyone reading the article would
think it was a lot of complaining about something that most people
would probably not care about.
What they are doing is not compression. On my video the sound actually
increases an insane (probably close to 4 or 5db) on the louder part of
the song!
> This test and analysis above by viewer76x is very clear and thorough
> to illustrate this issue and how serious problem it is. So, please
> keep this thread alive until YT acknoledges and respond to it before
> burried under other issues since this forum is not divided properly
> based on nature of topics while some are more serious than others.
> View his test result here, by your own eyes!: http://casadelagos.com/YT_TestTone/
> On Jul 30, 7:36 pm, viewer76x wrote:
> > Hello folks! I just want to put the end to this recent audio
> > compression problem by YT, so I have run and created some simple tests
> > something easy for anyone to see and hear how screwed up it is, it is
> > simply out of line and totally ridiculous how bad it is, once you can
> > see it! Simply it is unacceptable what YT is doing for their audio
> > recently. Here I put my two cents and a day of work to help, if
> > ignored, I have no regret. However, if you care at all for the sound
> > quality of your video clip posted on YT, just check out below what I
> > found out through my tests today.
> > 1) Test Tones: For this purpose, I have created special test tones to
> > reveal recent YT compression behaviors. Very simple, I’ve chained
> > 50-100-250-500-1000-5000-8000 and 10,000 Hz sine waves at -3db for
> > 5sec blast each with gap of 1sec complete silence in between them and
> > each blast are faded out using linear fade out within 5sec from -3db
> > to -240db so that I can easily observe the differences between
> > original waveforms and waveforms after encoded by YT from attack to
> > decay, to speed and amount of compression, how they’re applied and
> > behaves as a result.
> > 2) Well, the results are astounding to the point that I’ve never-ever
> > seen such an abuse of compression so badly by any professionals in
> > audio management in any media from the inception of radio, TV or
> > record industries, or even by telephone industries, and I’m 61 years
> > old professional sound engineer and recording artist as my background
> > lived through all of audio technology changes and developments since
> > 1950’s. Worst audio in history by most popular internet media site in
> > 2008, ironical indeed! How did it happen? I have no clue. They simply
> > applied Jimi Hendrix guitar distortion technique to all of their audio
> > tracks on their newly uploaded video clips, that was all to it. I
> > can’t believe that it is intentional, I believe that someone in their
> > company screwed it up really bad and there’s no quality control
> > department or supervisor oversees audio portion of contents being
> > uploaded since majority of audio are bad to begin with being captured
> > by mobile phone, camcorders etc. Probably no one in their company
> > watches high quality audio track video being uploaded to hear the
> > differences, just too many clips there to see those differences clip
> > by clip, therefore only users know how bad it is who uploaded quality
> > audio along with their clips, and that’s the problem I see here. But
> > it was fine until middle of June 2008, so that’s my point here to seek
> > improvement promptly to eliminate that glitch in their system, or to
> > restore something was working fine until 40days ago or so. It
> > shouldn’t be a hard work on their part once the source of problem can
> > be traced back correctly within this timeline. So, sooner is better to
> > resolve this!
> > 3) Now, please click this link:http://casadelagos.com/YT_TestTone/ > > This is a result of my work and proof today to establish firm ground
> > that how current YT compression scheme is harmful to anyone cares
> > about sound quality of their clip, since they’re completely altering
> > this original sound how it was meant to be by users. It is not even
> > degrading it, it is altering it that you can easily witness by
> > comparing Fig1 & Fig2, how different they are, and I also posted
> > standard Mpeg to FLV conversion done by Riva converter at Fig3 locally
> > on my PC, the result is a bit degraded, but basically maintaining the
> > same shape except a bit low at 10,000hz and overall amplitude is a bit
> > less, but we can live with that kind of difference, since original
> > sound was not altered, just degraded a bit for overall level and
> > frequency responses, but that’s normal trade off converting it to
> > lower resolution for smaller file, however it is basically the same
> > sound in this conversion in this sample.
> > The next focal point is how attacking point (initial point) of each
> > sound being treated by YT encoding. You can compare Fig4 and Fig5 for
> > this test. They are the same waveforms as Fig1 & Fig2, but magnified
> > at attacking point of 100Hz for comparison. While original sine wave
> > has normal smooth waveforms constantly at -3db in Fig4, YT conversion
> > made it jump up to the ceiling of 0db or even beyond and hammered back
> > down to around -0.2db or so being normalized, however during this
> > process, original sine wave was completely distorted as you can
> > clearly see in Fig5 that it no longer represents smooth shape of sine
> > wave how it should be, YT conversion clearly clipped and distorted
> > original sound and made it almost look like a pulse wave flat at top
> > of every attacking portion of wave forms, it is no longer the
> > reproduction of since waves, just plain distortion here! It is the
> > same for any frequency above 100Hz, so I did not illustrate it for
> > each frequency since it is redundant, but they’re all more or less the
> > same observing Fig2 YT waveforms compare to Fig1. This basically
> > indicates that any sound presented at -3db or above after silence or
> > quiet passages will be guaranteed to be clipped and distorted after YT
> > conversion through current compression/limiting scheme.
> > Next thing is to observe decaying behavior before and after the
> > conversion by YT, and for this reason I intentionally faded out each
> > test tone linearly within 5sec of each blast of test tone. Comparison
> > can be viewed between Fig6 & Fig7. As you can see YT compression is
> > trying to boost every bits of your decaying sound until there’s no
> > sound exist to be boosted, completely against the law of nature how
> > things should decay naturally, such as echo, reverberation or even
> > life itself. What’s the point of amplifying decaying process? It is
> > just an extreme artificial attempt to preserve something doesn’t need
> > to be preserved or heard. Let everything decay naturally, why not?
> > Anyway, this will produce heavy breathing/pumping effect in existing
> > audio track unnecessarily including background noises along with
> > boosting up natural decay of instruments or reverberation effects. And
> > it is indeed, very BAD!
> > Finally, I present overlay of both waveforms, before and after YT
> > conversion at Fig8 to see how different they are comparing original
> > waveforms and converted waveforms by YT. Do you really want to sound
> > so different after uploading your clip being distorted and compressed
> > by YT without your permission or agreement in that matter? And that’s
> > my final point in this issue.
> > If you want to hear those test tone clips for comparison, be my guest!
> > But please make sure to turn your playback volume way down to minimum
> > before playing any of those clips, because they’re just tones and I
> > don’t want anyone to hurt their ears by accident listening to those
> > clips in high volume especially above 1,000Hz test tones, they can
> > indeed hurt your ears without care! So please turn your playback
> > volume down and be careful!
> > The same clip encoded from Mpeg to FLV (the same format as youtube
> > uses as default) locally without additional audio manipulation in
> > 320x240 with 128kbps/44.1Hz audio bit/sampling rates:http://casadelagos.com/YT_TestTone/tones2.flv
> > Though, probably you need local FLV player to view the last clip.
> > Please feel free to comment or raise questions on this issue for
> > seeking prompt resolution in this matter.
> > All the best.
> > On Jul 26, 12:56 am, rewboss wrote:
> > > I've just been experimenting a bit, and getting encouraging results.
> > > My software won't allow me to normalize sound to a specific volume
> > > (you'd think it would, but no), so I have to do that by hand, but
> > > doable. It definitely helps, though.
> > > Procedure: Mix down audio, adjust volume so that it peaks at around
> > > -6dB. Then add audio track consisting of 20kHz sine wave at -8dB, and
> > > export and upload.
> The main example in the Wired article is not actually nearly as bad as
> what I've experienced. The conspiracy theory part of me thinks YouTube
> went in and fixed that video so everyone reading the article would
> think it was a lot of complaining about something that most people
> would probably not care about.
> What they are doing is not compression. On my video the sound actually
> increases an insane (probably close to 4 or 5db) on the louder part of
> the song!
> If you want to hear how the original sounds check out the same bit
> (1:32-1:48) on the Vimeo version.http://www.vimeo.com/1488627
> On Jul 31, 8:27 am, Sopranoguitar wrote:
> > This test and analysis above by viewer76x is very clear and thorough
> > to illustrate this issue and how serious problem it is. So, please
> > keep this thread alive until YT acknoledges and respond to it before
> > burried under other issues since this forum is not divided properly
> > based on nature of topics while some are more serious than others.
> > View his test result here, by your own eyes!: http://casadelagos.com/YT_TestTone/
> > On Jul 30, 7:36 pm, viewer76x wrote:
> > > Hello folks! I just want to put the end to this recent audio
> > > compression problem by YT, so I have run and created some simple tests
> > > something easy for anyone to see and hear how screwed up it is, it is
> > > simply out of line and totally ridiculous how bad it is, once you can
> > > see it! Simply it is unacceptable what YT is doing for their audio
> > > recently. Here I put my two cents and a day of work to help, if
> > > ignored, I have no regret. However, if you care at all for the sound
> > > quality of your video clip posted on YT, just check out below what I
> > > found out through my tests today.
> > > 1) Test Tones: For this purpose, I have created special test tones to
> > > reveal recent YT compression behaviors. Very simple, I’ve chained
> > > 50-100-250-500-1000-5000-8000 and 10,000 Hz sine waves at -3db for
> > > 5sec blast each with gap of 1sec complete silence in between them and
> > > each blast are faded out using linear fade out within 5sec from -3db
> > > to -240db so that I can easily observe the differences between
> > > original waveforms and waveforms after encoded by YT from attack to
> > > decay, to speed and amount of compression, how they’re applied and
> > > behaves as a result.
> > > 2) Well, the results are astounding to the point that I’ve never-ever
> > > seen such an abuse of compression so badly by any professionals in
> > > audio management in any media from the inception of radio, TV or
> > > record industries, or even by telephone industries, and I’m 61 years
> > > old professional sound engineer and recording artist as my background
> > > lived through all of audio technology changes and developments since
> > > 1950’s. Worst audio in history by most popular internet media site in
> > > 2008, ironical indeed! How did it happen? I have no clue. They simply
> > > applied Jimi Hendrix guitar distortion technique to all of their audio
> > > tracks on their newly uploaded video clips, that was all to it. I
> > > can’t believe that it is intentional, I believe that someone in their
> > > company screwed it up really bad and there’s no quality control
> > > department or supervisor oversees audio portion of contents being
> > > uploaded since majority of audio are bad to begin with being captured
> > > by mobile phone, camcorders etc. Probably no one in their company
> > > watches high quality audio track video being uploaded to hear the
> > > differences, just too many clips there to see those differences clip
> > > by clip, therefore only users know how bad it is who uploaded quality
> > > audio along with their clips, and that’s the problem I see here. But
> > > it was fine until middle of June 2008, so that’s my point here to seek
> > > improvement promptly to eliminate that glitch in their system, or to
> > > restore something was working fine until 40days ago or so. It
> > > shouldn’t be a hard work on their part once the source of problem can
> > > be traced back correctly within this timeline. So, sooner is better to
> > > resolve this!
> > > 3) Now, please click this link:http://casadelagos.com/YT_TestTone/ > > > This is a result of my work and proof today to establish firm ground
> > > that how current YT compression scheme is harmful to anyone cares
> > > about sound quality of their clip, since they’re completely altering
> > > this original sound how it was meant to be by users. It is not even
> > > degrading it, it is altering it that you can easily witness by
> > > comparing Fig1 & Fig2, how different they are, and I also posted
> > > standard Mpeg to FLV conversion done by Riva converter at Fig3 locally
> > > on my PC, the result is a bit degraded, but basically maintaining the
> > > same shape except a bit low at 10,000hz and overall amplitude is a bit
> > > less, but we can live with that kind of difference, since original
> > > sound was not altered, just degraded a bit for overall level and
> > > frequency responses, but that’s normal trade off converting it to
> > > lower resolution for smaller file, however it is basically the same
> > > sound in this conversion in this sample.
> > > The next focal point is how attacking point (initial point) of each
> > > sound being treated by YT encoding. You can compare Fig4 and Fig5 for
> > > this test. They are the same waveforms as Fig1 & Fig2, but magnified
> > > at attacking point of 100Hz for comparison. While original sine wave
> > > has normal smooth waveforms constantly at -3db in Fig4, YT conversion
> > > made it jump up to the ceiling of 0db or even beyond and hammered back
> > > down to around -0.2db or so being normalized, however during this
> > > process, original sine wave was completely distorted as you can
> > > clearly see in Fig5 that it no longer represents smooth shape of sine
> > > wave how it should be, YT conversion clearly clipped and distorted
> > > original sound and made it almost look like a pulse wave flat at top
> > > of every attacking portion of wave forms, it is no longer the
> > > reproduction of since waves, just plain distortion here! It is the
> > > same for any frequency above 100Hz, so I did not illustrate it for
> > > each frequency since it is redundant, but they’re all more or less the
> > > same observing Fig2 YT waveforms compare to Fig1. This basically
> > > indicates that any sound presented at -3db or above after silence or
> > > quiet passages will be guaranteed to be clipped and distorted after YT
> > > conversion through current compression/limiting scheme.
> > > Next thing is to observe decaying behavior before and after the
> > > conversion by YT, and for this reason I intentionally faded out each
> > > test tone linearly within 5sec of each blast of test tone. Comparison
> > > can be viewed between Fig6 & Fig7. As you can see YT compression is
> > > trying to boost every bits of your decaying sound until there’s no
> > > sound exist to be boosted, completely against the law of nature how
> > > things should decay naturally, such as echo, reverberation or even
> > > life itself. What’s the point of amplifying decaying process? It is
> > > just an extreme artificial attempt to preserve something doesn’t need
> > > to be preserved or heard. Let everything decay naturally, why not?
> > > Anyway, this will produce heavy breathing/pumping effect in existing
> > > audio track unnecessarily including background noises along with
> > > boosting up natural decay of instruments or reverberation effects. And
> > > it is indeed, very BAD!
> > > Finally, I present overlay of both waveforms, before and after YT
> > > conversion at Fig8 to see how different they are comparing original
> > > waveforms and converted waveforms by YT. Do you really want to sound
> > > so different after uploading your clip being distorted and compressed
> > > by YT without your permission or agreement in that matter? And that’s
> > > my final point in this issue.
> > > If you want to hear those test tone clips for comparison, be my guest!
> > > But please make sure to turn your playback volume way down to minimum
> > > before playing any of those clips, because they’re just tones and I
> > > don’t want anyone to hurt their ears by accident listening to those
> > > clips in high volume especially above 1,000Hz test tones, they can
> > > indeed hurt your ears without care! So please turn your playback
> > > volume down and be careful!
> > > The same clip encoded from Mpeg to FLV (the same format as youtube
> > > uses as default) locally without additional audio manipulation in
> > > 320x240 with 128kbps/44.1Hz audio bit/sampling rates:http://casadelagos.com/YT_TestTone/tones2.flv
> > > Though, probably you need local FLV player to view the last clip.
> > > Please feel free to comment or raise questions on this issue for
> > > seeking prompt resolution in this matter.
> > > All the best.
> > > On Jul 26, 12:56 am, rewboss wrote:
> > > > I've just been experimenting a bit, and getting encouraging results.
> > > > My software won't allow me to normalize sound to a specific volume
> > > > (you'd think it would, but no), so I have to do that by hand, but
My videos still sound better on other web sites, and I can still hear
something not so great after their encode. My experience with Flash
in general is that if the settings are not right (when using ON2.com's
Flix Pro encoder)—for example, if the bit rate is too low—the sound is
distorted/garbely a bit. I don't have that loud and annoying extreme
high audio levels as before, but there is still some distortionish
sounds coming from my videos on YouTube not present on other video
sites. Too bad YouTube didn't start with the Quicktime video player
way back when instead of Flash, because the world would be a better
place—Apple "gets it" and the video and audio always sound great with
Quicktime. I digress. YouTube Staff, if you're reading this, thank
you for helping make the changes. Please ask the engineers to check
the bit rate of the audio for the encode and see if it can be higher---
it would help us all.
> My videos still sound better on other web sites, and I can still hear
> something not so great after their encode. My experience with Flash
> in general is that if the settings are not right (when using ON2.com's
> Flix Pro encoder)—for example, if the bit rate is too low—the sound is
> distorted/garbely a bit. I don't have that loud and annoying extreme
> high audio levels as before, but there is still some distortionish
> sounds coming from my videos on YouTube not present on other video
> sites. Too bad YouTube didn't start with the Quicktime video player
> way back when instead of Flash, because the world would be a better
> place—Apple "gets it" and the video and audio always sound great with
> Quicktime. I digress. YouTube Staff, if you're reading this, thank
> you for helping make the changes. Please ask the engineers to check
> the bit rate of the audio for the encode and see if it can be higher---
> it would help us all.
|
