YouTube audio bitrate

burkey

CyberGene Fazioli is simply not my sound

Are you basing your sound judgement on 128kbps YouTube audio?! lol

Or were you actually there in attendance at the final?!

CyberGene

burkey Are you basing your sound judgement on 128kbps YouTube audio?! lol

All the pianos in this competition are recorded in the same way and go through the YouTube compression which I believe is AAC 256kbps that is enough. My comment is about the dynamics relative to timbre change which has nothing to do with audio compression.

And no, I haven’t listened to a real Fazioli in person. My comment is based on listening to recorded Fazioli pianos compared to recorded pianos from other brands.

MacMacMac

You Tube may degrade the audio. But it cannot degrade the performance.

burkey

MacMacMac You Tube may degrade the audio. But it cannot degrade the performance.

CyberGene is specifically referring to the sound:

CyberGene listening to demos of sampled Fazioli pianos.

It's with listening to a Fazioli in person if you can.

burkey

burkey 4 prizes went to Fazioli, 2 to Kawai, 2 to Steinway.

They have good taste in pianos… or are those 3 the only options at the Warsaw Philharmonic Concert Hall?

burkey

CyberGene AAC 256kbps

Did they change that recently?

Previously it has been 126 kbps AAC - i.e. less than half of iTunes quality:

https://www.yoursoundmatters.com/stop-listening-to-music-on-youtube/

CyberGene

burkey

You may be right it’s 128, although I think I’ve read somewhere it’s adaptive and if you’re watching full HD or above it switches to a higher bitrate. Anyway, even 128kbps AAC is mostly transparent for most people unless you listen on a high quality system in full concentration. I’ve made blind tests and I fail to recognize half of the 128kbps AAC (not MP3!) files compared to uncompressed.

burkey

CyberGene if you’re watching full HD or above it switches to a higher bitrate

None of the YouTube videos I've ever seen have a high audio bitrate - please do share an example if you find one.

I believe Google / YouTube started a separate audio-only service - perhaps that's what you mean?

CyberGene

Here’s some info that says between 2012 and 2013 YouTube used different audio bitrate depending on the video quality, with 192kbps AAC used for 720p and above:

https://www.h3xed.com/web-and-internet/youtube-audio-quality-bitrate-240p-360p-480p-720p-1080p

So my information may be old and probably the audio quality is now fixed to 128kbps. In any case, the point here is all pianos in the competition go through the same compression, so they are all equally handicapped and that wouldn’t affect the judgment towards/against a particular piano more than the rest.

burkey

CyberGene with 192kbps

That's still not high quality audio by any stretch of the imagination 🙂

CyberGene

burkey CyberGene with 192kbps

That's still not high quality audio by any stretch of the imagination 🙂

Have you tested yourself with ABX testing about bitrates? Because I did some tests in the past with my Sennheiser HD-650 which are pretty good headphones connected to an external DAC (Apogee Groove) and compared 128kbps, 160kbps, 192kbps MP3 to WAV files. I managed to guess with a relatively high confidence only 128kbps MP3. Going to 160kbps the results were 50:50 which is the same if you're just answering randomly and with 192 it was already indiscernible from the WAV file and that was with specially selected music with drums, etc. which are usually very revealing due to fast transients and other artifacts. With a piano it would already be indiscernible even at 160kbps. Once again, MP3! Then we're talking about AAC which is universally accepted as a much better audio compression and a 128kbps AAC is already better than a 192kbps MP3 file.

I'm still not sure why you are focusing so much on the YouTube compression. As I said, I don't like how Fazioli fares against the two Steinway D pianos, the Yamaha CFX and the Kawai SK-EX in the same competition through the same audio compression. I'm not arguing whether in real life, being there, listening with my own ears the actual sound, or playing the pianos myself may yield very different preferences. But judging only from these YouTube videos, the pianos are being recorded and replayed through equally and my preference is very clear.

Try yourself with the tests:
https://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html

And here's one that tests specifically the 128kbps AAC (what Spotify uses in their standard tier):
https://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify.html

QuasiUnaFantasia

Low or high bit rate aside, the timbre of a piano does of course shine through even with modest sound quality. I am another one who is simply not won over by Fazioli; they invariably sound boring to me.

burkey

CyberGene Have you tested yourself with ABX testing about bitrates?

Yes, back in the 1990s I performed quite a few double blind tests.

Even 1996 base level DVD AC3 audio uses 640 kbps. Audiophiles preferred the 1,500 kbps DTS audio.

No self-respecting audiophile is going to choose 126 kbps as their compression level of choice to listen to the Chopin Piano Competition (or any other piano competition for that matter).

Which brings up a good side question - where would I find high quality piano recordings? Lossless / higher than CD quality, and ideally multi-channel.

burkey

CyberGene I managed to guess with a relatively high confidence only 128kbps MP3

YouTube is at 126 kbps. So I think you very much proved my original point: you cannot judge the sound any piano via YouTube (acoustic or digital). I rest my case 🙂

This is why we have the written rule:

Always play the piano before you purchase it. This doesn't just apply to the keyboard - it applies equally to the sound.

oshogg

CyberGene I'm not arguing whether in real life, being there, listening with my own ears the actual sound, or playing the pianos myself may yield very different preferences.

I have recently played 3 Fazioli F-278 in person. Two were new and one was from 1985. They all had completely different sounds in person to my ears - even the two new ones. I really liked the touch and tone of one - I was told that it was selected by Mr. Fazioli himself for NAAM 2019. That particular F-278 had the best action of any piano I have played - including 2 new Bosendorfer 280VC and 3 new Steinway Ds - all I have played in last few months.

Given this variability, I think it is hard to generalize about piano sounds - even for the same make and model. Each piano really has it's own sound - just like persons.

Osho

QuasiUnaFantasia

burkey So I think you very much proved my original point

This is completely non-sequitur! The ability to distinguish between the timbres of two differenct pianos, recorded in one digital format, is not the same as the ability to distinguish between two different bit rates in another digital format.

Otherwise your argument might be used to "prove" that one cannot via Youtube hear the difference between the sound of a rooster, and that of a lawn mower.

CyberGene

YouTube is AAC, not MP3. It’s not the same. AAC is much better at 128kbps than MP3. For most people, bar audiophiles, 128kbps AAC would be enough.

burkey

CyberGene YouTube is AAC, not MP3

126 kbps AAC is still junk.

That's why fair dinkum audio streaming services like Amazon Music HD, Apple Music lossless, Tidal, and Spotify HiFi exist: to provide superior audio.

https://www.amazon.com/music/unlimited/why-hd

https://www.whathifi.com/advice/heres-what-does-and-doesnt-support-apple-music-lossless-and-spatial-audio-and-why

https://www.whathifi.com/tidal/review

https://www.whathifi.com/advice/spotify-hifi-quality-price-release-date-free-trial-and-latest-news

So if you were correct that people can't tell the difference between these and 126 kbps AAC then there would be no market for these services.

burkey

QuasiUnaFantasia This is completely non-sequitur! The ability to distinguish between the timbres of two differenct pianos, recorded in one digital format, is not the same as the ability to distinguish between two different bit rates in another digital format.

Nonsense, my point was that 126 kbps AAC distorts the sound - therefore neither of the pianos matches their real sound.

Thus you cannot judge any of them via YouTube.

Why do you disagree?

MacMacMac

Exactly. You can hear the difference between a Steinway and a Bosie and a Faz on an 8-track just as well as on the finest digital master. Yes, we'd all prefer the latter ... if we're talking about audio equipment. But this is about pianos.

QuasiUnaFantasia

Because it does not matter that the sound is slightly distorted, when the differences in timbre are large. Which they are.

burkey

QuasiUnaFantasia Because it does not matter that the sound is slightly distorted

We'll have to agree to disagree there.