YouTube Audio Quality

Creating a home studio for recording the classical guitar. Equipment, software and recording techniques. Amplification for live performance.
Andrew Pohlman
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:24 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

YouTube Audio Quality

Post by Andrew Pohlman » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:07 pm

I am trying to upload videos with the audio stream replaced by a Reaper version. What engineering considerations must I pay attention to so the audio quality is preserved?

I have found many sources of info anf blogs on this topic, but I really want to hear from this group of musicians who have done this type of thing.

I am recording with 24 bit, 44.1KHz sampling rate. I can accommodate up to 196KHz.
2013 Rodriguez FF Sabicas blanco
2015 Trevor Gore custom Neoclassical
- redwood top, Palo dorado B+Ss.

User avatar
RobMacKillop
Posts: 2360
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:24 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by RobMacKillop » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:48 pm

YouTube will compress your file to MP3 quality anyway, so you might prefer to do that yourself. I used to put wav files on my videos, but the compression means that I now save myself rendering and upload time by using mp3 files. I don't think anyone noticed the difference.

Joe Holden

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by Joe Holden » Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:20 am

so once a person uploads to Youtube is that open to all the public or can you set it so it only goes to viewers on this site ?

User avatar
RobMacKillop
Posts: 2360
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:24 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by RobMacKillop » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:19 am

You have three choices (if I remember correctly) - global access, or completely off the radar (only you can see it), or access only via a link, which is what you would want for this site.

User avatar
Marko Räsänen
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3598
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:56 am
Location: Finland

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by Marko Räsänen » Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:11 am

Youtube calls those three choices "Public", "Private" and "Unlisted" respectively.
Alhambra 4P spruce
Almansa 457 cedar
Cordoba C12 spruce

Andrew Pohlman
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:24 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by Andrew Pohlman » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:27 pm

RobMacKillop wrote:YouTube will compress your file to MP3 quality anyway, so you might prefer to do that yourself. I used to put wav files on my videos, but the compression means that I now save myself rendering and upload time by using mp3 files. I don't think anyone noticed the difference.
So, if I understand you correctly, I can convert Reaper's output to the highest quality MP3 I can make, and YouTube will not degrade it further during upload. But if I upload a video with a WAV audio stream, it gets whacked by YouTube's compression algorithms without any user control.

Anything else I need to know about preserving audio quality on YouTube ?

Also, I just want to say thank you to all contributors to this thread. The info vids I am finding talk about how "using a separate high quality mic really helps", then they state Blue Snowball and/or AudioTechnica lapel mics as "high quality". I certainly don't accept these generic standards as high quality. But if YouTube whacks our best sonic content, then maybe a lapel mic is good enough... However, it is good to hear from classical guitarists with ample experience in this area!
2013 Rodriguez FF Sabicas blanco
2015 Trevor Gore custom Neoclassical
- redwood top, Palo dorado B+Ss.

User avatar
Stephen Kenyon
Teacher
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:26 am
Location: Dorchester, Dorset, England

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by Stephen Kenyon » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:39 pm

Andrew Pohlman wrote:.....So, if I understand you correctly, I can convert Reaper's output to the highest quality MP3 I can make, and YouTube will not degrade it further during upload. But if I upload a video with a WAV audio stream, it gets whacked by YouTube's compression algorithms without any user control.
......
..... But if YouTube whacks our best sonic content, then maybe a lapel mic is good enough... However, it is good to hear from classical guitarists with ample experience in this area!
In my experience, even once you have bounced your video down to an uploadable format, including making the audio into an mp3, there is further compression applied, albeit it relatively slight. If you are really interested in the differences, you could upload short sample videos, listed as private, one having made the mp3 yourself, another otherwise identical leaving the audio to YT.

And on the general principle that you want to feed the best starting quality into the system, I would still advocate using a decent mic to record with, and not a simple lapel type.

I would suggest its important to bear in mind in all this that if you are making a video, the overall impression is more important than subtle considerations of audio quality, and making sure the picture is worth watching, and the performance worth hearing, are at least as important.
Simon Ambridge Series 40 (2005)
Trevor Semple Series 88 (1992)
Louis Panormo (1838)
Alexander Batov Baroque Guitar (2013)

Andrew Pohlman
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:24 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by Andrew Pohlman » Fri Mar 25, 2016 6:14 pm

Stephen Kenyon wrote:And on the general principle that you want to feed the best starting quality into the system, I would still advocate using a decent mic to record with, and not a simple lapel type.
Yah - I am using Rode M5s with a Scarlett 2i2. The test so far have been brutaly accurate in every detail. And this was actually my point - garden variety YT posters think a dedicated lapel mic is "high quality". I'm sure it is compared to barrel scrapes mics. I'm almost 100% positive that noone here would make that same statement about quality.
2013 Rodriguez FF Sabicas blanco
2015 Trevor Gore custom Neoclassical
- redwood top, Palo dorado B+Ss.

User avatar
Stephen Kenyon
Teacher
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:26 am
Location: Dorchester, Dorset, England

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by Stephen Kenyon » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:29 pm

Andrew Pohlman wrote:...
Yah - I am using Rode M5s with a Scarlett 2i2. The test so far have been brutaly accurate in every detail....
Very cool. I forgot to add to my previous that since probably a big majority of YTers are listening over extremely poor audio reproduction, a good deal of whatever we do is going to be lost anyway. But maybe most of those with incentive to appreciate what we do are also inclined to plug their computer into a decent stereo and turn it up!
Simon Ambridge Series 40 (2005)
Trevor Semple Series 88 (1992)
Louis Panormo (1838)
Alexander Batov Baroque Guitar (2013)

User avatar
Marek Cupak
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:38 pm
Location: Slovakia

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by Marek Cupak » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:33 am

Stephen Kenyon wrote:I forgot to add to my previous that since probably a big majority of YTers are listening over extremely poor audio reproduction, a good deal of whatever we do is going to be lost anyway.
So true that I recently begun to tell myself my recording efforts are mostly for own pleasure...
2014 Martin Okenica cedar, modern (H. Hauser I inspired)
2012 Martin Okenica spruce, early romantic (F. R. Lacôte inspired)

User avatar
robin loops
Posts: 3110
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:57 am
Location: California

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by robin loops » Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:10 pm

The recommendations for a lapel mic is as opposed to using the built in Michael of the camera and is referring mostly to voice or general video uploading. For music (especially CG) its always best to use a good mic for recording. Even when highly compressed the better the source, the better the results. With your mic and the 2i2 you should be able to get good enough results for most YouTube videos. As mentioned, most people don't have their computer hooked up to a high end stereo system so I wouldn't worry too Mich about mp3 compression. Just make surebyou choose the highest quality option when uploading. One advantage to loading up uncompressed audio is that YouTube is going to convert to its format and bit rate regardless. Compressing a wave format will get better results than if it has to convert an already compressed file (mp3) to another bit rate.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
-James-

alexshur
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:05 am

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by alexshur » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:54 am

if you want to save the quality then use Vimeo

nagelfar
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:07 pm
Location: south korea

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by nagelfar » Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:00 am

I know youtube can't be more than 128kbps

PeteJ
Posts: 943
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: YouTube Audio Quality

Post by PeteJ » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:18 pm

alexshur wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:54 am
if you want to save the quality then use Vimeo
+1

Return to “Classical guitar recording and amplification”