[Witchking]

2

I don't know if this is the right place for this type of topic (if it isn't, please forgive me and move the post to the right place), and also if what I'm trying to say is just empty polemic. However, since it addresses a bit of the technical side, I think it's interesting to share it here, because many people may not know about it...

Well, I've seen several YouTube Rips here on the forum, and I see it positively, because it's a way of preserving recordings that are posted there, often exclusively, and that can be deleted at any moment (for whatever reason). However, I've noticed that many people have ripped files from the site and converted them to MP3 320kbps and even to lossless formats.

When a file is uploaded to YouTube, the site compresses it to 128kbps (at least the audio part). Even if people convert this to larger files, whether it's MP3 or even lossless, unfortunately the quality doesn't improve, it just makes the file bigger.

My intention here isn't to criticize or anything like that, especially since I bring YouTube Rips here, and I'm very grateful to everyone who brings rare and incredible stuffs from there to the forum, but rather to present arguments (based on technical data) about how unnecessary it's to convert these files to bitrates higher than 192kbps.

Below, I'll leave some images that show the difference between a YouTube Rip and genuine files in 320Kbps and lossless format:

YouTube Rip


Genuine 320kbps Rip


Genuine Lossless Rip


Unfortunately, when a file is converted, it will always have a loss of quality, no matter how small, so in order to keep the closest thing to the "original" file (in this case, YouTube as the primary source), I propose that YouTube files should always be converted between 160-192kbps.

Maybe many here will find these arguments of mine unnecessary, and that after seeing the file in this situation, I just need to reconvert it to the "correct bitrate" or go look for the primary source (on YouTube). However, I know that many people are also unaware of these "technical" issues, and often think that such files are genuine in the formats that are posted here coming from YouTube, when in fact they aren't.

[canadaspaceman]

There was another topic mentioning this years ago,
that upconverting 128 kbps to any higher rate is just bloating the file, and does not improve sound quality.

Might as well leave it as a 128 mp3 or m4a.

IF THERE IS a higher audio quality on YouTube, maybe it is only for those that pay/subscribe for YouTube Premium?
I don't know.
Though paying for it, that does not guarantee anything, if most regular uploaders already had files compressed.

EDIT:
The topic Youtube RIPS was merged into the A question about uploading a post topic
viewtopic.php?f=185&t=50500&start=30#p250073

• 
• 2 likes this

[Witchking]

You've made a great point. I am what is known as a stickler for high quality audio and basically record and save all my audio files in lossless format. When I make a trade with some one, I make it very clear that I am only interested in lossless audio of high quality and make exceptions in very few cases to accept 320 kbs mp3. I can't count the times people have sent me up converted MP3 files in wav format thinking that what they have sent is lossless. I don't need software to tell me the file is up converted as my ears have been sensitive to compression for a long time.

I agree with your post except, I would not up convert a 128 kbs file to 160 or 192 kbs as it is pointless in my opinion. It still has the same frequencies and I would venture to say there are few who can distinguish between 128 and 192 kbs sound quality.

It's a shame that Youtube does not offer audio in various quality settings as they do the video portion of the file. When I upload to YouTube, the files are always lossless yet, anyone who would download from my channel will receive a compressed 128 kbs MP3.

I quite understand your point, and perhaps if I had more disk space, I'd try to keep more lossless files. However, for this reason (lack of space), and because I know that many of the things I search for I won't be able to find in lossless format, I end up not caring so much.

Unfortunately, I can't tell a genuine 320kbps MP3 from a lossless file just by listening to it. At least not with the equipment I currently have, and that's why I always end up resorting to programs like spek.

I've also seen a lot of people sharing lossless files that are actually from lossy sources, but in some cases, it's not possible to know if it's bad faith on the part of these traders, because unfortunately, some CDs ended up being pressed with lossy files. I've received some myself in the last few years, and interestingly, they're files that aren't (yet) on YouTube and aren't in public circulation on the Internet. Although most of them come from small labels and licensed by determinated band. There are also the cases of "fake lossless", which are recordings that use lossy files as the primary source, but are processed in the studio. You can see some strange frequencies starting at certain kHz (usually a solid line separating the frequencies starting at 15 kHz).

As for the idea of ​​converting to MP3 128kbps (and already answering canadaspaceman's answer with a question), I don't know if lossy files other than MP3 are allowed on the forum. And whenever we convert, even if it's to the same bitrate, but to another format, it will cause losses, even if only a few. Therefore, converting to 160 or 192Kbps won't cause as many losses, and the file won't be as big.

IF THERE IS a higher audio quality on YouTube, maybe it is only for those that pay/subscribe for YouTube Premium?
I don't know.
Though paying for it, that does not guarantee anything, if most regular uploaders already had files compressed.

As for YouTube, I never understood that. Unfortunately, the audio quality doesn't match the video quality. And that's why I doubt that even with YouTube Premium it'll be possible to download the file with an audio format other than 128kbps. Maybe with YouTube Premium you can download from YouTube Music, but I really don't know. In this case, the same stuff that is on YouTube Music is on other streaming platforms, and even if it suffers from 128kbps compression, there are other options with better quality.

EDIT:
The topic Youtube RIPS was merged into the A question about uploading a post topic
viewtopic.php?f=185&t=50500&start=30#p250073

Thank you very much! I'll look into the topic.

[Bloopy]

As for the idea of ​​converting to MP3 128kbps (and already answering canadaspaceman's answer with a question), I don't know if lossy files other than MP3 are allowed on the forum. And whenever we convert, even if it's to the same bitrate, but to another format, it will cause losses, even if only a few. Therefore, converting to 160 or 192Kbps won't cause as many losses, and the file won't be as big.

Yes, that's my understanding also. YouTube's 128 kbps encoding is a slightly higher quality file format than a 128 kbps MP3 which is an older algorithm. So it's probably better not to do a 128 -> 128 conversion even if it'd only make it subtly worse. I like having everything lossy in MP3 for consistency.

I'm all too familiar with this as YouTube was about the only way I was able to get hold of quite a bit of the obscure music I listen to. Occasionally if I can't even find something on YouTube, I'll go with the expense of getting something shipped here, but I try not to be too materialistic!

• 
• 1 likes this

[Slonnik]

Who told you that YouTube compresses ALL files to a bitrate of 128???
Yes, the default streaming on YouTube is 128 kbps, but if you download a file that was originally uploaded to Losless and skillfully remove it from the container, the quality will definitely be higher than 128.
P.S. I smiled when I read that someone here can HEAR the difference between Lossy and Lossless. Let's play a simple and fun game - a blind test?

[canadaspaceman]

Who told you that YouTube compresses ALL files to a bitrate of 128???

Many of us have downloaded from youtube for 15+ years, and the various applications all give us only 128.
Only recently was I surprised some extracting sites gave me 320, but I doubt it's a real 320.

• 
• 2 likes this

[Slonnik]

[TheRocker777]

well i have a youtube channel i know that what youtube do with audio and videos ... when you are new and your subscribers and views are not on their level they downgrade both qualities .... when you upload 128kbps file on youtube they will compress that , what i do i always remasters my Audios like if they are on 128kbps and sounds flat with low treble ... these kind of audios mostly in Demos you will find for them i always remaster them to 320kbps .... most of people knows and asks me how my audios sounds crisp and better than original specially in demos ...
let me give you example if you have original tape and you converted that too lossless but the recordings are flat and Audio gain is not normal .... if people convert these kind of lossless files to mp3 specially 128kbps they will sound bad.
For me i dont mind if they comes from youtube if something is released as demo and its not available i always make 2 copies of them one original and one remaster.
its better to have Rarity rather than waiting for original when you also knows who got originals they sell tape on 600$ sometime more than that so my opinion if something is offered free and thats rare you should take that.

[Slonnik]

But first a question. Does anyone hear the difference between this audio track and mp3?

[canadaspaceman]

i am not going to bother with Slonnik's "test", as everyone capable and is a long time downloader / uploader / ripper will already know the differences.

Rip any of your cd's at 128 and at 320, you will hear the difference in clarity and volume.

The madonna youtube videos prove what?
they could be different mixes, so one vid might sound louder / clearer, but that is not proof to me.

[rocknrollchuck]

Here's the question I have that I have not found an answer for yet: when you use a site to rip YouTube videos, they usually give you a choice of 128, 192, 256 & 320. If the file coming from YouTube is 128 kbps, are you losing less by converting to 320 instead of 128?

My thinking goes like this: if I'm downloading a 128 kbps YouTube file to a 128 kbps mp3 file, am I really creating a 128 kbps copy with minimal loss or am I downgrading to 128 kbps of the original file, thus creating a file with a significant amount more info lost?

For example, let's say your original file on YouTube at 128 kbps is represented by 100%. If you download/convert to 128 kbps, are you getting a 100% of that 128 kbps with minimal loss or are you getting a file that has lost over 80% of the original YouTube file quality?

In that case, would it be better to convert to 320 kbps so you don't lose as much?

Not sure if I'm explaining this in a way that makes sense or not.

• 
• 2 likes this

[Witchking]

Here's the question I have that I have not found an answer for yet: when you use a site to rip YouTube videos, they usually give you a choice of 128, 192, 256 & 320. If the file coming from YouTube is 128 kbps, are you losing less by converting to 320 instead of 128?

My thinking goes like this: if I'm downloading a 128 kbps YouTube file to a 128 kbps mp3 file, am I really creating a 128 kbps copy with minimal loss or am I downgrading to 128 kbps of the original file, thus creating a file with a significant amount more info lost?

For example, let's say your original file on YouTube at 128 kbps is represented by 100%. If you download/convert to 128 kbps, are you getting a 100% of that 128 kbps with minimal loss or are you getting a file that has lost over 80% of the original YouTube file quality?

In that case, would it be better to convert to 320 kbps so you don't lose as much?

Not sure if I'm explaining this in a way that makes sense or not.

Regarding audio, when you upload to YouTube, regardless of the quality of the file to be uploaded (whether it is MP3 128kbps or FLAC), YouTube will convert it to m4a in AAC (Advance Audio Coding) 128kbps (as you can see in the images I posted above). In some cases, YouTube can also converts to opus at 152kbps, but this isn't the case in most cases.

These sites that "rip" music from YouTube convert these already converted and compressed files from YouTube to MP3, and regardless of the quality you choose (whether it is 128kbps, 320kbps, or even FLAC) it will not result in an increase in quality, either of the audio or the frequency, since the source is a 128kbps file. This will only increase the size of the file considerably.

EDIT: The losses, when comparing files 192 to 320, are practically negligible (although file 320 is almost twice the size):

192kbps (Size: 4.44 MB)


320kbps (Size: 7.40 MB)

• 
• 3 likes this

[rocknrollchuck]

Thank you for this! So that finally answers the question I've had for years: while the difference is "negligible", there IS a difference. I put a snip of the pics you posted side by side for comparison:



So I guess for some it would be an important enough difference to choose the larger file size, and for others it wouldn't matter enough and so they would choose the smaller file size.

• 
• 2 likes this

[Slonnik]

EDIT: The losses, when comparing files 192 to 320, are practically negligible (although file 320 is almost twice the size):

Thanx!
Now another question: where did you get this data from?
You uploaded files of different quality to YouTube.
Can you forward them to me? And please show me these songs that have already been uploaded to YouTube.
Thank you in advance for your understanding.

Then I will also speak out in more detail on this issue. Of course, if someone else is interested...

[riptorn]

Thank you for this! So that finally answers the question I've had for years: while the difference is "negligible", there IS a difference. I put a snip of the pics you posted side by side for comparison:



So I guess for some it would be an important enough difference to choose the larger file size, and for others it wouldn't matter enough and so they would choose the smaller file size.

I get what you're saying, but i question the wisdom of doing so unless the difference is clearly audible.

• 
• 1 likes this

[rocknrollchuck]

That's fair. I can hear a clear difference between 128 and 320 kbps, but haven't actually compared 192 to 320 kbps side by side to see if I can tell.

I can also usually tell if a recording is a lossless vinyl rip just by the sound. The highs sound different / better because the vinyl recording is uncompressed. CD's have never sounded quite the same to me - the only exception is a CD that is a silver pressing of a good quality vinyl rip (like my Pink Floyd Rhapsody in Pink: The Psychedelic Years CD that I bought in the 90's). I also have a 5.0 disc of Dark Side of the Moon that sounds as close to vinyl as you could get.

• 
• 1 likes this

[Pelança]

Youtube only is useful to band knowledges. It serves merely as one information model and sampler. But download songs from Youtube is waste time. Any converted rip mp3 128 kbps from an authentic lossless rip or from mp3 320 kbps will sound much better that all Youtube rip. Youtube rip is a rotten and deceased audio, for me. The bass tones are extinct, and the songs became like a cell phone audio. When I meet interesting something by Youtube and no available to download from another source, I put in my wantlist, but I don't download anything from Youtube. I utilize yet a simple stereo system hi-fi in my house.

[Witchking]

Thank you for this! So that finally answers the question I've had for years: while the difference is "negligible", there IS a difference. I put a snip of the pics you posted side by side for comparison:



So I guess for some it would be an important enough difference to choose the larger file size, and for others it wouldn't matter enough and so they would choose the smaller file size.

I get what you're saying, but i question the wisdom of doing so unless the difference is clearly audible.

I'm happy to know that this topic was of some help to you and helped you to clarify your doubts. However, so that you do not have any more doubts about it, it is important to emphasize that any file that is converted to lossy format will suffer losses. And saving a file with losses in a larger format will not make it gain quality. This doesn't only happen with audio files.

When I say that it is unnecessary to save a file originally converted in 128kbps to 320kbps or lossless format, I'm referring to the fact that its quality will not improve and its frequencies will not increase. In this specific case at 320kbps, because it is a originally lossy file, there will be losses (because it is a lossy file). The losses of a conversion at 192kbps when compared to those converted to 320kbps are insignificant, because in this case they don't affect the frequencies, as you can see in the images. The frequency peaks are at 16 kHz, they don't change. The losses are so insignificant that they are inaudible.

That's fair. I can hear a clear difference between 128 and 320 kbps, but haven't actually compared 192 to 320 kbps side by side to see if I can tell.

It's important to explain this here as well, as there may be confusion about it. The topic is about converting files that have already been converted to 128kbps encoding. In this case, which is the approach of the topic, there's no difference. The file will just be larger.
Now, in genuine files (which isn't what is being discussed here), there are differences between 128, 192 and 320 files.

EDIT: The losses, when comparing files 192 to 320, are practically negligible (although file 320 is almost twice the size):

Thanx!
Now another question: where did you get this data from?
You uploaded files of different quality to YouTube.
Can you forward them to me? And please show me these songs that have already been uploaded to YouTube.
Thank you in advance for your understanding.

Then I will also speak out in more detail on this issue. Of course, if someone else is interested...

Well, to answer your questions.

The data was taken from files ripped from YouTube and from the original sources that I've, making comparisons through the spek program, which you can download from this link below:

https://www.spek.cc/p/download

It's an executable, you don't even need to install it (and you can run it without unpacking it too).

Since you have shown interest in understanding this process, I'll not send you the files (so that you don't think that they have been manipulated or anything like that), and also so that you can have your own data and your own conclusion. I recommend that you do the following:

1) Take any official CD that you have and rip a song in lossless (it can be in WAV or FLAC);

2) Analyze the track that you ripped from this CD with Spek. If it is a genuinely lossless file, the frequencies will be above 20 kHz (similar to the third image in the first post);

3) If the track that you ripped is above 20 kHz, upload it to YouTube;

4) Download the file that you uploaded to YouTube with any program or website of your choice;

5) Analyze the file downloaded from YouTube with Spek;

6) Compare them using Spek, listening to both also and draw your own conclusions.

• 
• 4 likes this

[Slonnik]

I understand that there are no audiophiles on this forum except Delbert, so the last question is very simple. Do you know how to use the "Information for administrators" function?

[Slonnik]

The data was taken from files ripped from YouTube and from the original sources that I've, making comparisons through the spek program, which you can download from this link below:

https://www.spek.cc/p/download

Thank you, brother.
Can you give me your original master files that you downloaded from YouTube and checked?
I will test them myself with a more professional program and listen (the second is more important).

[Witchking]

The data was taken from files ripped from YouTube and from the original sources that I've, making comparisons through the spek program, which you can download from this link below:

https://www.spek.cc/p/download

Thank you, brother.
Can you give me your original master files that you downloaded from YouTube and checked?
I will test them myself with a more professional program and listen (the second is more important).

Just do what I said above, follow the "instructions". And if you want to use more professional programs that analyze the spectrogram of an audio media instead of the spek, feel free.

[Slonnik]

Witchking, so you refuse to send me the same files that you checked yourself for verification?
Ok, no problem, continue to check the moose files with dubious programs and make global conclusions lol

[Witchking]

Yes, I could point out several reasons for this. However, the main reason is that you do it with the files that you have, without any influence from third parties, because I believe that this way you will have a more genuine conclusion about what you are looking for.

In fact, this applies to anyone who wants to do the test. Having their own samples and results.

[Slonnik]

4) Download the file that you uploaded to YouTube with any program or website of your choice;

So, based on some incomprehensible downloader program, you make global conclusions?
Very reasonable lol. It turns out that you don't know how to get the original file from the YouTube audio container.
You download its compressed form (even if the original is recorded in Hi-Res 24/192) and then get something like and 121~311 kbp/s.
Good luck bro!