Sneaking Past Heavy-Handed Audio Compression on YouTube 234
niceone writes "Recently YouTube seems to have started applying extreme compression
to the audio of uploaded clips. This is the type of compressions used
by radio stations to make everything louder, but in this case applied
extremely badly. In quiet passages, breathing and shuffling become
overpoweringly loud. A gently plucked guitar chord becomes a distorted thud.
Listen to an example here. And here's what it could sound like — still not perfect, but a whole lot better. The
fixed version is thanks to a workaround proposed by
Sopranoguitar — the idea is to turn down the audio and mix in
a high frequency sine wave (I used 19kHz). The sine wave fools YouTube's
compressor into thinking that the file is at a uniform level (and does
not need the volume changing at all) but is filtered out by the encoding
process (so, no need to worry about deafening any dogs)."
and who came up with it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who's the mentally... challenged... individual who decided that applying such compression in the first place was a good idea, and then proceeded to implement or accept such a shitty implementation?
Wouldn't it be easier (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and who came up with it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and who came up with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think YouTube is trying to run a loudness war, but rather trying to fix up a lot of amateurish recordings that are uploaded with bad audio. I can't tell you how many recordings on the net are either way to quiet (e.g. I can't hear speech even at max volume) or too loud and that change in mid-video (e.g. person walks away from or closer to mic). Despite their good intentions, though, it seems to have fallen prey to the "Clippy" effect.
What YouTube needs to do is have a little check-box on uploads that indicates whether to apply the auto-balance. And in case an uploader asks for no auto-balance when they really shouldn't (e.g. they think they know but don't) there should be a side link to listen to the auto-balanced version.
Re:and who came up with it? (Score:4, Insightful)
They could simply normalise the level, but if you have a speech with very low level and the guy drops the microphone in the middle, that one peak is so loud that will make the normalisation process useless.
But compression is such a complex and subjective issue that it should be performed by hand. I guess they have an automated process for that, and it doesn't have any intelligence, just steamrolls all the audio it finds, whether it's speech, music, or anything else.
Re:Just sneak past the entire recompression proces (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and who came up with it? (Score:3, Insightful)
They need to allow a means of bypassing the compression, then.
Re:and who came up with it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Recording vs Processing (Score:4, Insightful)
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The mics and electronics on most consumer camcorders (or that most people use with their Macs and PCs) are just plain crappy, and shouldn't be relied on for anything that you hope to distribute. And of course, some actual audio recording skills help too.
Re:and who came up with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then hide the options. You don't protect the idiot by rubber-coating all the corners in the room, you protect them by putting the knives out of reach.
Re:Recording vs Processing (Score:3, Insightful)