Vimeo is better, but it's still pretty low. I'd like for their bitrates to be at least double what they are right now. 4x would be ideal, but I know even 2x is asking a lot.

For instance, the "Posing and Rendering CGI Characters" video from Filmmaker IQ:

Youtube 720p - 782 kbps video (44 khz 125 kbps audio / 178MB file)
Vimeo 720p - 1,077 kbps video (48 khz 256 kbps audio / 135MB file)

Youtube 1080p - 1,474 kbps video
Vimeo 1080p - 2,545 kbps video

Also, if downloads are enabled for the video on Vimeo you can download the original file, which looks like this:

Vimeo 1080p original - 10,100 kbps video. (1.35 GB file)

The YouTube bitrate for live encoding is published on the google support page titled Live encoder settings, bitrates and resolutions

720p
Resolution: 1280x720
Video Bitrate Range: 1,500 - 4,000 Kbps

The normal encoder is likely to use better compression to reduce the bitrate while maintaining similar quality (in theory anyway) at the cost of not being realtime (after you upload a vid it takes a while before the encoding is finished and all resolutions are available).

According to http://blog.waterworld.com.hk/post/hd-quality-youtube-vs-vimeo the normal youtube encoder is limited to 3Mbps for 720p, but Vimeo is limited to 10Mbps (similar to a DVD).

What the higher bitrate means depends on how fast your internet connection is. If your connection speed is between 3Mbps and 10Mbps then this means that yt 720 will play without buffering, but Vimeo will stop. If your connection is 10Mbps or higher then the higher bitrate means nicer looking video with less compression artefacts.

Here's a bitrate comparison 2Mbps vs 5Mbps vs 10Mbps from the Aussie YouTube channel Tech YES City


YT is actually limited to 8Mbps for 1080p so for certain videos, with lots of motion for instance, the Vimeo 720p would be higher quality than YT 1080p.

I am still going through his last video which I think he takes on compression, but I can tell you right now as for mp3, it is cd-quality, but it is not cd. Even at high bitrates, the high frequencies get hit hard. It is pretty sad we continue to let our music suffer with a lot of people still compressing to mp3. If you look hard enough though you will find people using FLAC, and apples high bitrate AAC files are great. Anime fansubs which are probably more fickle about quality and standards then the Hollywood movie pirate scene are now all using AAC in their mp4 file instead of bad old mp3. Although in its defense, MOST movie rips are AC3/DTS, or at least offer it aside long its MP3 stereo track.

Thanks for the reply and sharing your expertise -- sounds like you'd confirm everything that the video said.

This probably just displays my ignorance more, but specifically with regards to the MP3 format, do you think it adds any noticeable compression artifacts even at high-quality settings? Part of my problem was that I was thinking of MP3 *bit*rate as sampling rate (128 kbit/s = 128 kHz, which is not at all correct). But still, MP3 is a lossy format (obviously since one can turn a 650M CD into ~60M of 128k MP3s, or still a large filesize savings even for 320k) and even my relatively untrained ear can sometimes hear the difference at low (say, 128k or lower) bitrates.

I guess that a music producer wouldn't record/master anything in a compressed format like MP3, so that is sort of entirely separate from the point of this video and your comment. But just out of curiosity, do you think that people can detect differences between a 16 bit 44 kHz uncompressed digital recording (flac maybe?) and a very high quality MP3 (say, 320 kbit)?

This goes beyond my knowledge level of signals and waveforms, but it was very interesting anyway.

That being said, OK, I'm sold on the concept that ADC and back doesn't screw up the signal. However, I'm pretty sure that real audiophiles could easily listen to several copies of the same recording at different bitrates and frequencies and correctly identify which ones are higher or better quality with excellent accuracy. I bet that is true even for 16bit vs 24bit, or 192kHz vs 320kHz -- stuff that should be "so good it is impossible to tell the difference".

Since some people that train themselves to have an ear for it CAN detect differences (accurately), the differences must actually be there. If they aren't artifacts of ADC issues, then what are they? I'm guessing compression artifacts?

In a visual version of this, I remember watching digital satellite TV around 10-15 years ago. The digital TV signal was fine and clear -- almost certainly better than what you'd get from an analog OTA antenna. BUT, the satellites used (I believe) mpeg compression to reduce channel bandwidth, and that compression created some artifacts that were easy to notice once somebody pointed them out to you. I specifically remember onscreen people getting "jellyface" anytime someone would nod slowly, or make similar periodic motions. I've got a feeling that some of the artifacts that we (or at least those of us that are real hardcore audiophiles) can notice in MP3 audio files are similar to an audio version of that jellyface kind of issue.

>> ^deathcow:

I have 10 terabytes here online and I am not particularly fanatical about video. A few years ago nobody would have casually had that much space. By the time Thunderbolt is common on every desktop, it will seem an appropriate speed for typical user needs.
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^deathcow:
> And I gotta wonder how many people do.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Lots of people have terabytes of videos.

And I cant tell you how many times per day I feel like moving my ripped movie collection from one PC to another PC sitting right next to it...
Like I said, this is probably great for untold dozens of professional video editors worldwide.



10 terabytes? And you are not fanatical about video? I'm not sure you have a well-adjusted perspective.

I watch all my movies and tv off my hard drive. And I watch a LOT. Several hours per day, at least (while I'm between jobs). I keep most of it on one external 500 Gig hard drive. For the most part I delete as I go, but there's quite a lot of stuff I have saved and/or haven't watched yet. 500G is enough for almost 1500 television episodes at standard bitrate. 10 terabytes is almost enough for 30,000 tv show episodes, or 15,000 movies. Even if you increase the bitrate for 720p resolution, you've got enough space to store over 7,000 movies.

If that isn't fanatical about video, I don't know what is.

But more to the point, we're talking about technology that is specifically designed to transfer that kind of massive data from one pc to another pc . . . IN THE SAME ROOM.

So even if it becomes completely normal for people to have massive collections like yours (for instance on a home server), Thunderbolt will still serve absolutely no purpose for day-to-day tasks like viewing video and downloading from the internet.

TL;DR - What the hell are you doing with 10 terabytes that would be assisted by massive LOCAL bandwidth?

on a side note, seems like abc uses the same speed sense tech that netflix does where it starts the video out at a low bitrate and bumps it up the HD later if your line can take it. I like.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by geo321:
I came across a good alternative embed video for your 'Guilty Cat' video. I know how much you strive for the higher quality bitrate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t03tIsBPj6Y

Been changing bitrates automatically for weeks, months really.

As for region blocking: if it has music, chances are that it's blocked in Germany. Which is why I stopped calling "blocked" altogether.

>> ^dag:

The YouTube player is a bit of a mess these days.
- you never know what bit rates are going to be available, different rates are shown for embeds and the YouTube site.
- sometimes fullscreen is available, sometimes it's not
- region blocking. ugh.
[/rant]


I haven't seen the ol' bit rate switcharoo that you're talking about. Stop using a Mac. All your problems should go away. ALL of them.

- I have never noticed a difference between the bit rates available for embeds and at YouTube itself, only because I've never taken the time to check that out. But now I will. I promise. I'm a changed man. I swear. Don't leave me.

- I have noticed that fullscreen is not always available. Case in point: Trombone boobies. And that, sir, is a crime.

- From what I've seen here, region blocking has been going on at YouTube for some time now. I think I've only experienced it once, with a BBC video. And because I'm an American, that is grounds for war. We didn't save the Swedes from the Mexicans just for this shit.

I don't mind it changing from 360 to 480 when I go to the enlarged view. But yeah, I don't want it to change it when I go full screen as I should have chosen the bitrate by then myself.

What does amaze me is the difference in audio quality sometimes between 360p/480p and going to 720p/1080p HD. For some music, it's significantly better in HD. Listen to the start of this in 360p and then swap it to 720p for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQlIhraqL7o

I almost wonder if people just prefer tap over bottled out of conditioning. I remember reading that when they blind tested the same songs in CD lossless audio, and lower bitrate compressed MP3s of the like people usually have on their audio players, they significantly preferred the latter despite it being inferior.

I almost wonder if people just prefer tap over bottled out of conditioning. I remember reading that when they blind tested the same songs in CD lossless audio, and lower bitrate compressed MP3s of the like people usually have on their audio players, they significantly preferred the latter despite it being inferior.

Better bitrate video though.

This was an awesome movie. (although the low-bitrate conversion to youtube makes the strobe effect really annoying).

The music for this movie was primarily done by Angelo Badalamenti. He has often worked with David Lynch.