[brat]

Before starting my own research I want to ask if anyone has compared the internet browsers regarding the sound quality they suggest?
Which is The Audiophile Browser? 

 

 

[Hapster]

This isn't a thing

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

I don't think it makes a difference. You shouldn't be streaming from a browser if you want quality anyway 

.
 

 

[brat]

Well, I've finished an exhaustive investigation including the main three browsers - IE11, Firefox 28.0 and Chrome 34.0.1847.13
The setting was laptop SONY VAIO VGN-FW21E-->some USB cable-->Violectric HPA V200-->recabled AKG K-701. The research lasted more than 9 minutes and included this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvRn76Fqyzc . 
RESULTS:
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Firefox 28.0 is the winner with audibly meatier mids and upper bass than the other competitors. 

 

 Try it, you'll notice it.
 
P.S. And before somebody enlighten me about the meaning of sound quality I'll tell that I do  my critical listening with lossless files in a dedicated PC transport via Audioquest Cinnamon firewire cable to Weiss DAC202U, Audioquest Yulong RCA ICs, Job 225 stereo amp, Silvy Cable solid core silver speaker cables and PSB Synchrony One speakers. The headphone rigs for high-end moments are KGSS with Stax Omega mk2 or Violectric HPA V200 with LCD-2.2, analog ICs for the headphone rigs are Van den Hul The Second XLR. Power requirements are met by a separate cirquit for audio and Furman Elite 16 PFEi AC filter.

 

[jiiteepee]

  Well, I've finished an exhaustive investigation including the main three browsers - IE11, Firefox 28.0 and Chrome 34.0.1847.13
The setting was laptop SONY VAIO VGN-FW21E-->some USB cable-->Violectric HPA V200-->recabled AKG K-701. The research lasted more than 9 minutes and included this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvRn76Fqyzc . 
RESULTS:
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Firefox 28.0 is the winner with audibly meatier mids and upper bass than the other competitors. 

 

 Try it, you'll notice it.
 

 
NOTE!
If you streamed your "test suite" sources from YT then I think you tested the flash addon only (try playing YT video w/o flash addon installed).
I don't know if the flash addon/player configures differently for those three browsers you mentioned but, if all those uses same adobe flash addon then I believe there shouldn't be audible difference between the versions.

 

[jarrett]

If you're streaming from a browser, isn't it lossy?

 

[ab initio]

  Well, I've finished an exhaustive investigation including the main three browsers - IE11, Firefox 28.0 and Chrome 34.0.1847.13
The setting was laptop SONY VAIO VGN-FW21E-->some USB cable-->Violectric HPA V200-->recabled AKG K-701. The research lasted more than 9 minutes and included this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvRn76Fqyzc . 
RESULTS:
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Firefox 28.0 is the winner with audibly meatier mids and upper bass than the other competitors. 

 

 Try it, you'll notice it.

 
Isn't this played through flash, a 3rd party plug in? Anyway, the digital audio is just sent to the kernel audio mixer, where it is in turn sent to the sound card. If you have the volume set the same on all youtube instances in each browser, then the audio sent to your sound card is bitwise identical.
 
Cheers

 

[Sanlitun]

In my case using the default settings on Youtube it seems Chrome is using HTML5 and Firefox the Flash Plugin. The Flash sounds better to me. This difference I can understand, but I am not sure why Firefox also sounds better on other sites such as Soundcloud. I gather you can probably set them up to both use Flash if you wanted and they would probably sound the same.
 
I realize Youtube is not very Audiophile, but there is a lot of great music such as all of the KEXP live performances and they often do sound better than studio recordings.