[NorCal]

IMO, mostly not. Even more so for live videos that sound extremely good.
More often than not, when the uploader states it is edited, some are synchronized so well, that I can't even tell.

OT, but I see a lot of people posting on, Head-fi, to "be sure to set the YouTube video to HD, or HD720 for best sound". But I was under the impression that the sound is always lossy, even if the original is lossless. "it's impossible to have FLAC quality on youtube because youtube encodes every audio into AAC 128kbit/s". Maybe this is no longer true, but I'm curious, [mostly because I don't want to turn the settings up to 720p, just to look at an album cover, if there's no sonic benefits].

 

[RRod]

IMO, mostly not. Even more so for live videos that sound extremely good.
More often than not, when the uploader states it is edited, some are synchronized so well, that I can't even tell.

OT, but I see a lot of people posting on, Head-fi, to "be sure to set the YouTube video to HD, or HD720 for best sound". But I was under the impression that the sound is always lossy, even if the original is lossless. "it's impossible to have FLAC quality on youtube because youtube encodes every audio into AAC 128kbit/s". Maybe this is no longer true, but I'm curious, [mostly because I don't want to turn the settings up to 720p, just to look at an album cover, if there's no sonic benefits].

Typically either AAC or Opus will be the best option. Older vids seem to lack the Opus option. For instance youtube-dl yields the following for the previous vid:

139 m4a audio only DASH audio 60k , m4a_dash container, mp4a.40.5@ 48k (22050Hz)
140 m4a audio only DASH audio 139k , m4a_dash container, mp4a.40.2@128k (44100Hz)
160 mp4 256x144 DASH video 108k , mp4_dash container, avc1.4d400b, 15fps, video only
133 mp4 426x240 DASH video 242k , mp4_dash container, avc1.4d400c, 15fps, video only
134 mp4 640x360 DASH video 361k , mp4_dash container, avc1.4d4016, 15fps, video only
135 mp4 854x480 DASH video 1155k , mp4_dash container, avc1.4d4014, 15fps, video only
136 mp4 1280x720 DASH video 2385k , mp4_dash container, avc1.4d401f, 15fps, video only
17 3gp 176x144 small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2@ 24k
36 3gp 320x180 small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2
43 webm 640x360 medium , vp8.0, vorbis@128k
18 mp4 640x360 medium , avc1.42001E, mp4a.40.2@ 96k
22 mp4 1280x720 hd720 , avc1.64001F, mp4a.40.2@192k (best)

 

[NorCal]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of youtube-dl, but see that it can be downloaded. If someone is just using YouTube natively, is the SQ the same for 240p, 48p0, and 720pHD?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I’ve been on a big band/swing thing lately and love this one...



The way it builds and builds. The horns sound fantastic

 

[colonelkernel8]

Due to various comments all over head-fi, including here in this sub-forum, there's something I'm curious to check. When you see a music video like this, of a band performing/recording a song in a studio, do you believe it? Do you think that it's actually a video of the recording in progress? This question isn't aimed at you specifically colonelkernel8 but at anyone who cares to answer.

G

I wouldn’t doubt the video was from multiple takes. In fact there are cuts that make that pretty clear. It’s likely the audio has been edited a little, but aside from that, I’m reasonably sure in this case (generally not in most cases) that this was a live recording. This is the studio she recorded the album in and this was filmed pretty much at the same time as she was recording the album and the album version sounds quite a bit different (quite a bit more production).

 

[RRod]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of youtube-dl, but see that it can be downloaded. If someone is just using YouTube natively, is the SQ the same for 240p, 48p0, and 720pHD?

The audio quality tends to mirror the video quality. Things might get interesting here soon now that AV1 is out.

 

[andyk]

This album was recorded direct to disc, which means that the cutting lathe was running in the control room while the musicians were playing. They had to cut the record from the beginning of the side to the end with no stopping and no mistakes. That was quite a tall order for both the musicians and the engineers who were quickly setting up the presets for each song in the silent groove between songs.

Tested did a YouTube video visiting Jack White's Third Man Records and they have this system as an option to record to. The Tested guy said it was a little nerve-wracking knowing that it's a one-cut deal.

Also if you find the video, you'll learn where the saying "You're in the groove" came from and probably where "Groovey!" evolved from.

 

[gregorio]

I wouldn’t doubt the video was from multiple takes. In fact there are cuts that make that pretty clear. It’s likely the audio has been edited a little, but aside from that, I’m reasonably sure in this case (generally not in most cases) that this was a live recording. This is the studio she recorded the album in and this was filmed pretty much at the same time as she was recording the album and the album version sounds quite a bit different (quite a bit more production).

As you say, it's pretty clear the video was cut from multiple takes and not just different shots/angles of the same take. The audio would therefore also have to be from different takes and how do you get the audio to match between the different takes while maintaining sync with the video? How do you get the tempo of the different takes to match for example? Well, you could provide the musicians with the same click track for each take but then of course they'd all have to be wearing headphones, which in the video they aren't!

What would happen in practise is that the song would be recorded as normal (multi-tracked separate parts at different times) and then two different mixes, possibly even two different edits, will be created. Then, all the musicians are gathered in the studio at the same time, plus a film crew. The "live" mix, which has already been created, would then be played through speakers in the live room and the musicians will perform along with this "live" mix while they're being filmed but the audio of their performance will not be recorded. This solves all the problems of the video maintaining sync with the audio AND the musicians maintaining sync with the audio from other takes, because the musicians are always performing to that (already created) mix and that mix is what you hear on the finished/edited video. So in the video, you are SEEING a live performance (or different takes of live performances edited together) but you're not HEARING a live performance, you're hearing a mix/edit created before the filming even started!

Now, I cannot say with absolute certainty that the above is true in this particular case. However, I'm about as close to absolute certainty as I can be, because:
A. The sound of the mix on the video would be extremely difficult (read virtually impossible) to achieve with the musicians placed and mic'ed as they are. AND
B. The edits and sync issue mentioned above, which is impractical and/or potentially impossible to solve any other way. AND
C. There are some discrepancies between what we hear and what we see. For example, look closely at the drummer and concentrate on the ride cymbal at 1:20, again at about 3:56 and a few other places in the second half of the song. AND
D. I've never seen or even heard of this sort of (edited picture) video even being attempted with live/sync sound.

G

 

[castleofargh]

is it common practice for shots on the singer to change the speed at which he'll sing to make the facial movement look better? I remember seeing it done a few times but I don't know if those were rare little tricks or if it's pretty standard for video clips?

 

[colonelkernel8]

As you say, it's pretty clear the video was cut from multiple takes and not just different shots/angles of the same take. The audio would therefore also have to be from different takes and how do you get the audio to match between the different takes while maintaining sync with the video? How do you get the tempo of the different takes to match for example? Well, you could provide the musicians with the same click track for each take but then of course they'd all have to be wearing headphones, which in the video they aren't!

What would happen in practise is that the song would be recorded as normal (multi-tracked separate parts at different times) and then two different mixes, possibly even two different edits, will be created. Then, all the musicians are gathered in the studio at the same time, plus a film crew. The "live" mix, which has already been created, would then be played through speakers in the live room and the musicians will perform along with this "live" mix while they're being filmed but the audio of their performance will not be recorded. This solves all the problems of the video maintaining sync with the audio AND the musicians maintaining sync with the audio from other takes, because the musicians are always performing to that (already created) mix and that mix is what you hear on the finished/edited video. So in the video, you are SEEING a live performance (or different takes of live performances edited together) but you're not HEARING a live performance, you're hearing a mix/edit created before the filming even started!

Now, I cannot say with absolute certainty that the above is true in this particular case. However, I'm about as close to absolute certainty as I can be, because:
A. The sound of the mix on the video would be extremely difficult (read virtually impossible) to achieve with the musicians placed and mic'ed as they are. AND
B. The edits and sync issue mentioned above, which is impractical and/or potentially impossible to solve any other way. AND
C. There are some discrepancies between what we hear and what we see. For example, look closely at the drummer and concentrate on the ride cymbal at 1:20, again at about 3:56 and a few other places in the second half of the song. AND
D. I've never seen or even heard of this sort of (edited picture) video even being attempted with live/sync sound.

G

That’s fair. I’m ok with it though. It strikes me as definitely genuine here, because they clearly recorded it in that exact fashion. Just because the video was not done during a hot take doesn’t bother me

 

[Phronesis]

I believe this little lad was 11 when he did this. Torpedoes my assumption that life experience is needed for musical maturity ...

 

[gregorio]

is it common practice for shots on the singer to change the speed at which he'll sing to make the facial movement look better?

It's not common. The problem with changing the speed of something in the visuals is that you've then got to change the audio too or loose sync between the visuals and the audio and typically the video editor will NOT touch the audio at all in a music video, just cut the video to the music. This doesn't mean changing the speed of the visuals never happens, it does, because if it's done in certain places you can get away with loosing sync for a bit.

It strikes me as definitely genuine here, because they clearly recorded it in that exact fashion.

What makes you think it's definitely genuine here, that they clearly recorded it the way you see in the video? What clues in the mix suggest that to you? Clues in the mix suggest the exact opposite to me, that it was probably multi-tracked at different times as usual. If the track had been recorded as we see in the video, there would have been significant spill of the drumkit (and other instruments) into the vocal mic and therefore the big reverb on the vocal would also include elements of the drumkit, which at the very least would blur/muddy the drumkit significantly. We don't hear that and almost certainly the vocals were recorded separately from the drumkit. There are other clues too, the cello and the high end of the piano for example, there should be piano spilling into the cello mic and therefore the hard left/right panning of the cello and high-end piano wouldn't work well. Most likely the string were recorded on their own as well. If it had been recorded as an entire "performance" as we see on the video, the mix would sound way dirtier and muddier than the nice clear, well separated mix we actually hear.

Torpedoes my assumption that life experience is needed for musical maturity ...

That is true generally, but there are some exceptionally rare exceptions, true child prodigies. Probably the best I've personally experienced was Sarah Chang in the 1990s when she was around 12 or 13. Mozart is the most famous child prodigy but of course we don't know the exact depth of his performance musicality. It also depends on exactly what you're trying to achieve musically, there's no question that Joey Alexander is extremely gifted, he's gifted just on the basis of his technical ability and he has a musical feel well beyond his years on top of that but I'm not sure how he'd cope musically with something much deeper. By this I don't mean that he couldn't cope, just that I don't know if he could. I don't want to appear a sour-puss, I am impressed, which by itself is a huge compliment, considering my unusual background.

G

 

[colonelkernel8]

What makes you think it's definitely genuine here, that they clearly recorded it the way you see in the video? What clues in the mix suggest that to you? Clues in the mix suggest the exact opposite to me, that it was probably multi-tracked at different times as usual. If the track had been recorded as we see in the video, there would have been significant spill of the drumkit (and other instruments) into the vocal mic and therefore the big reverb on the vocal would also include elements of the drumkit, which at the very least would blur/muddy the drumkit significantly. We don't hear that and almost certainly the vocals were recorded separately from the drumkit. There are other clues too, the cello and the high end of the piano for example, there should be piano spilling into the cello mic and therefore the hard left/right panning of the cello and high-end piano wouldn't work well. Most likely the string were recorded on their own as well. If it had been recorded as an entire "performance" as we see on the video, the mix would sound way dirtier and muddier than the nice clear, well separated mix we actually hear.

G

Sorry, not what I meant, I meant “genuine” from the standpoint of intent, not that it’s a truly live performance. They recorded in that studio and they’re doing the performance in that studio, likely within the same few days.

 

[Phronesis]

That is true generally, but there are some exceptionally rare exceptions, true child prodigies. Probably the best I've personally experienced was Sarah Chang in the 1990s when she was around 12 or 13. Mozart is the most famous child prodigy but of course we don't know the exact depth of his performance musicality. It also depends on exactly what you're trying to achieve musically, there's no question that Joey Alexander is extremely gifted, he's gifted just on the basis of his technical ability and he has a musical feel well beyond his years on top of that but I'm not sure how he'd cope musically with something much deeper. By this I don't mean that he couldn't cope, just that I don't know if he could. I don't want to appear a sour-puss, I am impressed, which by itself is a huge compliment, considering my unusual background.

With jazz being so improvisational, what shocks me with Joey is the sophistication of his improvisation. That's of course a subjective evaluation, but Wynton Marsalis too has opined that no one in the history of Jazz has matched Joey's sophistication at such a young age (Wynton became a mentor to Joey). Just as there are some genetic outliers who can do math at a very advanced level at a young age, Joey appears to have such 'genius' with musical creativity.

 

[gregorio]

Sorry, not what I meant, I meant “genuine” from the standpoint of intent, not that it’s a truly live performance.

Ah, I misunderstood, my bad.

With jazz being so improvisational, what shocks me with Joey is the sophistication of his improvisation.

From the recording we cannot tell how improvisational it is. He may have worked it all out over a long period of time and simply be replaying it, rather than spontaneously improvising. This sounds like more of a put down than intended because even if it was all worked out, it would still demonstrate a great deal of talent even for a good adult professional with many years experience. If he can freely improvise with that level of sophistication though, then yes, that makes him special, even compared to the surprisingly gifted! My background was classical music though, so I'm not especially sensitive to all of the nuances of jazz.

You might like to try something like example below if you're into classical. Having a level of technical ability which puts you among the ranks of the elite soloists when just a child is truly extraordinary but what made my jaw really drop at the time was that her technical ability was not the end of the story but only a means to an end.



G