[classicalman114]

So I've been wondering: what kind of source file do official music videos use for their audio, especially Hi-Def ones posted on Youtube? Is it the master copy of the song? 

 

[jupitreas]

It depends on what the director and production team needs... 
Some might just need a lossless digital copy of the song, others might need the full multi-track file in 96khz/24bit (or more) resolution. 
The latter would be true for music videos that alter the track in some way, add extra special effects or whatever.
I wouldn't expect any modern studio to require the track in an outdated physical format.

 

[cifani090]

Quote:

So I've been wondering: what kind of source file do official music videos use for their audio, especially Hi-Def ones posted on Youtube? Is it the master copy of the song? 

Call up mastering operations... such as Abbey Road,etc.
 

 

[Willakan]

Youtube compresses the crap out of audio, especially with standard definition videos. With HD videos it's not as bad but there are plenty of sources of higher quality music.

 

[firev1]

Quote:

Youtube compresses the crap out of audio, especially with standard definition videos. With HD videos it's not as bad but there are plenty of sources of higher quality music.

+1 Youtube uses up to 192 Vorbis encodes for music and for AAC up to 152kbit/s. And as for HD they use constant bitrate encoding instead of variable so even then while its okay, its not as good as if you get a true HD source.

 

[jupitreas]

All of this is true but no official music video is made specifically with Youtube in mind. During the actual production phase of making the video, the editors most likely use lossless multi-tracks or mixdowns.

 

[andrewberge]

What jupitreas said. I think the OP was asking more about the mastering process than the final result.

 

[JadeEast]

I''ve help cut a few music videos, but not for a number of years.  Most were done with temp tracks from audio CDs and then sent back to the audio post for them to do a mix with the extra audio from the edit and the original tracks. No idea what they were sourcing from but we got back 48khz/16bit .wav files for the tape masters. 
 
I'm not sure what the current workflow is as far as HD music videos or crazy big budget, if they even exist anymore. 

 

[classicalman114]

Quote:

What jupitreas said. I think the OP was asking more about the mastering process than the final result.

 
Actually, I was inquiring about the final result, the raw file that music videos use as the source for their audio.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

Youtube compresses the crap out of audio, especially with standard definition videos. With HD videos it's not as bad but there are plenty of sources of higher quality music.

I don't notice a difference with most songs.

 

[bigshot]

For the Bjork rock video I produced, One Little Indian sent us an ADAT 8 track submaster. (2 vocal, 2 music, 2 comp). We just used the comp tracks. We didn't add any thing so there was no mix, just a straight layback to the video masters- D1, D2, DigiBeta. I believe the DigiBeta was the master for OLI.