audio quality of pop videos

[Gill Smith]

video 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG3hJ50_Vc

video 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrNLsC_Y9Oo

is it just me, or is the audio quality of 1 much better than 2?

--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gill Smith wrote:

> video 1:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG3hJ50_Vc
>
> video 2:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrNLsC_Y9Oo
>
> is it just me, or is the audio quality of 1 much better than 2?

1 works better on lappies own loudspeakers than 2. It might not fare quite
as well on good loudspeakers as it sounds aphexy and liSSping, even if it
doeS come acroSS aS open and up fronT.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[polymod]

"Gill Smith" > wrote in message
...
> video 1:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG3hJ50_Vc
>
> video 2:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrNLsC_Y9Oo
>
> is it just me, or is the audio quality of 1 much better than 2?

Does it really matter?

Poly

[Gill Smith]

On 6 June, 15:50, "polymod" > wrote:
> "Gill Smith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > video 1:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG3hJ50_Vc
>
> > video 2:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrNLsC_Y9Oo
>
> > is it just me, or is the audio quality of 1 much better than 2?
>
> Does it really matter?

does to me

my stuff with Cubase5 sounds not a lot different from video 2

but I can't get anything like the quality/attributes of 1

- going by what I hear through headphones and my (admittedly lousy)
speakers

--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

[Scott Dorsey]

Gill Smith > wrote:
>
>my stuff with Cubase5 sounds not a lot different from video 2
>
>but I can't get anything like the quality/attributes of 1
>
>- going by what I hear through headphones and my (admittedly lousy)
>speakers

Both of those videos have severe compression artifacts courtesy of Youtube.

So... is your problem with Cubase5 to do with your mixes not sounding good
to you, or to do with compression artifacts when you export it somewhere?

Because in the case of those two sample videos, the compression artifacts
are what first jump out at me.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gill Smith]

On 6 June, 16:20, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Gill Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
> >my stuff with Cubase5 sounds not a lot different from video 2
>
> >but I can't get anything like the quality/attributes of 1
>
> >- going by what I hear through headphones and my (admittedly lousy)
> >speakers
>
> Both of those videos have severe compression artifacts courtesy of Youtube.
>
> So... is your problem with Cubase5 to do with your mixes not sounding good
> to you, or to do with compression artifacts when you export it somewhere?
>
> Because in the case of those two sample videos, the compression artifacts
> are what first jump out at me.

OK, here's the thing:

http://www.pyramidmusic.com/Home.php5

click on the jukebox at the top left for his music samples

this to me is something of a gold standard: crisp and clear,
throughout the whole musical spectrum

this has to be really, really, *really* expensive software, which is
able to sound like real audio waves
which have been recorded

I am in no position to record genuine instruments

all my sounds (apart from vocals) have to generated on a computer

but the best I can do is the sort of musical mush I hear on video 2

this will dictate the style of songs I intend to plug with my demos

(yep, Barry White's "My First, My Last, My Everything" was a country
song...)

--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

[polymod]

"Gill Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 June, 15:50, "polymod" > wrote:
>> "Gill Smith" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > video 1:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG3hJ50_Vc
>>
>> > video 2:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrNLsC_Y9Oo
>>
>> > is it just me, or is the audio quality of 1 much better than 2?
>>
>> Does it really matter?
>
> does to me
>
> my stuff with Cubase5 sounds not a lot different from video 2
>
> but I can't get anything like the quality/attributes of 1
>
> - going by what I hear through headphones and my (admittedly lousy)
> speakers

My apologies. Now I understand, but it's tough to hear "quality" when
dealing with youtoob videos.

Poly

[polymod]

"Gill Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 June, 15:50, "polymod" > wrote:
>> "Gill Smith" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > video 1:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG3hJ50_Vc
>>
>> > video 2:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrNLsC_Y9Oo
>>
>> > is it just me, or is the audio quality of 1 much better than 2?
>>
>> Does it really matter?
>
> does to me
>
> my stuff with Cubase5 sounds not a lot different from video 2
>
> but I can't get anything like the quality/attributes of 1
>
> - going by what I hear through headphones and my (admittedly lousy)
> speakers

Ah...My apologies. Now I understand, but it's really tough to hear "quality"
when
dealing with youtoob videos.

Poly

[polymod]

"Gill Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 June, 15:50, "polymod" > wrote:
>> "Gill Smith" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > video 1:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG3hJ50_Vc
>>
>> > video 2:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrNLsC_Y9Oo
>>
>> > is it just me, or is the audio quality of 1 much better than 2?
>>
>> Does it really matter?
>
> does to me
>
> my stuff with Cubase5 sounds not a lot different from video 2
>
> but I can't get anything like the quality/attributes of 1
>
> - going by what I hear through headphones and my (admittedly lousy)
> speakers

Ah...My apologies. Now I understand, but it's really tough to hear "quality"
when
dealing with youtoob videos.

Poly

[John Williamson]

Gill Smith wrote:
> OK, here's the thing:
>
> http://www.pyramidmusic.com/Home.php5
>
> click on the jukebox at the top left for his music samples
>
> this to me is something of a gold standard: crisp and clear,
> throughout the whole musical spectrum
>
As`it's a demo, I'd want it to be clear. The samples I listened to,
though, are like "lift music", bass and rhythm heavy with no real
dynamics and are, I'd say, not real instruments. The film samples aren't
much better.

> this has to be really, really, *really* expensive software, which is
> able to sound like real audio waves
> which have been recorded
>
You could do what he's done in a full version of Cubase. The limits are
the ability of the user, with, possibly the purchase of some better
soundbanks for the VST instruments, or better instruments.

> I am in no position to record genuine instruments
>
> all my sounds (apart from vocals) have to generated on a computer
>
You and many others.

> but the best I can do is the sort of musical mush I hear on video 2
>
The sounds heard on both the Youtube clips you linked to are, I would
say, exactly as the performers intended them to sound within the limits
of Youtube sound. The first is a minimally produced, well recorded and
performed piece. The second is a very "produced" piece which sounds like
just about any piece performed by such artistes. I'd say the first might
even have been recorded "live" with minimal editing, and I'd guess not
many tracks (8? 16? I'd use 8 and very few effects.), while the second
has been compiled from loops and studio sessions like a jigsaw puzzle,
using as many tracks and effects as could be fitted into the session.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

"polymod" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ah...My apologies. Now I understand, but it's really tough to hear
> "quality" when
> dealing with youtoob videos.
>
> Poly

Are you sure ?!!!

geoff

[polymod]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
>
> "polymod" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Ah...My apologies. Now I understand, but it's really tough to hear
>> "quality" when
>> dealing with youtoob videos.
>>
>> Poly
>
> Are you sure ?!!!

In the words of Maxwell Smart: Sorry about that chief!


Poly

[Mark]

the biggest difference between 1 and 2 is the DYNAMIC range
compression. (not the bit rate compression)

Video 2 is excessively squashed. But as someone said, that may be the
sound the producer wanted, G-d only knows why.


Mark