Picked up a set of Sierra 2ex in Natural finish

[edgeh2o]

But now all lower quality sources like youtube videos sound terrible.

Is this an exaggeration? I mainly use Youtube as my source for music as I enjoy watching the music videos while listening, and Youtube sounds great with my Sierra-1 speakers. Would Youtube videos be unbearable with the Sierra 2EX? Currently auditioning Wharfedale Evo 4.2 and surprised how similar it sounds to my Sierra-1 (so similar in fact that they seem like a side-grade instead of an upgrade), and Youtube videos sound as good as ever.

[natetg57]

Is this an exaggeration? I mainly use Youtube as my source for music as I enjoy watching the music videos while listening, and Youtube sounds great with my Sierra-1 speakers. Would Youtube videos be unbearable with the Sierra 2EX? Currently auditioning Wharfedale Evo 4.2 and surprised how similar it sounds to my Sierra-1 (so similar in fact that they seem like a side-grade instead of an upgrade), and Youtube videos sound as good as ever.

Internet bandwidth could be a factor. Slow internet connections would affect the resolution of the stream. I'm sure it also varies quite a bit from video to video just like how cd's vary from disc to disc.

[legendr34]

Youtube compresses their audio, with high quality equipment, it will reveal the quality issues

https://www.yoursoundmatters.com/sto...ic-on-youtube/

You can try music apps like Amazon music which can stream lossless tracks, which sound amazing

[edgeh2o]

Youtube compresses their audio, with high quality equipment, it will reveal the quality issues

https://www.yoursoundmatters.com/sto...ic-on-youtube/

You can try music apps like Amazon music which can stream lossless tracks, which sound amazing

My Sierra-1 and EVO 4.2 must just be very forgiving speakers then, as YouTube videos sound great. I just finished going through Pitchfork's Best 100 Tracks of 2020 (as well as some other Best of 2020 lists on other blog sites) which mainly uses YouTube videos to link the songs. Found some really good new music. Was considering the Sierra 2EX as an upgrade option to my Sierra-1 speakers, but will have to look elsewhere if they are too revealing.

[davef]

Is this an exaggeration? I mainly use Youtube as my source for music as I enjoy watching the music videos while listening, and Youtube sounds great with my Sierra-1 speakers. Would Youtube videos be unbearable with the Sierra 2EX? Currently auditioning Wharfedale Evo 4.2 and surprised how similar it sounds to my Sierra-1 (so similar in fact that they seem like a side-grade instead of an upgrade), and Youtube videos sound as good as ever.

Yes, YouTube audio is highly compressed and subject to many variables, including who uploaded the source. It should not and never will be considered a high quality audio source.

That said, everyone hears differently - some people can easily detect differences between compressed audio and non-compressed audio. If you are used to listening to YouTube for your music, that is what becomes your frame of reference.

If you don't hear any errors or flaws with Sierra-1 or your Evo 4.2's - you also won't with Sierra-2EX. Both Sierra-1 and Evo 4.2's are revealing speakers. The noticeable difference you will hear with Sierra-2EX compared to your Evo and Sierra-1 is a much more spacious sound, with a wider soundstage.

To really take advantage of any of these speakers, you might try listening to a well recorded CD. If you don't hear differences between that and YouTube, don't worry about it. Again, we all hear differently but definitely do not rule out Sierra-2EX out of fear of it being any more revealing than Sierra-1 or your Evo. The RAAL ribbon in the Sierra-2EX is quite a bit smoother sounding than the tweeter in the Sierra-1 and is capable of resolving more detail - if the detail is there.

Hope this makes sense!

[edgeh2o]

Yes, YouTube audio is highly compressed and subject to many variables, including who uploaded the source. It should not and never will be considered a high quality audio source.

That said, everyone hears differently - some people can easily detect differences between compressed audio and non-compressed audio. If you are used to listening to YouTube for your music, that is what becomes your frame of reference.

If you don't hear any errors or flaws with Sierra-1 or your Evo 4.2's - you also won't with Sierra-2EX. Both Sierra-1 and Evo 4.2's are revealing speakers. The noticeable difference you will hear with Sierra-2EX compared to your Evo and Sierra-1 is a much more spacious sound, with a wider soundstage.

To really take advantage of any of these speakers, you might try listening to a well recorded CD. If you don't hear differences between that and YouTube, don't worry about it. Again, we all hear differently but definitely do not rule out Sierra-2EX out of fear of it being any more revealing than Sierra-1 or your Evo. The RAAL ribbon in the Sierra-2EX is quite a bit smoother sounding than the tweeter in the Sierra-1 and is capable of resolving more detail - if the detail is there.

Hope this makes sense!

That is great to hear. I used to only keep music in ALAC and FLAC lossless formats, but then I realized I couldn't tell the difference between that and 320kbps CBR, so I converted my collection to MP3 to save on space. Perhaps I've spent too many years at live shows and my hearing just isn't what it used to be. And then I got into Spotify for convenience, but I still prefer YouTube when having friends over the visual aspect. I wish there was a better platform for official music videos than YouTube, but that's what we're stuck with for now until something like a Netflix for music videos comes out...

[natetg57]

That is great to hear. I used to only keep music in ALAC and FLAC lossless formats, but then I realized I couldn't tell the difference between that and 320kbps CBR, so I converted my collection to MP3 to save on space. Perhaps I've spent too many years at live shows and my hearing just isn't what it used to be. And then I got into Spotify for convenience, but I still prefer YouTube when having friends over the visual aspect. I wish there was a better platform for official music videos than YouTube, but that's what we're stuck with for now until something like a Netflix for music videos comes out...

Tidal does something similar to what you're describing. They run deals sometimes, like $4 for 4 months over the holidays. Otherwise, it's $20/month for the highest quality streaming.

[racrawford65]

Netflix for music videos --- sounds like MTV when it first came on the air :-)

[Beave]

That is great to hear. I used to only keep music in ALAC and FLAC lossless formats, but then I realized I couldn't tell the difference between that and 320kbps CBR, so I converted my collection to MP3 to save on space. Perhaps I've spent too many years at live shows and my hearing just isn't what it used to be. And then I got into Spotify for convenience, but I still prefer YouTube when having friends over the visual aspect. I wish there was a better platform for official music videos than YouTube, but that's what we're stuck with for now until something like a Netflix for music videos comes out...

320kbps for stereo music is a relatively high bit rate (for compression, of course), and is nearly undetectably different from FLAC or ALAC full bit rate or CDs or whatever. I doubt anybody could hear the difference.

It's when you go to much lower bit rates that it becomes easier to hear differences.

I don't know what bit rates Youtube uses, and there's also the unknown of what the person uploaded in the first place.

I'd guess some are fairly good quality and some are not at all.

[davef]

320kbps for stereo music is a relatively high bit rate (for compression, of course), and is nearly undetectably different from FLAC or ALAC full bit rate or CDs or whatever. I doubt anybody could hear the difference.

It's when you go to much lower bit rates that it becomes easier to hear differences.

I don't know what bit rates Youtube uses, and there's also the unknown of what the person uploaded in the first place.

I'd guess some are fairly good quality and some are not at all.

I'm not sure if anyone can actually hear the difference between an FLAC or a 320kbps recording. We keep all music stored on our server in lossless FLAC, but also in 320kbps for our phones and various other sources.

I believe the max bitrate for music on YouTube is 126kbs, which isn't too bad, but if the YouTube recording was made from an already compressed recording (which the listener does not know) it can be very problematic. On highest audio quality setting, Spotify is 320kbps.