Provides a simple baked workflow to normalize audio in a manner that survives YT encoding. Warning for headphone users, the tutorial has examples of what not to do. =3
Am I missing something? This is a very regular workflow that works the same in all software. It seems to provide you with a LUFS meter, then you manually adjust volume to what youtube expects you to.
> normalize audio in a manner that survives YT encoding.
> Discover how to avoid YouTube's compression and achieve crystal clear sound.
Youtube won't audibly compress your audio. It will just turn it up or down to the desired LUFS level. You being at a -8 LUFS will not cause any more compression compared to you being at -14. I'd argue that this video is misinformation presented as something useful.
It is a trick abused by advertisers for years, to be perceived as "loader" at the same volume setting. If one blindly exports whatever standard you edit in... ymmv =3
> Audio dynamic compression means something different from file data compression.
This is what I was trying to say. "You being at a -8 LUFS will not cause any more compression compared to you being at -14. "
You ignored my points and bring up something unrelated. The guy in the video shaved off 1 or 2dbs if I remember correctly, which would be barely noticeable. And Resolve didn't do this automatically, he had to manually measure LUFS, insert a limiter and dial in the settings. Not sure what's your point is. LUFS is designed in such a way to give a reliable metric on loudness. The reason compression is abused on TVs is because they use a naive dB metric in the regulations (iirc) so it's possible. YouTube doesn't do this. The use LUFS as shown in the video, that again, gets automatically adjusted to compensate. What the video shows is NOT AUTOMATIC (the worklow is not simple, nothing special nor baked in), and arguably pointless.
Resolve isn't special in what it's doing. This is a regular workflow that works like this in all software and isn't automated at all like you are claiming it is. It does not "prepare your audio". Bye
It literally prepares the audio for export, though. There is an export setting that allows you to choose the audio codec, channels, encoders, target true peak or LUFS level, and then normalize or "optimize" (built in limiting and compression) the audio to that level. For example, you can choose "Youtube" to optimize your audio automatically for Youtube. It also has a built-in dialogue leveler, for example. It has more audio capabilities built-in than many other video editors, although there are paid ones with the same capabilities.
You can easily do the same in Reaper, of course, but it will require you to export audio, then process externally, and import it again, so it's not the ideal workflow.
I experienced the same lately. Even dug some of my old posts where I put in the effort and formatted them using reddit's markdown. Wouldn't dare it today
he explained why he does that. In short, he was fighting to be displayed in search results by having legitimate content on the site for months, but the traffic was dying day by day and killing his business. He then asked Gemini to write him some bullshit SEO and went back to the 1st spot on google. Look for the video on his channel, it's not as bad as it looks.
I found this but keep in mind there were more videos about it. Let me leave the description of the video here:
Google delisted my business for almost a year. Professional SEO couldn't fix it, creating a new site didnt help. What finally worked was having AI rewrite my authentic content into corporate-friendly bunk. I hate that it worked.
This video took me a month to make because I felt ashamed of my decision.
Watch the video, he shows what was on the website. Additionally, it only recently fell off google while it was in perfect standing for many many years.
He used that exact same excuse on another website that he AI generated for another project that was discussed here.
If anyone else was polluting Google search results with AI generated blog spam to promote their business the Hacker News audience would hate it, not accepting any excuses. I’ll probably get downvoted for saying this, but there’s a huge double standard that happens with figures that develop parasocial relationships with fans through their YouTube videos or podcasts. Can we just call a spade a spade and say that generating SEO blog spam with AI to get rankings for search terms like “btrfs corruption” just sucks, even if the person doing it made a YouTube video about it? I’m not buying the whole “Google made me do it” victim story when the SEO blogspam pollution isn’t stopping at getting his repair business listed. The website is spamming software search topics like btrfs and synology issues with a million AI generated pages trying to boost his hardware repair business. Why is it so hard to admit that he’s just playing the same scummy AI SEO blogspam game that everyone else is, but trying to pretend he’s the good guy while doing it?
You aren't wrong, but ultimately to survive as a business like this that relies on search rankings, you have to play the game. Google rewards spamming the web with bullshit, and the businesses which do it capture all the sales.
Also known as the "don't hate the player, hate the game" defense.
> but ultimately to survive as a business like this
He runs a popular YouTube channel which is a giant source of leads, and should be a good way to rank well in Google like all of the other famous YouTube figures who pull this off without creating 100s of AI generated blogspam pages.
I know I'm not going to win any arguments against dedicated fans who hang on to his every word as the ground truth, but to me it looks like he's just taking any advantage he can get to grow his business, even if it's AI generated blogspam, scroll hijacking, keyword stuffing, and other tricks that Hacker News readers usually hate. Playing the victim card to pretend like he had to do it doesn't sit well with me, especially since he's done this twice now across two different websites. If you want to do AI SEO blogspam to grow your business, just admit that it's what you're doing without trying to play the victim card at the same time.
He said that it sucks and we all know it does. I think there's a big difference between vibecoding a product in a week and blogspamming to promote it and running a legitimate business for the past 15 years, and suddenly getting delisted by google. After fighting to get his site back on Google for a YEAR, I can understand his frustration - and would probably do the same. According to him he tried every single legitimate option before finally succumbing.
I have no dog in this fight, I disagree with some stuff that he says, just so you know.
And what's his other project that you keep mentioning? I haven't heard of it yet.
Addendum: the argument of trying to grow hia business may not be valid, as he mentioned that he voluntarily (iirc) shrunk his business lately
They went straight for an AI generated website with a bunch of AI copy that didn't really make sense when they first launched it. I only know this because it got posted here without context and a lot of us were trying to figure out what was going on with that website. IIRC he had the same excuse about not wanting to be delisted by Google, but it was literally a brand new website.
I think you're reaching to defend the guy, but it's clear that he just likes to lean into the AI slop and then record 30 minute videos where he explains that he's actually the victim in the whole situation.
I think you don't understand my intentions even though I explicitly stated I don't care about the verdict. I don't care about defending him for the sake of defending him. I defend actions I deem reasonable regardless of who is doing them. You haven't addressed the points from my previous comment, and only picked one so I can't comment much more.
>IIRC he had the same excuse about not wanting to be delisted by Google
Do you know where I can find him saying this? I'm not requiring you to send me the source, just point me in the right direction. I am always happy to change my opinion when new facts emerge
The distinction disappears when Facebook incentivizes the creation of the rage-bait content by prioritizing it in their algorithm. They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you."
Contrast it with something like Elsagate. Google actioned the offending creators and attempted to deprioritize the kind of content that caused the controversy. Facebook would do the same if they didn't condone rage-bait.
>They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you."
They don't because they don't select for it. They disporotionally push engagement but as far as I know don't have some indians or AI working tirelessly analysing countless videos to categorise them and rank them according to how ragebaity or controversial they are. Those things just rise to the top out of their effort to drive engagement and screentime.
Any alternative that does the same will end up with similar result.
I find it hard to believe that Facebook's feed is "dumb" and only promotes what's engaging the most users. They serve you content that they think you will find engaging, and there has to be some automatic categorization as a result.
And regardless, even if they don't select for rage-bait, they still refuse to take action against accounts that repeatedly post it, making your interjection largely pointless.
It's not dumb and promotes what's engaging for users individually algoritmically without categorising. That's the not dumb part about it.
>They serve you content that they think you will find engaging, and there has to be some automatic categorization as a result.
And this can be completely smart or dumb depending on how you look at it. From my perspective it's a smart algorithm still.
If you like or comment on far right or far left ragebait or just ragebait in general then it can serve you ouput from accounts who attract engagement from others who also engage witht hat video. Aka similarly minded people get similarly minded content semi organically as a result of optimising for engagement.
It can do so without genuenly knowing that the video is of category xyz and promoting that specific category but automatically it detects that people who engage with video y are also more likely to engage with video z. The ideological and engagement type bubbles create themselves as a result.
>even if they don't select for rage-bait, they still refuse to take action against accounts that repeatedly post it, making your interjection largely pointless.
The definition of ragebait is vague. Your supressing ragebait is another person's ragebait or supressing of desimination of societal issues.
It can be a video of violent crime or of political corruption. Of war or religious extremism. It can be sharing statistics, supporting misogynistic or xyzfobic talkingpoints or exposing them, etc
In a society facing economic decline, corruption or cultural upheaval or what have you you will be stepping on toes whichever way you go.
I'd say it's better to either outright ban this kind of social media which will be deeply unpopular or to focus wholely on tackling the divisive issues that lead people to be attracted to some of the dominant topics.
"an invitation-only programme that lets you earn money from the performance of your eligible public reels, photos, stories and text posts." implies this is only available to a subset of people?
reply