>>106477596
>and it's roughly equivalent to a 192kbps mp3.
no, it's actualy better than that
still to this day I have no idea why youtube decided to go with 128, they constantly re-encode shit with av1 and abysmal bitrates but they really like their audio to be top notch for some reason, for most <=480p videos the audio track is actually bigger than the video track at this point.
funny thing is, audiophools have no idea of how this shit works and so youtube still has the reputation of "having shit audio quality" anyways, despite that not being true for the past 10 years.
>inb4 but the source audio could be garbage
the official topic channel uploads are sourced from lossless like on every other streaming platform.