The forum members are usually so far ahead of me, it is rare that I have a chance to pass on anything new. But, did you know, ( I found this working on my "Tiny File" Project,) you can soften a track, bypassing EQ, by simply setting the export to a smaller sample rate? I stumbled on to this...who woulda' thought?

That's interesting, but I'm skeptical. Are we talking about BIAB? Could you give the steps you are using?

On the surface, this should not work as you describe. However, lowering the sample rate will lower the range of frequencies that can be reproduced (Nyquist Theorem), and a lot of high energy in the very high hearing range will be lost. Is that what you are experiencing as 'softer"? Like rolling off the very high treble? I could agree with that if you have the hearing of a young kid [or dog]; in other words, better than mine is now (and mine is still pretty good).

And how does this bypass any EQ you have in the signal path?

I don't mean to give you a hard time here. I'm willing to learn.

Hah! OK, Matt, I will confess to hearing a family of crickets more or less non stop. I wish they would get tired and go to sleep.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I had a track which was my guitar played over a Band in a Box backing track, a song that I just could not get the "clang" out of. If it had just been the Band in Box tracks, pretty sure I could have gone back into the Box and EQ'd it. Same had it been in Reaper. But this was layed up in NCH Video Pad. Fairly new to Video Pad, I couldn't find an EQ panel among the audio effects.
It so happened I am at the same time working on a project that aims to reduce video file size to its smallest practical size for Facebook and some others. I was in the "export" function at the time. Without really intending to change the sound, I lowered the sample rate from something like 256 to 128, just to see. When I played it back, some of the rough edges of the guitar track were smoothed, as was the overall song.
I had never considered sample rate to be anything other than something we always wanted the most possible of.
Please bear in mind, some of us use Box as rehearsal and practice aids. In many cases, once the song has been learned, the Band in a Box has served its purpose, a mighty purpose, at that.

Ok, I understand. Thanks for elaborating.

Were you making MP3s or WMAs? Huge difference. 128 sounds ok on WMA files but barely adequate on most MP3s.

Two things:

1) each online service sqashes the life out of your music in different ways; it’s hard to psych out how to beat it in advance

2) in general, you want to record, mix and master at high quality. Then only at the very end would you shrink the file by compression. Preserve the quality as long as possible.

Corollary of #2: best to use some EQ on the guitar rather than trying to go to a lower sample rate.

Have fun!

Thanks for taking the time, Matt.
I had an MP4 video on the timeline and was in "export." The soundtrack was a mixed down WAV. My objection was to a persistent clang in the guitar. Even if I had wanted to go that route, the original audio tracks were long gone.
Reaper, which has great EQ panel, claims to accomodate videos, though, have yet to find it. Still I didn't want to EQ the mix, just this one annoying feature that I could have lived with. Which brings us to exporting or rendering to an MP4 on Video Pad.

Exporting to MP4, they only give you AAC encoder and sample rate on the audio panel. I bumped it down to 128. That's when I received my pleasant surprise, when I heard it.

I should explain, You Tube contributed beyond all expectations to the world of content distribution.
Now, though, we are seeing more and more sites taking video, including Facebook. The host I use, In-Motion, recently added that feature for subscribers.
This is where that "file size project" comes into play.
HD videos of 6-8 Gb can be reduced to a matter of a few MB, for the internet. This is all reflected in the cost of streaming. Obviously, with YouTube, money is no object.

That's becoming more clear now, thanks again.

Yes, when I've had videos made for the Internet, my video guy knows how large the file can be at each size point before they further ruin the sound by compressing. I suspect these file size points are a moving target.

As for YouTube, I consider much of what they do to be criminal pirating. But that's just me.

When I render video for YouTube, I leave my clip on the highest quality audio/video settings when I upload. YouTube will set it to the highest quality their algorithm allows. I can usually upload 4K video without much audio/video quality loss.

Matt:
Once, You Tube was quite particular about submission specs. Over the years, though, I think that process has all been automated. Now to the point that it is not unusual for webmasters to put up video, even accept uploads from users. I have been away from FB for so long (It is a current course requirement, so I opened an account,) that I was surprised to see the amount of video activity.
The big hosts are notoriously tight lipped about operating costs. Still, we are told that You Tube, big as it is, still operates at a loss. Normal people can't do that. So, what is taken for granted by You Tube users is negotiable for mere mortals.

Sslechta: That's exactly right, when it comes to You Tube, whose achievements have been amazing.
I'd like to see one of those 4K videos. You are way ahead of me, on that note.

Here's one: 2017-09-24 - Breezy Island Flight

You usually have to change to the higher resolution when the video starts.

Ok. Let me try to describe how it worked when I last put up a bunch of videos. If I uploaded the uncompressed audio, YouTube squashed the sound badly. But when I uploaded a slightly compressed audio, it was apparently under some arbitrary size limit and YouTube compressed it much less, with the result that it sounded better on YouTube that the original uncompressed one! My video guy knew several such size points, and the game was to make the file size as big as the nearest limit without going over. Make sense?

I thought YouTube could handle pretty much anything thrown at it, at this point. Steve is uploading 4k video he shoots with his drone. 4k is a hot topic these days. The file sizes are massive. One limiting factor has been the storage cards, which have made great strides in speed and cost.

Yes, I think Matt's idea of uploading the best quality available will yield the best YT presentation. I hadn't known about an optimal window, though do not doubt it.

Last I heard, YT converts everything to Flash. As far as I know, the audio track code/decode on Flash is the same as it is on MP4; that is, AAC + MP3. The video track, I don't know. Most of us have experienced conversion from WAV to MP3 and know it seems to take no time or energy at all, very quick and easy.

For the purpose of my current interest, quality is not the issue, but rather quality/cost meaning, exporting to specifications that will be the cheapest possible acceptible quality.

One of the things that has helped me in the area of formats, size, and other specs is the lowly screen recorder. As you know, these things have exploded popularity, maybe for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless, they can do a lot. I chose Flashback from the dozens out there. Those screen recordings are automatically in Flash (I think it is .flv)

Hey Ed, keepvid.com kind of breaks down how YouTube stores the videos. From my discoveries I've seen that they store the video at the different quality resolutions and they derive an .mp3 from the audio track. One example when I upload a 4K video...... When it first uploads, it's only available as 240p. Then during the next hour, it derives the better quality versions up to the highest quality the original upload was.

See the screenshot. You can see these YouTube video breakdowns at keepvid.com.

The video hosting business is in a state of change. It was Vimeo and You Tube, both great companies. Now, though, a search or a look at the trade journals shows many new video hosting platforms.
Soundcloud dominates audio, I think. Good thing for us. Video has made itself complex, so we live with that. After a few years away from Facebook, I opened and account and have loaded a couple of videos. 5 Mb+- takes about 30 seconds
and a couple of minutes to process. Distribution on Facebook is unchallenged -- group blasting.