Idk, like everyone has said, there’s a whole YouTube Compression thing so yeah, it’ll essentially be highly compressed vs anything else, even regular MP3 rips of a CD or something (I think it’s usually 192kbps, someone correct me though, and at best 320kbps, with AAC being slightly higher).
Idk any difference is really minor usually, although idk, YouTube stuff sounds weird vs regular 320 MP3 ripped from a CD or a Digital File, Probably placebo tho, can’t put my finger on it but it’s just weird.
Like I can’t really hear a difference between a 192 MP3 vs 16 Bit FLAC, or even 24 Bit FLAC for that matter, if the mastering is the same unless I AB it for a bit, and again, probably Placebo at that point since it takes a while, probably my brain making up excuses to find a difference, but idk, YT is just . . . weird for me, almost in the moment something feels, weird . . ., maybe it’s too compressed or they do something weird when they compress it, or maybe having an MP3 upload compressed by another algorithm, idk, although take this with a grain of salt.
As long as the mastering and mixing is well done, usually that’s the more important of alot of factors, if a recording is going to sound good or not. Take the David Bowie vs the Iggy Pop mixes of Raw Power, One is an echoey mess and the other is a slightly less echoey mess, still love the album tho, both versions too I guess, but still, the Iggy version sounds a bit better to me, no matter the file format. I really don’t think listening to the Bowie mix in 24/192 WAV vs the Iggy mix in 192kbps MP3 is going to help anything.