YouTube uses Opus 160kbps which is decent enough. YouTube also allows uploading videos with lossless audio.
So it’s more about what happens with the audio before it gets to YouTube. Someone uploads a video clip with 128kbps AAC, YouTube re-encodes it to Opus160, someone downloads it as 160kbps MP3, makes a lyrics video and whatever tool they used makes it into 96kbps Vorbis, it gets put on YouTube, Opus160 again, you download it as whatever bitrate MP3 again and it sounds like shit.
Just an example, there may be way more lossy re-encode generations going on.
It’s more about the generations rather than YouTube.
using grayjay to download wham:last christmas gives us up to 134kbps opus. which is fine, it’s the official channel and all, so upload is pretty good.
Just talking, is more like 118kbps, a gresham lecture came in at that.
Opus is variable, which is pretty good. saves bandwith and all.
also to point out, youtube reencodes a lot of videos, so the older it is - the more likely it has been re-encoded. and youtube is not encoding from an old master file.
Point is, totally agree on the generational thing, which you (mostly) avoids with spotify.
it’s good enough for most audio setups if you find the decent audio on youtube first
This is horseshit, Opus 130k stereo is perceptually lossless according to many public listening tests. All responsibility for poor quality rests on the uploader and sometimes on idiotic downloaders that still dare to shit out MP3 in the year 2024.
The codec used for transmission is a tiny part of the production pipeline. Perhaps it is publishers choosing to mostly push lesser quality to YouTube, or videos uploaded before they started using better codecs, or any number of reasons.
The truth still stands that YouTube’s videos (at keast almost) universally have shitty audio quality.
Besides, look at it this way: YouTube can be accessed for free. Why would the publishers want to push a perfect replacement for buying the music on a free platform? They’d make less money.
That may be so, i don’t know the theory, but i hear a distinct difference between songs on YouTube vs Spotify. And I’m talking newly released, direct from publisher. Stuff just sounds bad on YouTube.
I’m like an anti-audiophile in how little I usually care. I don’t use high quality equipment most of the time anyhow, so it doesn’t bother me at this point.
I tend to buy cheapest earbuds possible since I tend to destroy them fast. Bought some better ones recently, since I had a gift card from a contest and what do you know! My phone’s headphone jack died… =/
TETORA and Hump Back. They’re not on any streaming service (likely region locked) and the afaict I can only buy their albums from Japanese websites that don’t do international shipping.
plus the fact some of the songs i can only find on youtube have sone of the most god awful quality imaginable
i think packet flier by terrorhorse takes the cake, or one of the songs off of kenza by khaled that literally has the cd skipping the entire time. and then 2 others are shitty bootleg live recordings, 1 from moby grape and the other from throwing muses. funny enough both were from self titled albums by bands that had 2 self titled albums, with 1 of the self titled albums on spotify while the one i wanted to listen to not on spotify
They both have shitty audio quality, but Spotify is less shitty than YouTube’s horrible data compression.
YouTube uses Opus 160kbps which is decent enough. YouTube also allows uploading videos with lossless audio.
So it’s more about what happens with the audio before it gets to YouTube. Someone uploads a video clip with 128kbps AAC, YouTube re-encodes it to Opus160, someone downloads it as 160kbps MP3, makes a lyrics video and whatever tool they used makes it into 96kbps Vorbis, it gets put on YouTube, Opus160 again, you download it as whatever bitrate MP3 again and it sounds like shit.
Just an example, there may be way more lossy re-encode generations going on.
It’s more about the generations rather than YouTube.
I dunno’, I hear a distinct difference between any YouTube video and the CD, even ones posted by the artists or labels directly.
Though I do not pay for YouTube premium and never will, so maybe it’s better if you pay the beast.
Either way, fuck the beast. … and not in a good way.
i believe the youtube to mp3 thing isabout downloading it using yt-dlp or something, not yt premium downloads
yea, it’s also just up to 160
using grayjay to download wham:last christmas gives us up to 134kbps opus. which is fine, it’s the official channel and all, so upload is pretty good.
Just talking, is more like 118kbps, a gresham lecture came in at that.
Opus is variable, which is pretty good. saves bandwith and all.
also to point out, youtube reencodes a lot of videos, so the older it is - the more likely it has been re-encoded. and youtube is not encoding from an old master file.
Point is, totally agree on the generational thing, which you (mostly) avoids with spotify.
it’s good enough for most audio setups if you find the decent audio on youtube first
This is horseshit, Opus 130k stereo is perceptually lossless according to many public listening tests. All responsibility for poor quality rests on the uploader and sometimes on idiotic downloaders that still dare to shit out MP3 in the year 2024.
Well MP3 is still the most popular
The codec used for transmission is a tiny part of the production pipeline. Perhaps it is publishers choosing to mostly push lesser quality to YouTube, or videos uploaded before they started using better codecs, or any number of reasons.
The truth still stands that YouTube’s videos (at keast almost) universally have shitty audio quality.
Besides, look at it this way: YouTube can be accessed for free. Why would the publishers want to push a perfect replacement for buying the music on a free platform? They’d make less money.
That may be so, i don’t know the theory, but i hear a distinct difference between songs on YouTube vs Spotify. And I’m talking newly released, direct from publisher. Stuff just sounds bad on YouTube.
I’m like an anti-audiophile in how little I usually care. I don’t use high quality equipment most of the time anyhow, so it doesn’t bother me at this point.
I tend to buy cheapest earbuds possible since I tend to destroy them fast. Bought some better ones recently, since I had a gift card from a contest and what do you know! My phone’s headphone jack died… =/
There are two Japanese bands that I can only listen to on Youtube, so I have to listen to them offline at 129kbs. ;_;
What are they?
TETORA and Hump Back. They’re not on any streaming service (likely region locked) and the afaict I can only buy their albums from Japanese websites that don’t do international shipping.
Try again.
First of all, I recommend checking Soulseek. A p2p music sharing platform.
Secondly, following FMHY download sites section I found the 2 albums linked on mp3jp.si
TETORA and Hump Back.
Both seem fine:
Imgur URL for compatibility
🏴☠️
Thanks so much!
FINALLY
deleted by creator
You could try proxy shipping
Oh, let’s just pretend alternatives like Tidal and Apple don’t exist… SpOtiFy iS tHe BeSt!!1!
plus the fact some of the songs i can only find on youtube have sone of the most god awful quality imaginable
i think packet flier by terrorhorse takes the cake, or one of the songs off of kenza by khaled that literally has the cd skipping the entire time. and then 2 others are shitty bootleg live recordings, 1 from moby grape and the other from throwing muses. funny enough both were from self titled albums by bands that had 2 self titled albums, with 1 of the self titled albums on spotify while the one i wanted to listen to not on spotify