Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54772 readers

409 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

552

Now you have to pay to see lyrics on spotify (i.postimg.cc)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

222 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

YouTube sound quality is poor, and 99% of your bandwidth being devoted to video is wasteful. Just use SoundCloud or something. Better yet revanced patched YT music or xmanager Spotify.

Edit: or better yet vimusic

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I finally got a sub to Apple Music when I learned I get lossless by default. Yummmmmm.

I still hoard flacs, but Apple Music is dope.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Waiting for Spotify lossless to ditch flacs, I really want to like Tidal but I've had major issues every time I try and stick with it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Spotify capping out at 192 was a nope for me hahaha. Someone on Lemmy mentioned AppMus had hi-rez lossless and regular lossless and I was like “yep done”

I don’t like iTunes though, so on my computers it’s still flac o’clock.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Spotify runs at 320kbps AAC which is totally fine quality-wise.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

YouTube's sound quality is comparable to Spotify's - IIRC it's 128kbps AAC versus 160kbps MP3. Also, a static video's bitrate is around 300-400kbps, so you're not wasting that much bandwidth

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

YouTube supports 160kbps opus, which should be pretty much transparent to our ears. But the audio is reencoded in the uploaded video, which then gets reencoded by YT again.

These multiple lossy reencodes are probably why YouTube audio sounds worse then Spotiy. Artists upload there songs as lossless wav/flac, which the gets reencoded/compressed a single time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Didn't know that YouTube had 160kbps audio... I checked a auto-generated upload on yt-dlp, and while it had an Opus stream, all of the audio streams were encoded at 128kbps.

Both Opus and properly-encoded AAC audio should be virtually indistinguishable from the original source, but I do believe that Opus performs slightly worse in blind ABX testing. Again, you'd barely be able to tell the difference, so sound quality is basically the same.

(As for encoding, I believe that YouTube uses the source audio if it's already encoded as AAC, which most video editors do by default, and music distributors send the same lossless source to YouTube as they do to Spotify, so I don't think re-encoding will make a difference)