If you're on Bandcamp or Soundcloud it's usually because you want to support artists directly, I doubt many people are purely interested in getting free music rips.
replyPretty much. There would be some folks who are scraping large amounts of stuff but I don't think it is a giant issue.
replyPosting that here is one of the more promising ways of achieving that
replyThat's such small potatoes. Anyone putting out an album on Bandcamp is probably thrilled that someone would want to pirate it.
replyYeah probably. But it also depends on how much it is exploited.
replyIf 0.1% of people do it, then it probably isn't worth while. If it 10% of the audience, that needs to be focused on.
does it matter as long as yt-dlp is maintained?
replySome people want more than "mystery meat" levels of audio quality.
replyI once did a blind test on myself. A FLAC audio file and a 128Kbit Ogg vorbis file of the same track that I could switch between as I pleased but without knowing which was playing. Yeah, I cannot tell the difference.
replyI am absolutely sure others can, but not me. I also think credit goes to far better encoders today than what we had 25 years ago.
Hearing also degrades over time. In my 20s I was a lot more fussy about audio formats and hi-fi gear.
replyApproaching 50, with less sensitive ears and a bit of tinnitus, I’m happy with the convenience of Bluetooth headphones and whatever format Spotify uses.
I did this with a japanese punk band and when I finally got on a private tracker, I redownloaded them and the quality difference was night and day. I have a huge backlog of mid-grade MP3s from TPB back in the day and I'll occasionally download a second flac version of the albums just to get the dynamic range.
replyA lot of old stuff was also encoded way worse than one might think from the alleged bitrate. A while ago I went through a ton of old files, and everything that sounded shitty (or, far more commonly, stuff I downloaded but didn’t care about) got yeeted.
replyOpus - perhaps, but claiming that 128kbps Vorbis is transparent would be rather stretching it (unless it's a mono stream); though how easily it will be detectable depends on the kind of music used to test it. However, if you added, say, Bluetooth A2DP to the mix and made it go through a lossy encoder again the difference should be pretty obvious to anyone with good ears.
replyI can't tell the difference with most headphones, but with monitors or a good system in a good listening environment there are some details that get lost in compression, but there's essentially 0 difference from losslezd if I rip a CD to opus or mp3 rather than from a stream.
replyProperly encoded Vorbis, Opus or AAC (even Musepack) certainly reach transparency very quick, but who knows what horrible sources were used on non-official YT music? And what dismal remasters?
replycrappy speakers?
replyI was about to say the same thing..
replyI use a dual A7X setup with a Sub10 Mk2 in a proper studio listening environment, and I can easily hear the difference between a low‑quality MP3 and a fully lossless WAV/FLAC. I do have trained ears, but even an untrained listener could probably notice that level of difference.
Define low-quality. Encoded at V[0-2] with a recent LAME, I doubt the difference is more than ABX nitpick material; and that despite MP3's inherent limitations (like https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME_Y_switch...).
replyI use a pair of calibrated Genelec 8341 btw.
Yeah, but people aren’t uploading high quality music to begin with. It’s probably like two or three levels of compressed by the time you yt-dlp it.
replyBut bandcamp is only 128 kbit MP3 for free streaming, now that’s not a mystery, but probably also not worse than whatever YT offers.
replyIf it is 128kbps MP3 then it’s slightly worse than YouTube which generally has 128kbps AAC and OPUS versions of everything.
replydeleted
reply[dead]
reply