this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
671 points (100.0% liked)

196

17455 readers
1120 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kotauskas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 8 months ago

Well MP3 is still the most popular

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 1 points 8 months ago

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.